HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2001/11/13
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
November 13, 2001 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
~~ft-
~
'~~~~
~~.................
CllY OF
CHULA 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
**********
I dec:lare under penalty of perjury that I am
employed by the City of Chula Viala In the
OfficeftheC
AGEN~ ity Clerk and INt I poeted this
on the Þultetln boIIId 8CCOráIng 80
Brown AGt *IUIr8menIa.
November 13, 2001 D8r8d \\- '\- ~I 6:00 P.~
8Ignect ~ ~
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
. RECOGNITION OF CHULA VISTA FIREFIGHTER JEFF PETER, WHO PROVIDED
ASSISTANCE IN NEW YORK CITY
. RECOGNITION OF CHULA VISTA FIREFIGHTERS RECENTLY PROMOTED:
JEFF PETER, BATTALION CHIEF AND DAN GILES, CAPTAIN
. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION TO CUB SCOUT PACK
#194 AND JUNIOR GIRL SCOUTS TROOP #5281 FOR THE COMMUNITY
SERVICE THEY PROVIDE
INTRODUCTIONS BY KEVIN ECKMANN, CUB SCOUT MASTER, AND
RAELENE ECKMANN, GIRL SCOUT LEADER
. PRESENTATION OF CHECKS TO THE POLICE ATHLETICS LEAGUE (PAL.):
$5,000 PRESENTED BY GABRIEL ARCE, COMMUNITY HEALTH GROUP
$5,000 PRESENTED BY JOHN GRAH, SCRIPPS HOSPITAL
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items I through 7)
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 Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
1. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT
WITH SYNCHRONEX CORPORATION FOR THE ACQUISITION OF LlGHT-
EMITTING DIODE (L.E.D.) PEDESTRIAN INDICATION EQUIPMENT AT A
TOTAL COST $187,365.73, IN ACCORDANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA MASTER AGREEMENT #1-01-63-06
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) has an incentive program that offers partial rebate to
public agencies for the replacement of traffic signal incandescent lamps to LE.D. lamps.
The proposed replacement work must be completed by December 15, 2001 in order to
qualify for the rebate. The City is in a position to save up to $81,960.95 in equipment
costs by converting all traffic signal pedestrian indication modules and yellow flashing
beacons to LE.D. lamps. The purchase of the equipment is the first step in the City's
overall planned project to retrofit existing traffic signals with UPS equipment. (Director
of Public Works)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
2A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $800,000 FROM THE TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FUNDS
TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TELEGRAPH CANYON TRUNK SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED)
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
WAIVING THE THREE-BID REQUIREMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 2533, AND
AUTHORIZING THE EASTLAKE COMPANY TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT
IMPROVEMENTS TO PORTIONS OF THE TELEGRAPH CANYON TRUNK
SEWER AND RECEIVE CREDIT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT IMP ACT FEES
COLLECTED FOR THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS
C. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE EASTLAKE COMPANY REGARDING
TELEGRAPH CANYON TRUNK SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
The City Engineer received a letter dated October 3, 2000 ITom the EastLake Company
requesting authorization to begin the design and construction of improvements required
to provide additional capacity to the Telegraph Canyon trunk sewer system. These
improvements were originally budgeted in the capital improvement program process for
Fiscal Year 2000/2001. Subsequently, on October )0, 2001, the City Engineer received a
letter ITom EastLake requesting authorization to proceed with the construction of the
required improvements, having received bids ITom contractors for the completion of the
work. (Director of Public Works)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions.
3. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DECLARING WESTERN MICROGRAPHICS SYSTEMS, INC. IN DEFAULT OF A
MAY 29, 2001 COUNCIL APPROVED CONTRACT FOR RECORDS
DIGITIZATION SERVICES AND AWARDING A SUBSEQUENT DIGITIZATION
SERVICES CONTRACT TO DOCUMENT IMAGING SERVICES CORPORATION,
THE NEXT LOWEST BIDDER FOR REQUESTED SERVICES
Page 2 - Council Agenda 11/13/01
On May 29, 2001, Council awarded a contract to the lowest bidder, and on July 11,2001
the vendor refused to honor the bid. Staff now wishes to rescind the original award and
re-award the subsequent contract to the second lowest bidder. (Director of Planning and
Buildiog)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
4. REPORT ON REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSALS (RFTP) AND PRICE BIDS
FOR OPERATION OF CHULA VISTA TRANSIT (CVT) AND MAINTENANCE OF
CVT BUS FLEET
The last Request for Proposals (RFP) for operations of CVT and maintenance of the CVT
fleet was issued in February 1993. As a result of the RFP process, San Diego Transit was
selected as the CVT contract operator for a three-year term. Since then, three extensions
to the agreement have been approved by Council, the latest of which was in February
2001. The current agreement terminates on June 30, 2002. In a cooperative effort,
Transit staff has been working with Metropolitan Transit Development Board staff to
develop and issue a RFTP in a two-step process, with a service start date of July I, 2002.
(Director of Public Works)
Staff recommendation: Council accept the report, authorize staff to issue a RFTP for
CVT operations and maintenance for a five-year base term, include a responsible wage
policy, and accept the make-up of the Technical Review Committee as adopted by
MTDB.
5. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
WAIVING THE FORMAL CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS AND
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH ALLEGIS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES,
INC. TO PROVIDE OWNER'S REPRESENTATION SERVICES DURING THE
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW POLICE FACILITY AND
RELATED IMPROVEMENTS, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE POLICE FACILITY
PROJECT (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED)
At the July 2001 joint meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency, staff was
authorized to begin condemnation proceedings for the property located at 362-398 "F"
Street for the construction of the City's new Police headquarters. Staff is recommending
the award of an agreement to hire an owner's representative to assist staff with the
oversight and management of the Police project. (Assistant City Manager Morris)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
6. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING A GRANT OF EASEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN MCMILLIN OTAY RANCH LLC AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC LANDSCAPING WITHIN A PORTION OF
MCMILLIN OTAY RANCH SPA ONE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
Page 3 - Council Agenda 11/13/01
The proposed agreement with McMillio sets forth the obligations of the developer and
future homeowners association for maintaining certain public landscaping improvements
within McMillin Otay Ranch SPA One, Subdivision Map Nos. 13884, 13649, 13885,
13919 and 13920. (Director of Public Works)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
7. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
INCREASING CALENDAR YEAR 2002 FLEX PLANS FOR CVEA, WCE,
CONFIDENTIAL, MID-MANAGERS, AND SENIOR MANAGERS BY AN
ADDITIONAL $100, AND FOR POA AND IAFF FOR FAMILY, EMPLOYEE + I
AND EMPLOYEE ONLY BY AN ADDITIONAL $100, $70 AND $35,
RESPECTIVEL Y
Subsequent to Council adoption of the Memorandums of Understanding and the
compensation resolutions covering Fiscal Year 2002 - Fiscal Year 2005, the City
received Calendar Year 2002 insurance premium quotes. As a means of mitigating the
impact of the insurance rate increases on both the City and the employees, the City
recommended increasing or implementing co-payments for office visits and prescriptions
($5 average increase). In order to make this transition a win-win for the City and
employees, it is recommended that the flex plans be augmented to ensure employees
benefit ITom the change in co-payments. This change will save the City $50,000 in the
current fiscal year and is supported by all associations and employee groups in the City.
(City Manager)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons speaking during Oral Communications may address the Council on any
subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the
agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any issue
not included on the agenda. but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the
topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to
three minutes.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as
required by law. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to
Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the
meeting.
8. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
On August 8, 1978, by Resolution No. 13857, the City Council adopted a policy
regulating participation by private developers of residential, commercial and industrial
uses in the financing and/or installing of traffic signals on public streets within the City.
This was done to insure there was an equitable and proportionate contribution to be borne
by all traffic-generating private developments to satisfy the projected traffic signal needs
Page 4 - Council Agenda 11/13/01
of the City. Currently, private developers pay for their share of financing traffic signals
in the form of a $13.00 traffic signal charge per each additional trip their developments
generate. The increases in signal equipment and traffic signal installation costs triggered
the need to update the traffic signal participation fee from $13.00 to $23.00 per average
daily vehicle trip in order to provide future signals and perform necessary signal
upgrades. (Director of Public Works)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO EFFECT CHANGES IN
THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PARTICIPATION FEE FROM THE EXISTING
ADOPTED FEE OF $13.00 TO $23.00 PER AVERAGE DAILY VEHICLE
TRIP, AND ADOPTING A REVISED COUNCIL POLICY NO. 478-01 THAT
REFLECTS THE FEE CHANGE EFFECTIVE UPON ADOPTION
9. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO AMEND THE OT A Y RANCH SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN, MODIFY THE OTAY RANCH SPA ONE
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, CONSIDER A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR A REDUCTION OF PARKING
STANDARDS FOR AFFORDABLE AND SENIOR HOUSING IN VILLAGE ONE,
AND RENAME A PORTION OF PASEO RANCHERO TO HERITAGE ROAD
THROUGH OTAY RANCH (APPLICANT - THE OTAY RANCH COMPANY)
The Otay Ranch Company has applied to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) One Plan to reallocate 97 unused dwelling units authorized by the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan for the Village One core mixed-use project and modify the
SPA One Planned Community District Regulations to allow "for-profit" day care centers.
The applicant also requests consideration of a conditional use permit to allow a reduction
in parking standards for senior and affordable housing in the mixed-use project, as well
as a request to rename Paseo Ranchero to Heritage Road south of Telegraph Canyon
Road. (Director of Planning and Building)
Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing, place the following
ordinance on first reading, and adopt the following resolutions:
A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN AND RENAME A PORTION OF
PASEO RANCHERO TO HERITAGE ROAD
B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
REGULATIONS ALLOWING "FOR-PROFIT" DAY CARE FACILITIES IN
COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY ZONING DISTRICTS AS
AUTHORIZED IN THE PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE
C. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REDUCED PARKING
STANDARDS ON AFFORDABLE AND SENIOR HOUSING IN
NEIGHBORHOODS R-47 AND C-l IN THE VILLAGE ONE CORE, AND
ADOPT THE ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT - 95-01
Page 5 - Council Agenda 11/13/01
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
OTHER BUSINESS
10. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
11. MAYOR'S REPORTS
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
CLOSED SESSION
Announcements of actions taken in Closed Session shall be made available by
noon on Wednesday following the Council Meeting at the City Clerk's office in
accordance with the Ralph M Brown Act (Government Code 54957.7).
13. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING ANTICIPATED
LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(b)
One case
ADJOURNMENT to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on November 15,2001, at 4:00 p.m. in
the Council Conference Room, and thence to the Regular Meeting of
November 20,2001.
Page 6 - Council Agenda 11/13/01
u -~~-----
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am
employed by the City of Chula Vista in the
Office of the City Clerk and that I posted this
document on the bulletin board according to
Brown Act requirements.
AGENDA Dated ///1(01 Signed c¿' I'l~
November 13, 2001 6:00P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Davis, Padilla, Riodone, Salas, and Mayor Horton.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
. RECOGNITION OF CHULA VISTA FIREFIGHTER JEFF PETER, WHO PROVIDED
ASSISTANCE IN NEW YORK CITY
. RECOGNITION OF CHULA VISTA FIREFIGHTERS RECENTLY PROMOTED:
JEFF PETER, BATTALION CHIEF AND DAN GILES, CAPTAIN
. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION TO CUB SCOUT PACK
#194 AND JUNIOR GIRL SCOUTS TROOP #5281 FOR THE COMMUNITY
SERVICE THEY PROVIDE
INTRODUCTIONS BY KEVIN ECKMANN, CUB SCOUT MASTER, AND
RAELENE ECKMANN, GIRL SCOUT LEADER
. PRESENTATION OF CHECKS TO THE POLICE ATHLETICS LEAGUE (PAL):
$5,000 PRESENTED BY GABRIEL ARCE, COMMUNITY HEALTH GROUP
$5,000 PRESENTED BY JOHN GRAH, SCRIPPS HOSPITAL
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 1 through 7)
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 Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
1. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT
WITH SYNCHRONEX CORPORATION FOR THE ACQUISITION OF LIGHT-
EMITTING DIODE (LE.D.) PEDESTRIAN INDICATION EQUIPMENT AT A
TOTAL COST $187,365.73, IN ACCORDANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA MASTER AGREEMENT #1-01-63-06
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) has an incentive program that offers partial rebate to
public agencies for the replacement of traffic signal incandescent lamps to LE.D. lamps.
The proposed replacement work must be completed by December 15, 2001 in order to
qualify for the rebate. The City is in a position to save up to $81,960.95 in equipment
costs by convertiog all traffic signal pedestrian indication modules and yellow flashing
beacons to LE.D. lamps. The purchase of the equipment is the first step in the City's
overall planned project to retrofit existing traffic signals with UPS equipment. (Director
of Public Works)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
2A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $800,000 FROM THE TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FUNDS
TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TELEGRAPH CANYON TRUNK SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED)
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
WAIVING THE THREE-BID REQUIREMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 2533, AND
AUTHORIZING THE EASTLAKE COMPANY TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT
IMPROVEMENTS TO PORTIONS OF THE TELEGRAPH CANYON TRUNK
SEWER AND RECEIVE CREDIT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
COLLECTED FOR THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS
C. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE EASTLAKE COMPANY REGARDING
TELEGRAPH CANYON TRUNK SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
The City Engineer received a letter dated October 3, 2000 ITom the EastLake Company
requesting authorization to begin the design and construction of improvements required
to provide additional capacity to the Telegraph Canyon trunk sewer system. These
improvements were originally budgeted in the capital improvement program process for
Fiscal Year 2000/2001. Subsequently, on October 10, 2001, the City Engineer received a
letter ITom EastLake requesting authorization to proceed with the construction of the
required improvements, having received bids ITom contractors for the completion of the
work. (Director of Public Works)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions.
3. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DECLARING WESTERN MICROGRAPHICS SYSTEMS, INC. IN DEFAULT OF A
MAY 29, 2001 COUNCIL APPROVED CONTRACT FOR RECORDS
DIGITIZATION SERVICES AND AWARDING A SUBSEQUENT DIGITIZATION
SERVICES CONTRACT TO DOCUMENT IMAGING SERVICES CORPORATION,
THE NEXT LOWEST BIDDER FOR REQUESTED SERVICES
Page 2 - Council Agenda 11/13/01
On May 29,2001, Council awarded a contract to the lowest bidder, and on July 11,2001
the vendor refused to honor the bid. Staff now wishes to rescind the original award and
re-award the subsequent contract to the second lowest bidder. (Director of Planning and
Building)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
4. REPORT ON REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSALS (RFTP) AND PRICE BIDS
FOR OPERATION OF CHULA VISTA TRANSIT (CVT) AND MAINTENANCE OF
CVT BUS FLEET
The last Request for Proposals (RFP) for operations of CVT and maintenance of the CVT
fleet was issued in February 1993. As a result of the RFP process, San Diego Transit was
selected as the CVT contract operator for a three-year term. Since then, three extensions
to the agreement have been approved by Council, the latest of which was in February
2001. The current agreement terminates on June 30, 2002. In a cooperative effort,
Transit staff has been working with Metropolitan Transit Development Board staff to
develop and issue a RFTP in a two-step process, with a service start date of July 1,2002.
(Director of Public Works)
Staff recommendation: Council accept the report, authorize staff to issue a RFTP for
CVT operations and maintenance for a five-year base term, include a responsible wage
policy, and accept the make-up of the Technical Review Committee as adopted by
MTDB.
5. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
WAIVING THE FORMAL CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS AND
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH ALLEGIS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES,
INc. TO PROVIDE OWNER'S REPRESENTATION SERVICES DURING THE
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW POLICE FACILITY AND
RELATED IMPROVEMENTS, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE POLICE FACILITY
PROJECT (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED)
At the July 2001 joint meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency, staff was
authorized to begin condemnation proceedings for the property located at 362-398 "F"
Street for the construction of the City's new Police headquarters. Staff is recommending
the award of an agreement to hire an owner's representative to assist staff with the
oversight and management of the Police project. (Assistant City Manager Morris)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
6. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING A GRANT OF EASEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN MCMILLIN OTAY RANCH LLC AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC LANDSCAPING WITHIN A PORTION OF
MCMILLIN OTAY RANCH SPA ONE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
Page 3 - Council Agenda 11/13/01
The proposed agreement with McMillin sets forth the obligations of the developer and
future homeowners association for maintaining certain public landscaping improvements
within McMillin Otay Ranch SPA One, Subdivision Map Nos. 13884, 13649, 13885,
13919 and 13920. (Director of Public Works)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
7. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
INCREASING CALENDAR YEAR 2002 FLEX PLANS FOR CVEA, WCE,
CONFIDENTIAL, MID-MANAGERS, AND SENIOR MANAGERS BY AN
ADDITIONAL $100, AND FOR POA AND IAFF FOR FAMILY, EMPLOYEE + I
AND EMPLOYEE ONLY BY AN ADDITIONAL $100, $70 AND $35,
RESPECTIVELY
Subsequent to Council adoption of the Memorandums of Understanding and the
compensation resolutions covering Fiscal Year 2002 - Fiscal Year 2005, the City
received Calendar Year 2002 insurance premium quotes. As a means of mitigating the
impact of the insurance rate increases on both the City and the employees, the City
recommended increasing or implementing co-payments for office visits and prescriptions
($5 average increase). In order to make this transition a win-win for the City and
employees, it is recommended that the flex plans be augmented to ensure employees
benefit ITom the change in co-payments. This change will save the City $50,000 in the
current fiscal year and is supported by all associations and employee groups in the City.
(City Manager)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons speaking during Oral Communications may address the Council on any
subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the
agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any issue
not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the
topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff Comments are limited to
three minutes.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as
required by law. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to
Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the
meeting.
8. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
On August 8, 1978, by Resolution No. 13857, the City Council adopted a policy
regulating participation by private developers of residential, commercial and industrial
uses in the financing and/or installing of traffic signals on public streets within the City.
This was done to insure there was an equitable and proportionate contribution to be borne
by all traffic-generating private developments to satisfy the projected traffic signal needs
Page 4 - Council Agenda 11/13/01
of the City. Currently, private developers pay for their share of financing traffic signals
in the form of a $13.00 traffic signal charge per each additional trip their developments
generate. The increases in signal equipment and traffic signal installation costs triggered
the need to update the traffic signal participation fee ftom $13.00 to $23.00 per average
daily vehicle trip in order to provide future signals and perform necessary signal
upgrades. (Director of Public Works)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO EFFECT CHANGES IN
THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PARTICIPATION FEE FROM THE EXISTING
ADOPTED FEE OF $13.00 TO $23.00 PER AVERAGE DAILY VEHICLE
TRIP, AND ADOPTING A REVISED COUNCIL POLICY NO. 478-01 THAT
REFLECTS THE FEE CHANGE EFFECTIVE UPON ADOPTION
9. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO AMEND THE OT A Y RANCH SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN, MODIFY THE OTAY RANCH SPA ONE
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, CONSIDER A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR A REDUCTION OF PARKING
STANDARDS FOR AFFORDABLE AND SENIOR HOUSING IN VILLAGE ONE,
AND RENAME A PORTION OF PASEO RANCHERO TO HERITAGE ROAD
THROUGH OT A Y RANCH (APPLICANT - THE OT A Y RANCH COMPANY)
The Otay Ranch Company has applied to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) One Plan to reallocate 97 unused dwelling units authorized by the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan for the Village One core mixed-use project and modify the
SPA One Planned Community District Regulations to allow "for-profit" day care centers.
The applicant also requests consideration of a conditional use permit to allow a reduction
in parking standards for senior and affordable housing in the mixed-use project, as well
as a request to rename Paseo Ranchero to Heritage Road south of Telegraph Canyon
Road. (Director of Planning and Building)
Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing, place the following
ordinance on first reading, and adopt the following resolutions:
A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN AND RENAME A PORTION OF
PASEO RANCHERO TO HERITAGE ROAD
B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
REGULATIONS ALLOWING "FOR-PROFIT" DAY CARE FACILITIES IN
COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY ZONING DISTRICTS AS
AUTHORIZED IN THE PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE
C. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REDUCED PARKING
STANDARDS ON AFFORDABLE AND SENIOR HOUSING IN
NEIGHBORHOODS R-47 AND C-I IN THE VILLAGE ONE CORE, AND
ADOPT THE ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT - 95-01
Page 5 - Council Agenda 11/13/01
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
OTHER BUSINESS
10. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
11. MAYOR'S REPORTS
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
CLOSED SESSION
Announcements of actions taken in Closed Session shall be made available by
noon on Wednesday following the Council Meeting at the City Clerk's office in
accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code 54957.7).
13. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING ANTICIPATED
LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(b)
One case
ADJOURNMENT to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on November 15,2001, at 4:00 p.m. in
the Council Conference Room, and thence to the Regular Meeting of
November 20,2001.
Page 6 - Council Agenda 11113/01
November 7th, 2001
MEMO TO: City Clerk
FROM: Patty Wesp
SUBJECT: SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY - 11/13/01
Councilmember Salas has requested that the following be placed
under Special Orders of the Day for the next Council meeting:
RECOGNITION OF CUB SCOUT PACK #194 and
JUNIOR GIRL SCOUTS TROOP #5281
In recognition of the community service these Scout members
provide, Certificates of Recognition will be presented.
Thank You. 1Õ:
Cc: Councilmember Salas \trWuWoy) ~~
Armando Buelna leví Yì ßc.X.¥Y\().f\ n l
CuJIJ Scout- M~
Raelevte- ÎCK.fY\a11
~ 3 I-eodei'
--~~~~--~ ~-~~--~---~- ~---------
November 7th, 2001
MEMO TO: City Clerk
FROM: Patty Wesp
SUBJECT: SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY - 11/13/01
Couneilmember Salas has requested that the following be placed
under Special Orders of the Day for the next Council meeting:
PRESENT A nON OF CHECKS TO Po L
$5,000 from Community Health Group f~
By: Gabriel Aree and &w(
$5,000 from Scripps Hospital
By: John Grah
Ce: Couneilmember Salas
Armando Buelna
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item I
-
Meeting Date 11/13/01
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to enter into a
purchase agreement with Synchronex Corporation for the acquisition of Light
Emitting Diode (L.E.D.) pedestrian indication equipment at a total cost of
$187,365.73, in accordance with terms and conditions of State of California
Master Agreement #1-01-63-06.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ctt./
REVIEWED BY: City Manager. ø (4/5ths Vote: Yes L No-,>
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) has an incentive program, which offers partial rebate to public
agencies for the replacement of traffic signal incandescent lamps to L.E.D. lamps. The proposed
replacement work must be completed by December 15, 2001 in order to qualify for the rebate. The
City is in a position to save up to $81,960.95 in equipment costs by converting all traffic signal
pedestrian indication modules and yellow flashing beacons to L.E.D. lamps. The purchase of said
equipment is the first step to the City's overall planned project to retrofit existing traffic signals with
UPS equipment (TF-293).
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council adopt the resolution authorizing the Purchasing Agent to enter into a purchase
agreement with Synchronex Corporation for the acquisition of Light Emitting Diode (L.E.D.)
pedestrian indication equipment at a total cost of $187,365.73, in accordance with terms and
conditions of State of California Master Agreement #1-01-63-06.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
On September 11,2000, San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) implemented an L.E.D. Traffic Signal
Program. The program was established to encourage retrofit of incandescent traffic signals with
L.E.D.lamp replacements by the public agencies in order to save energy costs. The highlight of the
program was that SDG&E offered a rebate of up to $70.00 for every LED. pedestrian indication
module, $125.00 for every yellow flashing beacon and $169.17 for every green vehicular Signal
indication installed by public agencies before December 15, 200 I. The City has already converted
most of green vehicular signal indications to L.E.D.lamps and already received SDG&E's rebate of
$323,079.00. Staff has also requested that SDG&E reserve additional rebate funds for the City in
order to replace other traffic signal lamps to L.E.D. lamps. As a result, the City can purchase the
remainder of needed L.E.D. green lamps (35 lamps), all yellow flashing beacons (8 beacons) and all
of the pedestrian indication modules (1072 modules) for only $105,000.00, since SDG&E has
already reserved rebate of up to $81,960.95 for the City for such future installation.
I-I
------ ---- ------------------------
Page 2, Item ---L
Meeting Date 11/13/01
The City is in the process ofretrofitting 55 traffic signals to add UPS equipment. UPS equipment
are battery packets that operate the traffic signal during power outages. However, to provide full
traffic signal operation utilizing the UPS equipment during power failures, all existing incandescent
traffic signal indications, including the pedestrian modules must be replaced in order to maximize
the operating time; therefore, replacement of the pedestrian indication modules is necessary. Again,
by purchasing the modules ahead of schedule and taking advantage ofSDG&E' s rebate program, the
City can save $81,960.95 in project funds. This will give the City the opportunity to retrofit
additional signalized intersections with UPS equipment as a result of such savings.
The City will also save administration co.sts by participating in the State of California's purchasing
procedures, as recommended by our Purchasing Agent. Per Master Purchase Agreement # 1-01-63-
06, the State of California has awarded a contract to Synchronex for purchase of LE.D. Traffic
Signal Modules. There is a public agency clause that enables the City of Chula Vista to purchase
against this contract. Council Resolution 6132 and the Municipal Code Section 2.56.140 authorize
the Purchasing Agent to participate in cooperative bids with other governmental agencies. Please
note that the installation of the L.E.D. equipment will be accomplished by a separate public works
contract in accordance with Section 1009 of the City Charter.
Fiscal Impact:
One total cost of this contract of $187,365.73 is included in the CIP account (TF-293). Upon
completion ofthe installation, SDG&E will rebate $81,960.95 to cover the equipment cost. Those
funds will be returned to the CIP account and will be available to complete the overall UPS
installation. The City, as a result ofthis installation work, will encounter average annual savings of
$53,000.00 in energy cost.
PREPARED BY, PA TR1CK MONEDA & MAJED AL-GHAFRY
J ,IEngineerIAGENDA IPedLEDjJcm.DOC
/-~
----.. ----- - - .----- --..-..- --.----.- ---...._--
RESOLUTION NO. 2001- -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT
TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH SYNCHRONEX
CORPORATION FOR THE ACQUISITION OF LIGHT
EMITTING DIODE (L.E.D.) PEDESTRIAN INDICATION
EQUIPMENT AT A TOTAL COST OF $187,365.73, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF STATE
OF CALIFORNIA MASTER AGREEMENT #1-01-63-06
WHEREAS, San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) has an incentive program, which offers
pal1ial rebate to public agencies for the replacement of traffic signal incandescent lamps to LE.D
lamps; and
WHEREAS, thc proposed replacement work must be completed by December 15, 2001
in order to qualify for the rebate; and
WHEREAS, the City is in a position to save up to $81,960.95 in equipment costs by
converting all traffic signal pedestrian indication modules and yellow flashing beacons to LE.D.
lamps; and
WHEREAS, the purchase of said equipment is the first step to the City's overal1 planned
project to retrofit existing traffic signals with UPS equipment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby authorize the Purchasing Agent to enter into a Purchase Agreement with
Synchronex Corporation for the acquisition of Light Emitting Diode (L.E.D) Pedestrian
Indication Equipment at a total cost of $187,365,73, in accordance with terms and conditions of
Statc of Cali fomi a Master Agreement #1-01-63-06.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt
Director of Public Works
l.mtn,."cy,t'csoIIED SytKht"'K' conlco"
/-3
-- -.---...------ .---------..--.--.-----.- --_.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 11/13/2001
ITEM TITLE: A. Resolution Authorizing the appropriation of additional
funds in the amount of $800,000 ITom the Trunk Sewer Capital
Reserve Funds to pay for the construction of Telegraph Canyon
Trunk Sewer improvements.
B. Resolution Waiving the three-bid requirement of
Ordinance No. 2533, and authorizing the EastLake Company to
design and construct improvements to portions of the Telegraph
Canyon Trunk Sewer and receive credit against Development
Impact Fees collected for the required improvements.
C. Resolution Approving an agreement with the EastLake
Company regarding Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer improvements
and authorizing the Director of Public Works to execute the
agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
REVIEWED BY: City ManageP (4/Sths Vote: YesÅ-.No..,]
The City Engineer received a letter dated October 3, 2000 ITom the EastLake Company requesting
authorization to begin the design and construction of improvements required to provide additional
capacity to the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer system. These improvements were originally
budgeted for in the Capital Improvement Program process for FY2000-01.
Subsequently, on October 18, 2001, the City Engineer received a letter ITom EastLake requesting
authorization to proceed with the construction ofthe required improvements having received bids
from contractors for the completion of the work.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the following:
1. Resolution authorizing the appropriation of additional funds in the amount of $800,000
from the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Funds to the project account to pay for the
construction of Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer improvements.
2. Resolution waiving the three-bid requirement of Ordinance No. 2533, and authorizing the
EastLake Company to design and construct improvements to portions of the Telegraph
Canyon Trunk Sewer and receive credit against Development Impact Fees collected for the
required improvements.
o{- /
- --------- -----.-.-
Page 2, Item ;t
Meeting Date 11/13/2001
3- Resolution approving an agreement with the EastLake Company regarding Telegraph
Canyoin Trunk Sewer improvements and authorizing the Director of Public Works to
execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the item before the City Council and
has determined that the proposed replacement of approximately 7,250 lineal feet of an existing
sewer pipe along Telegraph Canyon Road, the reconstruction of existing manholes and the
installation of one new manhole is exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), Section 15301, Class I (b) (Existing Facilities).
DISCUSSION:
On January 23, 1990, with the approval of Resolution No. 15449, Council approved an agreement
between the City and EastLake Development (EastLake) that permitted EastLake to discharge
sewage from non-tributary basins into the Telegraph Canyon Basin utilizing pump stations.
Subsequently, on July 24, 1990 the City retained Willdan & Associates to evaluate sewage flows
generated within the Telegraph Canyon Basin, and determine if the existing facilities could sustain
development within the basin until build-out. This study termed "Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin
Improvement and Financing Plan", determined that sewage estimated to be generated from new
developments within the basin would exceed the capacity of the existing sewer system.
Based on the findings and recommendations of that study, the City Council, on November 10,
1992, adopted Ordinance No. 2533 for the establishment of the Telegraph Canyon Sewer
Development Impact Fee (DIF) as a condition of issuance of building permits for construction in
the Telegraph Canyon Basin. This fee was adopted to pay for parallel sewer improvements that
will be required to provide additional capacity.
Subsequently, Willdan and Associates were directed to expand the scope of the study and
reevaluate the capacity of the system with respect to pumped flows ITom non -tributary basins - This
was done since it was recognized at that time that it would be a few years before the Poggi
Canyon Trunk Sewer and Salt Creek Gravity Sewer lines would be constructed. Therefore, there
would be significant impacts ITom pumped flows on the system for a number of years. The study
determined the cost of the additional improvements required to accommodate the flows pumped
into the system from developments outside the gravity basin. Based on the results of this expanded
study termed "Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and Financing Plan Amendment
Incorporating Pumped Flows", Council on February 15, 1994, adopted Ordinance No. 2582
establishing the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flow DIF.
o:?-:z
-.---------------------
r)
Page 3, Item -
Meeting Date 11/13/2001
Since the adoption of these Ordinances, the sewage flows within the Telegraph Canyon sewer line
has been monitored by City Staff. In late 1999, flow-monitoring results indicated that certain
portions of the trunk sewer lines may be approaching the thresholds established for this sewer
system.
In December 1999, the City retained a consultant, Powell & Associates (now known as Powell
PBS&J), to evaluate the sewer system and update the findings, conclusions and recommendations
made in the 1993 Willdan study. Based on the preliminary fIDdings of this study, a phasing plan
was developed for the construction of improvements required to increase the capacity within the
Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer (Attachment No.1).
Since a significant portion of EastLake Development is within the Salt Creek Basin, and since the
Salt Creek Gravity Sewer, which would ultimately serve that basin, wi II not be completed until the
first quarter of 2003, EastLake has an interest in seeing this process expedited since it currently
generates most of the pumped flows within the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer. In addition, a
significant portion of EastLake's planned development is dependent on the construction of
additional sewer lines within the Telegraph Canyon Basin to provide additional capacity.
In October 2000, The EastLake Company requested authorization to expedite the design and
construction of the required improvements on Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer and be reimbursed
through the DIF (Attachment No.2). Preliminary support was given at a staff level with the
understanding that Council must give the final authorization pending fulfillment of the Ordinance
requirements by EastLake. Subsequently, EastLake retained Powell PBS&J to prepare the design
plans to facilitate the construction of the required improvements. Following the completion of the
design plans and specifications, and having obtained bids from contractors, The EastLake
Company has requested authorization to begin the construction of improvements required to
provide additional capacity to the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer system (Attachment No.3).
Scope of Work
The current scope of work for the proposed improvements involves the construction of
approximately 7,250 L.F. of parallel sewer lines along Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road
within the following regions shown below:
Phase Telegraph Canyon Road Length Vicinity
I From Melrose A venue to approximately 400 feet 300 Feet West of 1-805
easterly (West of Interstate 805)
II From Crest Drive/Oleander A venue to approximately 6950 Feet East of 1-805
1450 feet East of Paseo Ladera
~-
í'ì
Page 4, Item ~
Meeting Date 11/13/2001
Construction Method/Process
These areas shown in the table above were determined to be either approaching capacity or have
the potential to exceed capacity within the next few years based on the current pace of
development and prior to the pump station flows being converted to gravity flows in Salt Creek
Gravity Sewer.
The first phase of this project involves the installation of a parallel sewer line along the southerly
side of the street. This location was chosen due to the ease of construction, and also due to the fact
that overall impacts to traffic resulting from construction activity will be significantly minimized.
The second phase of this project involves the installation of new sewer lines in the same location
as the existing line utilizing the pipe-bursting method. This as the name indicates, involves the
installation of a larger sized diameter pipe in the same location as an existing pipe by bursting
through the existing pipe with a pneumatic head. The advantage of this method is that it
accomplishes the installation without creating a continuous trench, thus minimizing disruptions to
traffic and negating the need for removing and replacing the pavement section.
Construction Schedule
The work to be done is intended to be constructed in two phases. The first phase of construction
will be the construction of the required improvements in Telegraph Canyon Road ITom Melrose to
400 feet easterly. This work is scheduled to commence in November and will be completed within
5 working days. This work will be done during the normal construction hours.
The second phase will be the remaining portion east on-805 ITeeway. Since the potential impacts on
traffic along this road could be significant, this portion of the work is scheduled to commence in late
November or even possibly December 2001. This phase was specifically delayed to ensure that
Olympic Parkway (ITom Oleander A venue to Paseo Ranchero) was already operational, thus traffic
impacts would be reduced as much as possible. It is anticipated that the construction ofthe required
improvements within this phase will be completed within 60 working days. Preparation of piping for
the pipe-bursting operation shall take place on Friday after 8:00 pm. All pipe bursting operations in
the traveled way of Telegraph Canyon Road will be done between Saturday at 7:00 am and Sunday
at 8:00 pm. These restrictions will be maintained all through the construction of this phase ITom
November 2001 through February 2002.
Ordinance Requirements
The work to be done within the scope of this project meets the criteria defined in Ordinance No.
2533. However, the following requirements must also be met by the developer in order for
construction and DIF reimbursement to be authorized:
:<
-------.-----.. ----- .-..--------.--------
Page 5, Item .;(
Meeting Date 11/13/2001
1. Written authorization shall be requested by the developer from the City and issued by the
City Council by written resolution before developer may incur any costs eligible for
reimbursement relating to the work.
2. The developer shall submit a detailed description of the work to be done and along with a
preliminary cost estimate.
The Ordinance also stipulates that authorization shall be granted with the following conditions:
1. The developer shall prepare all plans and specifications and submit it to the City for
approval.
2. Developer shall secure all required permits and environmental clearances necessary for
construction of the project.
3. Developer shall secure and dedicate any right-of-way required for the work.
4. The developer shall secure at least (3) qualified bids for the work to be done.
EastLake Development has submitted a detailed description ofthe work to be done, in addition, they
have also submitted signed plans, specification and cost estimates. The project does not require
additional right-of-way and environmental clearance has been obtained. With the exception of the
three-bid requirement, EastLake has met all the other requirements of the Ordinance.
Bid Results
The project was advertised for a three-week period, at the end of which bids were received from
two contractors as follows:
Contractor Bid Amount
ARB, Inc., Lake Forest, California $2,352,858
BRR-Garver, San Diego, California $3,490,900
This project is being done using a specialized construction strategy (pipe-bursting), and the nwnber
of contractors within this field is limited. The bid package was sent to four contractors in this region
who are recognized as specialists in this field. Three of the four contractors attended the mandatory
pre-bid meeting and assured the developer and City staff present at the meeting that they would
submit proposals. On the bid-opening day, only two bids were received ITom two contractors
(Attachment No.4). Due to the current pace of construction activity in this region, most contractors
are extremely busy so they now have the ability to pick and choose which projects they are interested
in bidding competitively. It is the opinion of Powell PBS&J (the engineers who designed the
improvements and who reviewed the bids on behalf of EastLake) that the traffic conditions and
commensurate restrictions built into the project specifications, resulted in the low number of bids
received.
. ------.-- --_._------
Page 6, Item J.
Meeting Date 11/13/2001
Since the developer took the necessary steps to obtain fair bids for the project but only received two
bids, and since the project requires very specialized construction techniques and equipment, staff
recommends that Council waive the three-bid requirement ofthe ordinance and authorize EastLake
Development to use the apparent low bidder ARB, Inc., to construct the proposed improvements.
Project Construction Cost Estimates
The 1992 Willdan Study that established the Gravity Basin DIF determined that 15,290 LF. of
parallel pipes needed to be installed at a cost of $1,740,290 to sustain development until build -out.
The Telegraph Canyon Gravity Basin Development Impact Fee was based on this determination.
The recent study by John Powell & Associates, determined that 21 ,920 LF of parallel pipes would
be needed to sustain the basin until build-out. However, the current scope of this project is for the
installation of the initial 7,250 LF. of ultimate improvements at a cost of $3,200,000 (see table
below), which Powell PBS&J determined could sustain development for the next five years, with
the assumption that the pumped flows would have been removed to the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer
Interceptor by the summer of2002. At that point in time, it will be easier to accurately determine
whether any additional improvements are needed since the actual flow from the pump stations
impact the engineering analysis of the trunk sewer system. This removal date for pumped flows is
based on the current construction schedule for the completion of Reach 9B of the Salt Creek
Gravity Sewer Interceptor, which is that portion of the Salt Creek Trunk Sewer beginning slightly
west of Intestate-5 freeway at the connection to the City of San Diego Metro Interceptor to the
westerly right-of-way line of Interstate-805 ITeeway, slightly past the connection to the Poggi
Canyon Trunk Sewer connection. This reach is needed to facilitate the removal of the pumped
flows from the Telegraph Canyon Gravity Basin. In order to relieve the flows within the
Telegraph Canyon Basin, EastLake would have to temporarily divert the flows, from the
Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer to the Poggi Canyon Trunk Sewer which ultimately connects to
Reach 9B ofthe Salt Creek Trunk Sewer, until the completion of the remaining reaches of the Salt
Creek Trunk, which is anticipated to be the first quarter of 2003.
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Contract Amount $2,352,858.00
Contingencies (Approx. 10%) $223,359.00
Early Completion Incentive $100,000.00
Preliminary Design Report $76,000.00
Detailed Design Plans $235,408.00
Construction Management $212,375.00
Total Contract Amount $3,200,000.00
One of the major factors that accounts for the difference in the recommendations between the
Willdan and Powell studies is that this project is being constructed at a time when traffic is a
major issue in the City of Chula Vista, particularly on Telegraph Canyon Road. The current
construction method was therefore chosen to mitigate traffic impacts to a large extent. The
,;¿
_. ..-... .-.-------..-.. ..- ......-.....--------
Page 7, Item d-
Meeting Date 11/13/2001
construction work is also scheduled to be done at night and during the weekend only. All these
restrictions resulted in significantly higher construction costs than would ordinarily have been the
case.
The other major factor is that the current pace of development within the last few years has
escalated the cost of construction. Contractors are not quite as competitive in their bids as they
were a few years ago since they are all very busy and occupied.
Appropriation of Additional Funds
Funds for the construction of these improvements were previously budgeted in the FY 200012001
CIP budget process. The project cost of $3,200,000 will be financed utilizing a combination of
two funding sources; the Telegraph Canyon Gravity Basin DIF and the Trunk Sewer Capital
Reserve Funds. The Telegraph Canyon Gravity Basin DIF Funds is derived from developers that
have paid into the DIF established to fund these improvements. Currently the DIF has a balance of
approximately $1,000,000, which is insufficient to completely fund the required improvements.
The City also derives revenue ITom new developments in the form of sewer capacity fees that are
paid into the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund. This fund can be used to pay for the costs of
improving the capacity of the City's sewer infrastructure pursuant to Municipal Code Section
3.14.010.
Since the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer is currently the only fully operational trunk sewer line
serving the developments in the eastern territories, in addition to some of the built -out areas io the
western portion of the City, this infrastructure is crucial for the continued growth of the City and
the City's ability to support existing and new development. It was for this reason that Council
authorized the appropriation of additional funds in the amount of $1,400,000 from the
unappropriated balance of the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund into the project account for the
Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer. This was done during the Capital Improvement Program budget
review process when the initial project estimates based on the preliminary project plans clearly
showed that the DIF would be unable to completely fund the construction of the required
improvements.
Since the previously budgeted funds are insufficient to fund the construction of the improvements
based on the lowest bid, staff is recommending that Council authorize an additional appropriation
of $800,000 from the unappropriated balance of the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Funds to cover
the construction of the required improvements.
Reimbursement Agreement with The EastLake Company
EastLake is seeking authorization to design and construct the required improvements, which will
expedite the process. Reimbursements to a developer for the construction of required
improvements on the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer is subject to Telegraph Canyon Gravity
Basin DIF Ordinance No. 2533. To facilitate reimbursements from the Trunk Sewer Capital
-7
- ...---.-.----------.
Page 8, Item ~
Meeting Date 11/13/2001
Reserve Funds, which will be deposited in the project account, it is necessary to enter into an
agreement with the EastLake Company as a mechanism for authorizing reimbursement using the
Development Impact Fee Ordinance Policy as an implementation guideline for the reimbursement
(Attachment No.5).
The approval of this recommendation will approve the agreement and authorize the EastLake
Company, upon meeting the ordinance requirements, to receive reimbursements from the project
account and also authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the agreement on behalf of the
City of Chula Vista.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Under the DIF reimbursement process, EastLake Development will advance all the necessary
funds to design and construct the project and will be reimbursed through the DIF in accordance
with the provisions of Ordinance Nos. 2533.
Approval of this staff recommendation will authorize the appropriation of the required funds, and
also authorize EastLake to construct the improvements and be reimbursed using a combination of
funds from the Telegraph Canyon Gravity Basin DIF and Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Funds.
Attachments: No. I Area Plat showing phases of work to be done
No.2 Letter from the EastLake Development Company Dated 10-3-2000
No.3 Letter from the EastLake Development Company Dated 10-18-2001
No.4 Letter from John Powell & Associates
No.5 Reimbursement Agreement with EastLake
File:0735-IO-SW224 (Rev. November 8,2001 (9:30AM))
J :lengineerlaGENDA lEastLake-Reimb. Telegraph- Trunk-sewer-A 113 .ac.dnc
c:?-ý
.- -0'-", ..__.~. -----.
I
þ TTACHMENì ~>-
- -
/ - -
""C
.~
Ç? /ým
Q 5=1
(f)
11 ~/
¡= '/
~ Y ~
ï
m
G)
~ ~;
I
C
LJ
G) l:e
~
m
~~
;Be
z ~.~
0 Mí~
(f)
~ ~E:-- Z ~
m~
~
~
þI
\)
:¡:
s:
~
G =< -'1
~ - "-
-- --
t-'-
r-, V~HMENl Z-
~~.
...
...
~
October 3, 2000 TH:
E'ASTLAKE
COMPANY, llC
Mr. John Lippett
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Telegraph Canyon Sewer Upgrade
Dear John:
Pursuant to our meeting held on September 26, 2000, regarding necessary upgrades to the
telegraph canyon sewer line, The EastLake Company would like to fonnally request to construct
the upgrades as a DIF facility.
It is are understanding that the detennination of the specific facilities to be upgraded is being
refined as part ofa study being performed by John Powell and Associates on behalf of the City.
In general, we believe that the length of upgraded line needs to be approximately 7,000 L.F.
Once the City has approved this request, we will move forward in contracting a consultant to
perfonn a pre-design study, which will clearly delineate the task and outline obstacles.
In conjunction with this request, we would also ask that the reimbursement for this work be done
through cash reimbursement on a monthly basis from the applicable DIF sewer accounts.
Thank you for your consideration of our proposal. Should need any further infonnation, please
feel free to contact me.
--
:~:(;; ~ ,\'J,~4567e
~ + 9?O~
Vice President I OCT 2000 ~
cc: Frank Rivera, City of Chula Vista ~ RECf/VEll j
Anthony Chukwudolue, City ofChula Vista
Dan Brogadir, John Powell & Associates ~ .:,0,
~ q,'Y
~~L?:O't6"
900 Lane Avenue. Suite 100 Chula Vi,ta. Calilo'nia 91914 Telephone (619) 421-0127 Fac,imile(619)421-1830
~-/O ATrAc.I-\MëfJf fIb.:¿
-- .--------
10/18/2001 11:44 FAX 6194211830 EASTLAKE COMPANY 1410021002
~'TI ACHMEN1 3
--
October 18.2001 ...
..
Cliff Swanson ,...
City Engineer TIt;
City ofChula Vista EASfLAKE
276 Fourth Ave. COMPANY, LLC
Chula Vi~ CA 91910
Re: Telegraph ÚIr1yon Road Improvement Projcct
Dear Cliff:
The EastLake Company and its consultant, PoweUIPBS&J, have completed the bidding process
for the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Road improvement project. As you are aware, The EastLake
Company has agreed to construct approximately 7,300 L.F. of sewer line upgradc in Telegraph
Canyon Road. This work is being conducted by EastLake on behalf of the City under the
Development Improvement Fee ordinance, DIP.
I have attached a memo fimn Powell/PBS&J outlining the bids received for the project and their
amounts. As you can see, the total project eosts are $2,976,641. This amount does not include a
contingency line item which, given the naturc of this project, should be considered. I would Iilœ
to recommend adding 10% to the cost of thc Construction cost as a contingency for unforeseen
issues. This amount would equate to an additional $235,000 bringing the project total to
$3,200,000
Please allow this lett"T [0 s<:rve as our official requcst Ie award the contraet to the lowest bidder,
ARB Inc., and to proceed with the proposed work, subject to City Council approval ofthc project
and reimbursemcn[ provisions to The EastLakc Company.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter and should you require additional iofonnatioo.
please do not hesitate to call me.
q
Guy 0
Vice President
Attach.
co: Anthony Chukwudolue, Waste Water Engineer, City of Chula Vista, wÆneL
----.
900 Lone Avenue. suitG 100 Ch"lo Vista. CoIITom,o 91914 Telephone (619)421-01<' facsimIle (619) 421-IB30
o?-/ /
- 10/08/2001 17: 09 FAX 6194211830 EASTLAKE COMPANY 141002
7'ACHMENi ~"-~:1~""
PCVELL I PBSJ
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Guy Asaro DATE: October 5, 2001
FROM: Kevin Davis PROJECT NO.: 620913.08
1:/131/620913/.05~ettero/B
id EveluatiOll Memo 10-5-
01_doc
SUBJECT: Telegraph Canyon Trunk CLIENT: The EastLake Co.,
Sewer Improve."õents Project LLC
Bid Evaluation
Upon completion of the final contract documents, bid packages were sent out to four
qualified contractors soliciting their bids for the construction of the Telegraph Canyon
Trunk Sewer Improvements Project. Of the four solicited contractors, only two elected
to submit to the EastLake Co, on Tuesday October 2, 2001, At that time, we anticipated
receiving a third bid on Wednesday October 3, 2001 and therefore extended the bid
date. However, the third bid was never submitted. The two bids received were opened
on Wednesday and reviewed.
We have reviewed the two bids submitted by ARB, Inc. and BRH-Garver. The bid
prices are as follows:
. ARB, Inc. $ 2,352,858.00
. BRH-Garver $ 3,490,900.00
As you can clearly see, the disparity between the bid prices is large. In reviewing these
bids, we observed that BRH-Garver was significantly higher on nearly every line item.
At first we were concerned that ARB, Inc. may have missed something in the bid.
However, after comparing the two bids, it appears that ARB, Inc has reasonable prices
for each line item.
We prepared an engineer's opinion of probable construction cost at the 90% complete
level of design (included in the final Preliminary Design Report). In that estimate, we
anticipated the cost to be around $1.8 million, a difference of approximately $0.5 million
for the project. When comparing our opinion of probable construction costs to ARB,
Inc.'s bid, we realized we an unrealistic number for the cost for bypass pumping. The
difference in the cost for bypass pumping, with contingencies and other percentage-type
costs added. amounted to about $0.4 million dollars. With the larger number added in,
our opinion of probable construction cost would have been within $0.1 million of the low
bid.
~-/~
-- -------------- - --------
10/08/2001 17: 09 FAX 6194211830 EASTLAKE COMPANY 141003
Based on our review of the bids, we recommend that the contract be awarded to ARB,
Inc. at their bid price. This appears to be a reasonable cost for the construction of this
project.
We believe that the restrictions imposed upon the contractor for this project may have
influenced the number of interested bidders. Those restrictions include significant traffic
control limitations, pipe-bursting on the weekends only, and a very tight construction
timeframe.
Table 1 below provides a summary of the total project costs and associated
percentages for the design and construction management.
Table 1
Project Cost Summary
Description Cost Percentage of
Construction
f$\ (%)
ARB, Inc Bid (Construction) 2,352.858 100
Earty ComDletion Incentive 100,000 4.3
Preliminary Design Report, 76,000 3.2
Preliminary Utility
Research, and Survev
Detailed Design . 235,408 10.0
Construction Manaaement 212,375 9.0
Total Proiect Cost ~,976,641
It is clear that this is an important project to the City of Chula Vista as well as Ihe
development in the region. Recent flow metering has confirmed our estimations
regarding this project's urgency. We believe that it is in the City's best interest to
proceed with construction as soon as possible utilizing ARB, Inc at the submitted bid
price.
Please feel free to contact me at (760) 753-1120 with any questions or comments you
have.
0(-/3
Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer
Reimbursement Agreement
This Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer Reimbursement Agreement ("Agreement") is made
as of ,2001, by and between The Eastlake Company ("Eastlake") and the City of
Chula Vista, a California municipal corporation ("City") to facilitate the design and construction
of required improvements to the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer.
RECITALS
Whereas, Eastlake has petitioned the City to consider authorizing the EastLake Company
to design and construct the improvements required by the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer and be
reimbursed with funds budgeted for the project; and
Whereas, the construction of said improvements involves the installation of
approximately 7,250 lineal feet of PVC pipe within the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer system
as shown in City of Chula Vista Drawings Titled "Improvement Plans For Telegraph Canyon
Trunk Sewer", and Numbered fÌom 01064-01 through 01604-27 ("Improvements"); and
Whereas, the construction of said Improvements was previously approved by Council as
part of the Capital Improvement Projects for Fiscal Year 2000/2001 and was to be funded by a
combination of funds trom the Telegraph Canyon Gravity Basin Development Impact Fee (DIF)
and the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Funds; and
Whereas, Council intends to grant EastLake by separate action authorization to design
and construct the required Improvements and be reimbursed utilizing funds fÌom the Telegraph
Canyon Gravity Basin Development Impact Fee (DIF) in accordance with the guidelines
stipulated in Ordinance No. 2533; and
Whereas, it is the intention of City with this agreement to layout terms under which
Eastlake shall be reimbursed for the balance of the costs incurred in the design and construction
of the required Improvements for Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer utilizing funds fÌom the Trunk
Sewer Capital Reserve Funds budgeted for the project, also utilizing the Transportation
Development Impact Fee (TDlF) policy as a reimbursement mechanism.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED between the respective parties as
follows:
Section I. Recitals. That the above recitals are all true and correct.
Section 2. Construction of Improvements. Eastlake covenants and agrees that all
Improvements will be constructed by Eastlake in good and workmanlike manner by well-trained
adequately supervised workers and in strict compliance with all government and quasi-
governmental rules, regulations, laws, building codes and all requirements of Eastlake's insurers
and lenders, and fÌee of any design flaws and defects.
1
--2 -1'-1
Section 3. Inspection and Acceptance of the Improvements. The construction
activities relating to the Improvements will be inspected and subject to acceptance by City.
Section 4. Code Compliance. EastLake herby agrees to comply with all provisions
ofChula Vista Ordinance No. 2533.
Section 5. Payments to Eastlake
Payments shall be made to EastLake in accordance with the TDIF policy and as defined below.
City will make good faith effort to make such payments within 60 days of EastLake's request
and submittal of all pertinent documentslinformation necessary to facilitate such request for
payment and demonstrate compliance with Chula Vista Ordinance No. 2533. Where there is a
conflict between the policy and the schedule below, the schedule below will be utilized.
Pavment Percentage Reimbursed Milestone
a. Payment No. I ReimburseIY.."1t for 75% of eligible Upon Council Approval of
Design Costs Reimbursement Proposal
b. Payment No.2 Reimbursement for 37.5% of Completion of 50% of
eligible Construction Costs Proposed Improvements
c. Payment No.3 Reimbursement for an additional Completion of 100% of
37.5% of eligible Construction proposed Improvements
Costs
d. Payment No.4 Reimbursement of the final Completion of Audit by City
remaining 25% Construction Cost, Staff
and final 25% Design Cost
Section 6. Indemnification bv Eastlake. Eastlake shall defend, indemnify and hold
harmless City, its officers, directors, employees and agents, fÌom and against any and all claims,
losses, liabilities, damages, including court costs and reasonable attorneys fees, by reason of, or
resulting from, or arising out of the design, engineering and construction of the Improvements.
Nothing in this Section 5 shall limit in any manner City's rights against any of the architects,
engineers, contractors or other consultants employed by Eastlake or Eastlake's predecessors in
interest which has performed work in connection with construction or financing of the
Improvements.
Section 7. Conflict with Other Agreements. Nothing contained herein shall be
constructed as releasing Eastlake fÌom any condition of development or requirement imposed by
any other agreement with City. In the event of a conflicting provision, such other agreement shall
prevail unless such conflicting provision is specifically waived or modified in writing by City.
Section 8. General Standard of Reasonableness. Any provision of this Agreement
which requires the consent, approval, discretion or acceptance of any party hereto or any of their
respective employees, officers or agents shall be deemed to require that such consent, approval
or acceptance not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, unless such provision expressly
incorporates a different standard.
Section 9. Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement contains the entire
agreement between the parties relating to the transaction contemplated hereby and all prior or
contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written,
2
-~ ~/SC~
are merged herein. No amendment, modification, waiver or discharge of this Agreement will be
valid unless the same is in writing and signed by the parties to this Agreement.
Section 10. Notices. All notices, demands or requests provided for or pennitted to be
given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands or requests to be sent
to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or
deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or
certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business
for each of the designated parties.
Citv:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attn: City Engineer
Propertv Owner:
The Eastlake Company
900 Lane A venue, Suite 100
Chula Vista, CA 91914
Attn: Guy Asaro, Vice-President
A party may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other party. Thereafter,
notices, demands and requests shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address.
Section II. Successors and Assigns. All tenus of this Agreement will be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective administrators or executors, successors
and assigns.
Section 12. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this
Agreement shall be brought only in the Federal or State courts located in San Diego County,
State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible.
Venue for this Agreement, and perfonnance hereunder, shall be the City ofChula Vista.
Section 13. Capacities of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants
and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction fÌom its
principal to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so
as to enable it to enter into this Agreement.
Section 14. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which will be deemed to be an original, but all of which together will
constitute one instrument.
(NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE)
3
=<'-/6
.-...-. .------.. ------.-.
SIGNATURE PAGE TO
TELEGRAPH CANYON TRUNK SEWER
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE EASTLAKE COMPANY
.1
~ ..1--
/(
John P. Lippitt Gu s 0/
D;roctm of"'bH, Wmlc, v~-
WÎl1iam T. Ostrem
APPROVED AS TO FORM President
John M. Kaheny, City Attorney
J:\Engineer\AGENDA\Eastlake Sewer Reimbursement Agreementac.doc
4
~-/7
.~.- -----.----...-.-
RESOLUTION NO. 2001- -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF
ADDITIONAL FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $800,000 FROM
THE TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FUNDS TO PAY
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TELEGRAPH CANYON TRUNK
SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, funds for the construction of the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer system
were previously budgeted in the FY 2000/2001 CIP budget process and will be financed
utilizing a combination of two funding sources; the Telegraph Canyon Gravity Basin DIF and
the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Funds; and
WHEREAS, the Telegraph Canyon Gravity Basin DIF Funds is derived from
developers that have paid into the DIF established to fund these improvements and the current
balance is approximately $1,000,000, which is insufficient to completely fund the required
improvements to install approximately 7,250 lineal feet of PVC pipe within the Telegraph
Canyon Trunk Sewer system which will cost $3,200,000; and
WHEREAS, the City also derives revenue from new developments in the form of
sewer capacity fees that are paid into the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund which can be
used to pay for the costs of improving the capacity of the City's sewer infrastructure pursuant
to Section 3.14.010 of the City's Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, since the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer is currently the only fully
operational trunk sewer line serving the developments in the eastern territories, in addition to
some of the built -out areas in the western portion of the City, this infrastructure is crucial for
the continued growth of the City and the City's ability to support existing and new
development; and
WHEREAS, it was for this reason that the City Council previously authorized the
appropriation of additional funds in the amount of $1,400,000 from the unappropriated balance
of the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund into the project account during the Capital
Improvement Program budget review process when the initial project estimates based on the
preliminary project plans clearly showed that the DIF would be unable to completely fund the
construction of the required improvements; and
WHEREAS, since the budgeted funds are insufficient to fund the construction of the
required improvements, staff is recommending that Council authorize additional appropriation
of $800,000 from the unappropriated balance of the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Funds to
allow the construction of the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer improvements by The EastLake
1
WHEREAS, under the DIF reimbursement process, The EastLake Company will advance
all the necessary funds to design and construct the project and will be reimbursed through the
DIF in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance Nos. 2533; and
WHEREAS, approval of this staff recommendation will authorize the appropriation of the
required funds and authorize The EastLake Company to construct the improvements and be
reimbursed from the project account.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofChula Vista
does hereby authorize the appropriation of additional funds in the amount of $800,000 ITom the
Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund to the project account for Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer to
pay for the construction of Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer improvements.
Presented by Approved as to form by
~? £' - - ('
(~¿¿¡Jj-7ìÎ~ j[{,k~.~
John P. Lippitt John Nt. KáKeny -j
Director of Public Works City Attorney
J\allorneylocso\Trunk Sew,,- Apprnp
2
c2-/9
----------------.--- - .--------- --------
RESOLUTION NO. 2001- -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE THREE-BID REQUIREMENT OF
ORDINANCE NO. 2533, AND AUTHORIZING THE EASTLAKE
COMPANY TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS
TO PORTIONS OF THE TELEGRAPH CANYON TRUNK SEWER
AND RECEIVE CREDIT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
FEES COLLECTED FOR THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer system was originally budgeted as a
Capital Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, The EastLake Company ("EastLake") is seeking authorization to design and
construct the required improvements to Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer; and
WHEREAS, EastLake has met the preliminary requirements of Ordinance No. 2533 and has
submitted a detailed description of the work to be done, signed plans, specitìcations and cost
estimates and additional right-ot~way and environmental clearance has been obtained; and
WHEREAS, EastLake advertised the project for a three-week period, at the end of which
bids were received from two contractors; and
WHEREAS, therefore, with the exception of the three-bid requirement, EastLake has met all
the other requirements of the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the developer represents that it took the necessary steps to obtain fair bids for
the project but only received two bids, since the project requires very specialized construction
techniques and equipment, and has requested that Council waive the three-bid requirement of the
ordinance and authorize EastLake Development to use the apparent low bidder to construct the
proposed improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby waive the three-bid requirement of Ordinance No. 2533 and authorize the EastLake
Company to design and construct improvements to portions of the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer
and receive credit against Development Impact Fees collected for the improvements.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Jé_¿~Jìt( C4.{-e;;-
John P Lippitt Joh(,l . aheny cí
Director of Public Works City Attorney
JlattwneylresolEL 3-bld waiver trunk sewer
RESOLUTION NO. 2001- -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
EASTLAKE COMPANY REGARDING TELEGRAPH CANYON
TRUNK SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE THE
AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
WHEREAS, EastLake is seeking authorization to design and construct Telegraph
Canyon Trunk Sewer improvements which were originally budgeted as a Capital Improvement
Project; and
WHEREAS, reimbursements to a developer for the construction of required
improvements on the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer are made pursuant to Telegraph Canyon
Gravity Basin DIF Ordinance No. 2533; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized The EastLake Company to design and
construct improvements to portions of the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer and receive credit
against Development Impact Fees collected for the improvements; and
WHEREAS, the agreement will authorize The EastLake Company to receive
reimbursements from the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer project account upon meeting the
requirements of Ordinance No. 2533.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby approve an agreement with the EastLake Company regarding Telegraph
Canyon Trunk Sewer Improvements, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the
City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to
execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
Presented by Approved as to fonD by
-:;-(, v'.-rY"'l' -'
! _'eð(j'L~" v\. .t-(.J.2,<,
John P. Lippitt John M. Kaheny ,;7-
Director of Public Works City Attorney
J:\attorney\reso\EL trunk sewer agr
c2 /
----- ----.------.-.---.-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 11/13/2001
ITEM TITLE: Resolution declaring Western Micrographics Systems, Inc. io
default of a May 29, 2001 Council approved contract for records
digitization services and awarding a subsequent digitization services
contract to Digital Imaging Services Corporation, the next lowest bidder
fo, '"""I"'""'" .""",~. f!
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Building A:
Purchasing A~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NolO
On May 29, 2001, Council approved Resolution 2001-158 awarding a records digitization
services contract to Western Micrographics Systems, Inc. On July 11, 2001, the vendor sent a
letter to the City's Purchasing Agent refusing to honor the bid. Since a formal bidding process
was conducted, staff would like to now award the services contract to Document Imaging
Services Corporation, the second lowest responsive and responsible bidder.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution declaring
Western Micrographics Systems, Inc. in default of a May 29, 2001 award of a records
digitization services contract and award a subsequent digitization services contract to Digital
Imaging Services Corporation, the next lowest bidder for the requested services.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
In April 1999, the City Clerk received approval to begin a Citywide transition to a digitized
archival database, accessible by Laserfiche@ software. To improve customer service with faster
records retrieval and to preserve deteriorating documents, the Planning & Buildiog Department
is utilizing this technology but needs vendor assistance in digitizing archived documents. The
archives are stored in multiple media, and conversion to a single medium will benefit staff in
their records research and retrieval.
Selection Process
On February 9, 2001, the City's Purchasing Agent advertised a Notice to Bidders for Records
Digitizing and Management Services. On February 27, the Purchasing Agent convened a
mandatory pre-bid meeting for potential bidders. An optional walk-through was also held for
vendors to assess the condition and organization of the records to be digitized. On March 2, an
addendum was sent out clarifying issues raised in the pre-bid meeting.
..3
- m--_____-. --------.---
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 11/13/2001
The City received five (5) bids, and the total calculations are based on types and numbers of
documents detailed io the bid package. The cost comparison is shown below:
Western Micrographics Systems, Inc. $ 78,993
Document Imagiog Services Corp. 96,087
RCI Image Systems 190,586
FicheNet 216,798
Mobile Micrographics bid only on microfilmiog
Western Micrographics Systems, Inc. was the apparent low bidder and was awarded the bid on
May 29, 2001. On July 11,2001, after scanning the first batch of City documents, Western
Micrographics Systems, Inc. refused to honor their bid (letter attached).
Document Imaging Services Corporation, the second lowest bidder, was interviewed and given a
sample batch of documents to process. The sample batch was processed with no problems and
business references were checked. Staff would now like to cancel the original agreement to
Western Micrographics Systems, Inc. and award a subsequent contract to Document Imaging
Services Corporation.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding for this contract is included in the FY 2000-01 budget for the Planning & Building
Department.
Attachments
I. Western Micrographics Systems, Inc. letter refusing to honor bid.
H'IBIg_HsgIBobMcIDlSC A113.doc
3-~
JUL-08-l900 02:36 P.0l
W Western A7TA6I-fMËAJT (
_Micrqgraphics
- -- :.Systems, Inc.
City of Chula- Vista -
Building DepartI!leut and-p:lanning July-U,20al
John Coggins
This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation
on 07/05/01 requesting that P.G #P14528 not be renewed for
fiscal year 2001-2002. Due to the wide variation and poor
quality of the drawings, it was not possible in a
production mode to get acceptable scans without making two
passes (doubling the labor time). In all of our years,:pi':>,.
, - ,.-.~',,~':'
, ,'-,
seaMing and micrOfilming, we have not had to do this, and -
wè currently film bluelines for City of San Diego with a
single exposure. The age of the drawings may be
responsible. We have delivered the double-pass sca!lI1ed
images back to the City of Chula Vista.
We apologize for this difficulty and you wil~_not b€!'
billêd for this job. We hope to be able to perform
'Services to the City of Chula Vista in the future.
d)~ ~
Very sincerely,
Dave Nuding
, . ' Microfilming Services & Equipment
+J~VI$Wridge Avenue, Suite 6 . San Diego"CA 92123.-162(t . (858) 268-1091 . (858)278-5501 . Fax: (858)268..()ó92
.:::3 -3 TOTAL P.0l
-- ,- -...-.-.---
RESOLUTION NO. 2001- -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DECLARING WESTERN
MICROGRAPHICS SYSTEMS, INC. IN DEFAULT OF A
MAY 29, 2001 COUNCIL APPROVED CONTRACT FOR
RECORDS DIGITIZATION SERVICES AND AWARDING
A SUBSEQUENT DIGITIZATION SERVICES CONTRACT
TO DOCUMENT IMAGING SERVICES CORPORATION,
THE NEXT LOWEST BIDDER FOR THE REQUESTED
SERVICES
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2001 the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
awarded a competitive bid for records digitization services to Western Micrographics
Systems, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, on July] 1, 2001 Western Micrographics Systems, Inc. sent a letter
to the City's Purchasing Agent expressing the intent to default on their bid price; and
WHEREAS, the second lowest bidder Document Imaging Services Corporation
indicated the desire to honor their contract bid prices and desire for City business.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby declare Western Micrographics Systems, Inc. in default of a
May 29, 2001 contract for records digitization services.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby award a subsequent digitization services contract to Document Imaging
Services Corporation, the next lowest bidder for the requested services.
Presented by: Approved as to form:
J .K,heoy ~ J
Robert A. Leiter
Planning & Building Director . y Attorney
H:\PlanningIBobMclDISC Reso.doc
,,3-¥
-..-. .. -.-------.
Con+, rlue.d +'ro (Yl
/1/1&-/01
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item Pi
Meeting Date 11-6 or
II-I?>-ð/
ITEM TITLE: Report on Request for Technical Proposals (RFTP) and Price Bids for
Operation ofChula Vista Transit (CVT) and maintenance ofCVT Bus
Fleet
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works rff\/
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~):'V (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No-"K.J
The last RFP to solicit proposals for operations ofCVT and maintenance of the CVT fleet was
issued in February 1993. As a result of the Request for Proposal (RFP) process, San Diego
Transit was selected as the CVT contract operator for a three-year term. Since then three
extensions to the agreement have been approved by Council with the latest being on February
2001. Our cutTent agreement terminates on June 30,2002. In a cooperative effort, Transit staff
has been working with Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) staff to develop and
issue an RFTP in a two-step process with a service start date of July 1,2002.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Accept this report;
2. Authorize staffto issue an RFTP for CVT operations and maintenance for a 5-year base
term, which complies with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regulations, in a
cooperative effort with MTDB;
3. Include a responsible wage policy based on MTDB's Policy 32, Section 32.10; and
4. Accept the make up of the Technical Review Committee as adopted by MTDB
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable
mSCUSSION:
In order to increase effìciency and reduce staff time City Transit staff is working with MTDB to
develop and issue an RFTP. Both CVT's and MTDB's existing transit contracts expire on June
30,2002. Both Transit staffs see this as an opportunity to increase cooperation between our
transit agencies and reduce procurement costs.
Background
The City currently contracts with San Diego Transit Corporation (SDTC) to operate our transit
system and maintain our bus fleet. SDTC is responsible for providing the necessary personnel to
supPOli the operating functions of CVT. SDTC's transit services agreement with the City
terminates on June 30, 2002. Consequently, Transit statT prepared a Council Item requesting
authorization to solicit a Request for Technical Proposals (RFTP) in a two-step competitive bid
Page2,Item~
Meeting Date 11 6-"6'1
, "'3-01
procurement. This item also included a responsible wage policy based on some elements of
MTDB's Policy 32.
Due to concerns fÌom the Labor Council, and the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), the
August 28, 2001 Council Item was continued to give staff some time to address the specific
issues. On August 28, 2001, representatives fÌom the Labor Council, ATU, MTDB and City
Staff met with two City Council members to listen and discuss the following issues related to the
proposed RFTP process:
1. The primary concern was that the Council Item excluded Clause (I) ofMTDB's
responsible wage policy (Section 32.10, Setting Responsible Wages and Benefits), which
states, 'The requirements of this section shall not apply to proposers and contractors
whose vehicle drivers are subject to a collective bargaining agreement."
The Labor Council and A TU representatives felt that excluding this clause would create
an unfair process in which contractors under collective bargaining agreements would not
be able to competc with contractors without similar agreements. They requested that
Clause (I) not be excluded fÌom CVT's RFTP and that it be written just as it is in
MTDB's responsible wage policy (Attachment I).
2. The Labor Council and ATU representatives were also concerned about the proposed
two-step competitive procurement and how it would affect the existing drivers if a new
contractor were awarded the contract. Stan'was instructed to look into the legality of
negotiated or sole-source procurement with the existing contractor instead of conducting
a competitivc process.
3. The overall focus of all in attendancc was the desire to retain as many of the existing
employees as possible, with whichever process is used, and ensure their wages and
benefits under the new contract match or even exceed those of the current transit
operators. The larger goal is to keep a content, stable, efficient transit workforce here in
the City with minimal turnover and exceptional perfonnance and customer service for the
next five years.
In order to accurately address these issues, the Public Works Director and Transit staff first
consulted with MTDB's General Manager, legal counsel, and staff to find out if negotiated or
sole-source procurements are realistic options. As the regions direct recipient of Federal Transit
Administration (FT A) funds, MTDB must follow all federal procurement requirements when
contracting for transit service. Since CVT is now the recipient of federal capital funding and
operates MTDB provided, federally Funded vehicles, the City must also follow these same
guidelines. MTDB's legal council confinned with the FT A that CVT does come under these
same federal guidelines and we are required to competitively bid transit service (limited to 5 year
contract tenns).
Page3,Item~
Meeting Date 11-6-61
1/-/3-01
Recommendation
With this FT A requirement confinned, Transit staff is recommending the same two-step
competitive procurement process as previously proposed with the following changes aimed at
addressing the issues and larger goals of the Labor Council, A TU, and City staff representatives:
1. Include all elements ofMTDB's Policy 32 Responsible Wage Policy (Section 32.10),
including Clause (t). This policy sets minimum wage and benefits requirements for
vehicle drivers operating under a transit service contract. The purpose of this requirement
is to: retain fully trained qualified drivers; provide a quality transit service to transit
patrons; and to reduce absenteeism and driver turnover. The policy itself and the
Responsible Wage Rates spreadsheet is provided (Attachment 1).
2. Require each proposer to include a detailed Driver Retention Plan in their technical
proposals that must provide existing drivers with the following minimum benefits:
. Current drivers to carryover existing vacation balances if they do not prefer to
cash it out (available 30 days after contract start up);
. Current drivers to carryover existing sick-leave balances;
. Current drivers to carryover existing seniority rank; and
. Availability of a new vested pension plan.
3. Include an $8.00 minimum responsible wage for bus cleaners and fuelers with same
minimum health benefits as drivers.
The two-step competitive procurement process, whereby transit finns submit a technical proposal
and, if qualified, are moved to the second step where price bids are opened and the lowest
responsive and responsible bidder is awarded the contract, has been successfully used throughout
the transit industry for years. MTDB has been successfi.d in maintaining very bigh quality and
cost effective transit service using this method over the last two decades without any significant
bidder protests.
Attached for Council's infonnation is a draft ofthe proposed Technical Qualification Criteria
Table (Attachment 2), which will be used to qualify the prospective bidders in Step I of the
procurement process. Both the City and MTDB will be issuing and awarding the RFTP
independently, but for efficiency, MTDB and City Transit staffs recommend a single Tecbnical
Review Committee be fonned to review both agencies' proposals based on the Technical
Qualification Criteria. The committee will be composed of staff fÌom the City ofChula Vista,
MTDB, and as well as other regional transit/planning agencies.
Abiding by the FT A's competitive transit procurement regulations and safeguarding current
employee wages and benefits can be attained simultaneously by including the additional
rcquirements above into the RFTP process. This allows for a balance between providing
responsible wages and benefits for employees and controlling costs in order to have the funding
available for existing services and future service expansions. CVT currently provides
approximately 11,500 passenger trips per weekday and the demand continues to grow each
month. We need to ensure that we continue to make the most efficient use of our funds in order
1-1 -
-...--- -.--- .._--.._---.---------_.
Page 4, Item3-
Meeting Date+t-ú=6I
~-ol
to meet current and future demands of the developing communities to the east without being
forced to increase fares.
Alternative Option
The City also has the option to turn CVT planning and service operations over to MTDB in
its entirety. MTDB is the policy setting and overall coordinating agency for public transportation
in the region. In August 2000, the MTD Board approved the consolidation of all regional transit
funds; consequently, MTDB is now ultimately responsible for all funding decisions related to
transit services and capital expenditures.
Consolidating CVT service into the MTDB's transit operations function may create some
efficiencies of scale as certain management functions could be combined. There would also be
improved regional coordination and transit service would fall under one dedicated transit board.
There are, however, several disadvantages to turning CVT over to MTDB:
0 The City would lose direct control of all transit operations and planning functions;
0 CVT could lose it's own unique community identity;
0 CVT could lose its direct community interaction (requests, complaints, trip planning);
0 The City would sutTer increased response time to citizen requests and/or concerns;
0 The City would likely lose the unique working relationship between the City's transit,
planning, and engineering staffs, which currently work very well together to solve
problems and identify opportunities;
. The City would also need to address issues regarding City owned transit facilities and
impacts on existing City employees.
Timing
Time is of the essence and a final decision needs to be made so that a new contract can be
implemented by July I, 2002. It is critical that we continue to have a transit provider to avoid
any service disruption. This takes into consideration the significant lead time needed to complete
the two-step competitive procurement process (if approved), as well as the time needed for a
contractor to prepare for the start up of a new contract, If Council desires, it can authorize
issuing the RFTP and direct staff to pursue the Alternative Option in order to avoid any service
provision disruptions. Staff is not recommending any extension to the existing contract since the
maximum 5 years will he up on June 30, 2002 (the end of the current contract).
..--...--
Page 5, Item ~
Meeting Date-H-6-6i
~-OJ
FISCAL IMPACT: At the time of award this contract would contain no City ofChula Vista
General Fund contribution. The CVT operating and maintenance contract costs will be funded
by MTS pooled TDA Article 4.0 funds.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Policy 32's Section 32.10 and wage table
2) Technical Qualification Criteria Table (Draft)
File: DS-O27/035
H:\TransitIAI13 Transit RFP.doc
5"
....._.. ...----- ....--...--..-.-..
AIf¡¡c.f.t""""",f .J..
32.10 Settina Responsrble Waaes and Benefits. MTDB wHl include as part of the bid
documents a minrmum wages and benefits requirement for vehicle drivers
operated as a result of a bus, mini-bus, van, or other service contract. The
purposes of this requirement are: to retain fully trained, qualified and
experienced drivers; to provide a high level of quality transit service to the transit
patrons; and to reduce absenteeism and driver tumover.
a. Base Wage Level- In advance of the initiation of a bid process, MTDB
wHl conduct an analysis to develop minimum wage level requirements for
the term of the contract. A base wage rate, for purposes of the analysis,
is established at $8.35 per hour for July 1, 2000, for drivers after a
training and probation period. The analysis will identify a cost of living
index (based on prior five-year average San Diego Consumer Price
Index) for each future year as a starting point for establishing a minimum
wage each year of the future contract. All existing MTDB-contracted
vehicle driver wage rates and all existing labor agreements of the MTDB-
contracted vehicle drivers, entered into after the effective date of this
section, will then be reviewed. The initial starting point wage rate based
on the five-year average San Diego Consumer Price Index would be
adjusted to insure consistency with existing transit service contracts for
the remaining years of those contracts. Any years in a new contract that
are beyond the termination of an existing contract would be calculated
based on the five-year average San Diego Consumer Price Index.
b. Training Wage Level- MTDB shall set a level no less than 90 percent of
the base wage level after probation. Training pay shall not exceed 160
hours. If additional training is required beyond 160 hours, the employee
shall be paid at the wage level of probation wage after certification.
c. Probation Wage After Certification - A driver who is in training and
exceeds 160 hours or who has been certified as a driver shall have a
minimum wage level set by MTDB of no less than 95 percent of the base
wage level for a period not to exceed 90 days after completion of training.
d. The above wage categories shall be established as minimums in the
contract bid requirements and are base driver wage levels excluding
benefits and any performance bonuses. These minimum wage
cate!)Ories shall apply to full-time and part-time drivers of contract
services.
e. Health Benefits - MTDB shall include in bid documents the requirement
for the contractor to offer full-time and part-time vehicle drivers (20 hours
or more per week) a family health plan based on a minimum employer
contribution. The minimum contribution for the health benefit is
established at $1.25 per hour for July 1, 2000. The health benefit plan
contribution standard would be indexed based on the prior five-year
average San Diego Consumer Price Index for each year of the contract to
be awarded.
L The requirements of this section shall not apply to proposers and
contractors whose vehicle drivers are subject to a collective bargaining
agreement.
L/-
-=--. - -
-""--
0 It) 0
It) ,.... C!
ai ai 0
fA-~fA-~~;,<:
.... <0 '<>
o.i o.i C\Ì
.... 0 10
<:> It) r-.
<:> . .
'" '" 0)
>- fA-~~;,<:
-.I .... '<>
::;¡ o.i C\Ì
~
Iii
II) It) 0
s: N 10
UI ai a)
a:: fA-~~;,<:
"" ....
o.i C\Ì
0 10
0 N
ai a) ....
fA-~~~ ~g;
~ C\Ì C\Ì
I() 0 I()
>- t-: C! "'!
..J CO 0)
:; fA-~~;,<:
'" '"
(f Lci IÒ
I-
U
~
~ g ~
0 00 00
(J .,. ~ .,. ~
'" ....
W '" '"
00 ..J I-
Wg;!:::) ~ ~ ~
I-W~ "'~O~It)~
ci..J, "'~'"":~"!~
ocwc ,...:¡;ao:¡;co:¡¡
W Ww"'w.,.
w(') >< !: !: !:
Ø<1:- Q Q Q
<~u.. .s .s .s
;::¡;(f ~-g~ ~
..... :::) w ~ ¡¡: ~ ~
1.1.:!:(J bo-b b
W-- .1::"""
>~~ r~roQr
;;:;; :¡; w ¡¡ ... ¡¡ ài ¡¡
..... ..... '^ I! CD I! ^ I!
c~, v, . -" - .
w~1- "-~II.è:"'-
..J ..,. (J~ CD nJ .
""œ: CD 01 C ;¡
""'0 01 nJ £! ui
OOI-~ )o~ ~ êii ~
ZOO 0:::;> c ..0 ~
0 ~ (J 0 01 .Q e ¡¡¡
D.. F In C).S êii Q. ¡¡;
OOze ~oS ..0 ài ã~
w Q I- <1: f e .:!:: :1;¡:;
cr 0 ~ 0 I- !l. « in,:
L/ rj
Attachment 2
TECHNICAL QUA'ë';ICATIO~~RIA TABLE
MTD~ Ps S RVICES
QUALIFICATION CRITERIA I PASS FAil'
1. Experience of Firm
MANDA TORY CRITERIA The firm (or general partner of the The firm (or general partner of the
firm) must have three (3) or more firm) has less than three (3) years
years of recent and relevant recent and relevant experience in
experience in providing regularly providing regularly scheduled fixed.
scheduled fixed-route public transit route public transit service.
service. This service must be similar Experience not similar in size, scope,
in size, scope, and complexity and complexity (routes, miles, hours,
(routes, miles, hours, vehicles. etc.) vehicles, etc.) to the requested
to the requested service. The service vehicles, etc.). Experience
experience must include at least one does not include at least one year of
year of providing the above services providing services using CNG or
using CNG or lNG powered buses. lNG powered buses.
2. Experience of Staff to be Assigned to this Project
2.1 Responsible Management Five (5) or more years of recent and less than five (5) years of recent and
Individual relevant direct experience managing relevant direct experience managing
MANDA TORY CRITERIA all aspects of a public transit service all aspects of a public transit service.
similar in scope and complexity Not similar in scope and complexity
(routes, miles, hours, vehicles, etc.) (routes, miles, hours, vehicles, etc.).
to the requested service.
(See: Exhibit "A")
2.2 On-Site Manager Five (5) or more years general. less than five (5) or years
MANDA TORY CRITERIA overall experience managing 1 experience managing 1 regularly
regularly scheduled, fixed-route scheduled. fixed-route public bus
public bus transit service siniilar in transit service. Not similar in size,
size. scope, and complexity (routes. scope. and complexity (routes,
miles. hours, vehicles, etc.) miles, hours, vehicles, etc.)
(See: Exhibit A.)
2.3 On-Site Fleet Maintenance Five (5) or mòre years experience less than five (5) or more years
Manager managing 2 the maintenance experience managing J the
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA 20% functions of a heavy-duty transit maintenance functions of a heavy-
shop (maintaining 35-foot to 40-foot duty transit bus shop. Not similar in
coaches) similar in scope and scope and complexity. Experience
complexity to the requested service. does not include two years of work
At least two of these five years must on CNG or LNG transit coaches.
be witl) CNG or LNG buses. (See:
Exhibit A.)
2.4 Operations Manager (Assistant Provide detailed skills, experience. Does not adequately describe skills,
On-Site Manager) and attribUtes to be demanded of the experience, and attributes to be
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA 5% individual(s) to be assigned. (See demanded of the individual(s) to be
Exhibit "A".) as~ned.
---- -
1 Managing involves having direct supervisory responsibility for staff, operations, and/or maintenance
personnel.
2 Managing involves having direct supervisory responsibility for maintenance personnel.
A-14
f?
QUALIFICATION CRITERIA PASS FAIL
3. Facilities Maintenance Plan
3.1 Facilities Maintenance Plan Provide details of the process for Does not adequately describe the
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA 10% compliance with facility maintenance facility maintenance plan. Lacks a
requirements. Provide for the functional analysis for locating
functional analysis of different functions. No statement regarding
operating, maintenance, and the exclusive use of facilities
administrative functions. Must also identified for services described in
include a statement that facilities are this proposal.
to be used exclusively for services
described in this proposal.
4. Implementation, System Management, and Vehicle Maintenance Plans
4.1 Implementation Plan Comprehensive, detailed plan No comprehensive, detailed
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA 5% showing all start-up tasks, (e.g., implementation plan described. The
hiring and training personnel, plan is not complete or is
facilities preparation, and vehicle unreasonable. No contingency plan.
preparation). The plan should allow
for ßexibility - indicate contingency
plans. Contingency plans must
include a discussion of typical things
that can go wrong at start-up and
how those problems would be
mitigated.
4.2 System Management Plan A comprehensive, detailed program The program is not comprehensive
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA 5% showing staffing and equipment or detailed in showing staffing and
commitment, staff responsibilities. equipment commitment, staff
management pians, and quality responsibilities. management plans.
control to ensure continued and quality control.
high-quality transit service.
4.3 Organizational Chart Include an administration, Organizational chart does not show
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA 5% maintenance, and operations the relationship of staff/employee/
organizational chart showing the subcontractor positions and levels,
relationship of staff/employee/ and the number of personnel. All job
subcontractor positions and levels, classifications/positions not shown
and the number of personnel. All job with FTEs.
classifications/positions must be
shown with FTEs.
4.4 Vehicle Maintenance Plan Comprehensive, detailed vehicle Vehicle maintenance program not
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA 10% maintenance program including the comprehensive and detailed. Does
number and type of personnel not include the number and type of
directly involved, plan for personnel directly involved. Does
accomplishing preventive not include a plan for accomplishing
maintenance and intervals, general preventive maintenance, general
repairs, warranty work, wheelchair lift repairs, warranty work. wheelchair lift
maintenance, and required vehicle maintenance, and required vehicle
maintenance. (See: Exhibit "A", maintenance.
I Attachment #3)
---------------- -
A-15
!.j.tj
.-----------------------.-.----
QUALIFICATION CRITERIA PASS FAIL
5. Safety and Training
5.1 Safety Compliance Report For companies operating in For companies operating in
MANDA TORY CRITERIA California, submit the latest copy of California, no copy, or not the latest
California Highway Patrol Safety copy, of California Highway Patrol
Compliance Report (CHP 343) and Safety Compliance Report
the most recent fixed-route project (CHP 343) and not the most recent
report (CHP 343a). J fixed route project report
(CHP 343a)4
These reports must indicate
satisfactory ratings. This report These reports do not indicate
should indicate a low number of satisfactory ratings. This report
violations per vehicle, low relative to indicates a high number of violations
fleet size, and low administratively. per vehicle, high relative to fleet size,
andlor high administratively.
5.2 Safety Program Submit a detailed safety training and No program provided or
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA 10% safe driving program, including hiring unacceptable detailed safety training
criteria, new-hire training, ongoing and safe driving program, including
training, accident/incident hiring criteria, new hire training,
procedures, handling passengers ongoing training, accident/ incident
special needs, and wheelchair procedures, handling passengers'
lift/securement procedures. Includes special needs, and wheelchair
a program that specifically addresses lift/securement procedures. Does
safety around CNG and related not include a program that
equipment. Includes an injury and specifically addresses safety around
illness prevention program CNG and related equipment. Does
incorporating all employees, not include an injury and illness
equipment, and facilities. prevention program. or includes such
a program that does not incorporate
all employees, equipment, and
facilities.
5.3 Mechanic Training Plan Submit a detailed mechanic training No or unacceptable detailed
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA 5% program to incorporate the mechanic training program.
requirements of Exhibit "A".
Attachment #3, Sections 1, 2. and 3.
5.4 Driver Training Plan Submit a detailed fixed-route trainiog No or unacceptable detailed fixed-
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA 5% program for drivers to incorporate the route driver training program.
requirements of Exhibit "A,"
~- Attachment #4.
3 For bidders without any California operations, equivalent safety inspections from other states will be accepted if the
inspection applies to: (A) the maintenance program, (8) maintenance program adherence. (C) shop practices,
(D) vehicle conditions, (E) maintenance records, and (F) driver assignments.
4 For bidders without any California operations, equivalent safety inspections from other states will not be accepted if
verification and comparability to CHP 343/(a) in the areas of the maintenance program, program adherence, shop
practices, vehicle condition, maintenance records, and driver assignments are not given from the issuing state.
A-16
QUALIFICATION CRITERIA PASS FAIL
6. Driver Retention Plan
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA 20% The contractor is required to submit No plan submitted or plan not
a driver retention plan that is competitive in the marketplace
competitive in the marketplace covering the base-term period. No
covering the base-term period. This methodology fully explained or
plan should include a methodology to incentives proposed that would
maximize driver retention and cause continued driver retention.
stability of work force. Incentives for Wage level form not completed.
driver retention should be provided. Wage level§ unreasonable for the
Wage level form complete with marketplace.
reasonable wage levels for the
marketplace.
7. Performance Surety
MANDA TORY CRITERIA If Proposer intends to provide a Letter from a corporation surety not
performance bond. technical offer submitted. Letter submitted but
must be accompanied by a letter Proposer is not bondable for required
from a corporate surety satisfactory amount, or the bondable amount is
to MTDB, indicating that Proposer is not shown on the letter. No letter
bondable for the required amount from financial institution conceming I
and must be dated within the past Irrevocable Letter of Credit.
30 days. Proposer does not have resources to
furnish Letter of Credit for the
If Proposer intends to provide an required amount
Irrevocable Letter of Credit, the
technical proposal must be
accompanied by a letter from a
financial institution indicating that
Proposer has the resources 10
furnish the Irrevocable Letter of
Credit for the required amount, and
must be dated within the past
30 days.
-.~-
8. References
MANDA TORY CRITERIA A minimum of three (3) acceptable A minimum of three (3) acceptable
references from three different references not provided. References
clients where the bidder has not from three different clients.
provided satisfactory service Projects not similar in scope and
acceptable to AGENCY on projects complexity. Any of the three
similar in scope and complexity. Ail references are not from a public
three references must be from a agency where bidder has provided
public agency where bidder has publicly funded, regularly scheduled
provided publicly funded, regularly fixed-route transit service.
scheduled fixed-route transit service.
Agency shall be able to contact other Evidence that contractor has a
transit services operated by
Proposer in order to establish history of poor service quality
contractor service quality. performance under similar transit
fixed-route bus contracts.
----- --_.~--_._-.~-_.~~-.
A-17
-"- -
....----.
...
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 11/13/01
ITEM TITLE: Resolution waiving the formal consultant selection
process and approving an agreement with Allegis Development
Services, Inc. to provide Owner's Representation services during
the design and construction of the new police facility and related
improvements, authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement
SUBMITTED BY: ,"d 'ppmpP,I;p, !upd, to the POh;9ry pmject.
Sid Morris, Assistant City Manage~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~---(4/5ths Vote: Yes ~ No-->
At the July 10, 2001, joint meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency, staff was
authorized to begin condemnation proceedings for the property located at 362-398 "F"
Street for the construction of the City's new Police Headquarters. This agenda
statement provides recommendations for the award of an agreement to hire an Owner's
Representative to assist staff with the oversight and management of the Police project.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
Waive the formal consultant selection process and authorize staff to enter into an
agreement with Allegis Development Services, Inc. (ADS), to assist staff and represent
the City's interests regarding the construction of all aspects of the Police Headquarters.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE
Because of the complexity of the proposed Police Headquarters project, staff is
recommending that the City contract with an "Owner's Representative" to assist with the
oversight and management of the project's design and construction. In addition,
because this is the City's first design/build project, and a major one at that, contracting
with a firm that will assist staff with the standard practices of the design build process
will help guarantee a successful project.
5-/
-- --.------
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 11113/01
Contract Review
To assist with the preparation of the design/build contract, staff entered into an
agreement with ADS, under the contractual authority of the Purchasing Agent, and with
the law firm of McKenna & Cuneo, under the direction of the City Attorney. These
services were necessary to assist staff with drafting the City's design/build contract,
which initially would be used in negotiations for the new police headquarters and later
as a template for future City facilities using the design/build process.
Initially, it was staff's intent to consult with the owner's representative only regarding
contract development. In that vein, staff interviewed seven firms to fill that role:
. Allegis Development Services, Inc. (ADS)
. Gafcon
. Project Management Advisors, Inc.
. Vanir Construction Management, Inc.
. GAC Consulting
. B&G Consultants
Firms were evaluated based upon their experience with similar projects, experience with
design/build, and understanding of the City's goals regarding construction and delivery
of this project.
A staff committee comprised of Samir Nuhaily, Sr. Civil Engineer; Andy Campbell, Parks
and Recreation Director; Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney; and Sid Morris, Assistant
City Manager, interviewed each of the consultant teams. Staff narrowed the list to ADS,
Gafcon and Project Management Advisors. After additional review and reference
checks, ADS was selected to assist staff with the review and development of the
design/build agreement.
Subsequently, staff determined that ongoing assistance through the design and
construction phase would be beneficial to staff and the project. It is recommended that
the City Council waive the formal consultant selection process and approve the
agreement with ADS to act as an Owner's Representative regarding the negotiations
and implementation of the design/build agreement with Highland Partnership, Inc (HPI).
Justification for the sole source agreement is based on the following:
. The City's typical selection process for professional services would require two to
three months to complete. Informally, staff has interviewed seven competent
firms to assist with the contract development. Each firm has the capability of also
5'-..),
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 11/13/01
performing construction management functions and their approach to
construction management was also discussed and evaluated.
. Time is of the essence and the formal consultant selection process will only delay
the proposed project.
. Based on the informal consultant selection process, ADS has demonstrated
expertise in this specialized field by managing a number of high profile and
complex projects to successful completion and is uniquely qualified to assist staff
in design review, construction management, budget assessment and monitoring,
and the design/build process has convinced staff of ADS's competence and
capability to perform this work.
SCOPE OF WORK
If the ADS contract is approved, the proposed scope of work will include, but not be
limited to the following:
. Oversee the design/builder's proposed efforts with any required site remediation
as well as demolition of existing structures.
. Review current drawings/documents and fully understand the architect's
functional and aesthetic approach to the project and the architect's
understanding of the City's goals.
. Review all documentation compiled to date.
. Meet with design/builder to fully understand design/builder's understanding of
City's construction related goals and objectives and to review all other project
documents.
. Meet with City's project manager to fully understand City procedures and ensure
a smooth working relationship.
. Coordinate appropriate personnel and meetings pertaining to permitting and
code compliance.
. Examine in detail, the project's current schedule and cost estimates as to its
ability to satisfy the level of quality and specific requirements of the City.
. Continually review all plans and specifications generated by the architect and all
other consultants to ensure clarity and completeness, and to confirm
conformance with the City's goals and objectives and established budget and
schedule.
5-..3
. _. H______--'----
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 11/13/01
. Review and make recommendations regarding the Guaranteed Maximum Price
(GMP).
. Prepare regular project status reports.
. Attend weekly design review, budget, schedule and general conditions meetings.
. Provide review of all pay requests, change orders and other construction
documentation prior to City approval.
. Monitor and refine the project critical path schedule.
. Oversee the preparation of a punch list by the Architect at the completion of the
project. Please see attached for complete copy of agreement.
ADS/Kipland Howard's Development Backoround
ADS is a two-person firm. Mr. Kipland Howard, President of ADS, will directly provide
all services under this contract.
Mr. Howard's experience includes background in architecture, construction and finance
and management over a period of 25 years. He graduated from the University of
Tennessee with a degree in architecture and has been a practicing architect involved in
both design and development. While employed by Torrey Enterprises, Mr. Howard filled
the role of Director of Architecture, and in 1984 he was named President and Chief
Operating Officer, a position he held until 1989.
During his tenure at Torrey Enterprises, Mr. Howard oversaw the development of more
than $500 million in commercial and residential properties including: Columbia Center
(now known as First National Bank Building), San Diego Marriott Hotel and Marina and
the Torrey Pines Research and Development Park. In 1989 he formed Allegis
Development Corporation to provide construction management services to real estate
developers.
As ADS's president, Mr. Howard has been responsible for overseeing the following
projects, including but not limited to:
One Santa Fe Place $79 million
A high-rise, Class A, office facility with subterranean parking
26 stories
580,000 sq. ft.
In Final Design
5-'-1
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: 11113/01
Treo at Kettner $58 million
Condominium Project with retail space
26 stories
338 units
Under construction
Hilton Hotel $47 million
253 rooms, luxury resort
completed May, 2000
EI Cortez Hotel $22 million
Renovation of a 108,000 sq. ft. building from hotel use to condominiums
Completed May 2000
Four Seasons Resort $150 million
331 room luxury resort
Completed August, 1997
Council may question the need for an additional consultant and why this function could
not be handled in the normal course of staff operations. As noted previously, the
proposed project is considered complex and significant, not only in size, but also in cost
and process. To ensure its successful completion, on budget and within the defined
schedule, staff requires professional assistance from a construction management
specialist who has the background and expertise to assist staff with the management of
a project of this magnitude through the design/build process.
Fees
ADS has bid a fixed monthly fee of $14,500, and includes normal reimbursable charges.
Assuming a 24-month project schedule and 2-month contingency, the total will be
$377,000, which represents less than 1% of the hard construction costs which is within
the industry range. In addition, staff has researched this fee and found it to be
consistent with that charged for similar projects.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of this item will authorize the expenditure of $14,500 per month, a
not-to-exceed contract of $377,000, from the available fund balance in the General
Fund. Staff may choose to reimburse the General Fund for this expenditure after the
Bond financing package is approved by Council and funded.
Attachment - Agreement
J:\HomelAdminlAliegis Staff Report - final version 11/8/2001 9:40:50 AM
.};;-
- -,,'-~,-,~,- -,~-,--,-,--- , --,-----
RESOLUTION NO. 2001- -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA W AIV1NG THE FORMAL CONSULTANT
SELECTION PROCESS AND APPROVING AN AGREEMENT
WITH ALLEGIS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INc. TO
PROVIDE OWNER'S REPRESENT A TION SERVICES
DURING THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW
POLICE FACILITY AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS,
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS TO THE
POLICE FACILITY PROJECT
WHEREAS, at the July 10, 2001 joint meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment
Agency, staff was authorized to begin condemnation proceedings for the property located at 362-
398 "F" Street for the construction of the City's new Police Headquarters; and
WHEREAS, because of the complexity of the proposed Police Headquarters project, staff
is recommending that the City contract with an "Owner's Representative" to assist with the
oversight and management of the project's design and construction; and
WHEREAS, because this is the City's first designlbuild project, contracting with a finn
that will assist staff with the standard practices of the design build process will help guarantee a
successful project; and
WHEREAS, staff detennined that ongoing assistance through the design and construction
phase would be beneficial to staff and the project and recommended that the fonnal consultant
selection process be waived; and
WHEREAS, the City's typical selection process for professional services would require
two to three months to complete. Infonnally, staff has interviewed seven competent firms to
assist with the contract development. Each finn has the capability of also perfonning
construction management functions and their approach to construction management was also
discussed and evaluated; and
WHEREAS, because ADS has demonstrated expertise in this specialized field by
managing a number of high profile and complex projects to successful completion and is
uniquely qualified to assist staff in design review, construction management, budget assessment
and monitoring and design-build process issues necessary to implement the project, staff
recommends waiving as impractical, the fonnal consultant selection process.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby waive the fonnal Consultant Selection Policy and approve an Agreement with
Allegis Development Services, Inc. to provide Owner's Representation services during the
design and construction of the new police facility and related improvements, a copy of which
shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
s-t
---- .. .p-.- -...---.----,,---...
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amount of $377,000 is hereby appropriated fÌom
the unappropriated balance in the General Fund to the Police Facility Project.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Jkß
Sid Morris
Assistant City Manager
Jlauomeylccsol Allegis
$-7
2
Parties and Recital Page(s)
Agreement between
City of Chula Vista
and
Allegis Development Services, Inc.
For Project Management/City's Representative Services
This agreement ("Agreement"), dated September 17, 2001 by and between the City
of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California, and Allegis
Development Services, Inc. ("Consultant") is made with reference to the following facts:
Recitals
Whereas, City selected to hire a Design Builder for the design and construction
of a new police facility, parking lot and related on and off site improvements ('The
Project"); and,
Whereas, City has determined it requires a Project Manager/City Representative
to assist the City during the design and construction of the project; and
Whereas, Consultant has submitted a proposal to provide professional project
management and City Representative services for the project; and,
Whereas, City has waived the Consultant selection process in light of
Consultant's extensive design build experience, the time constraints of the project, and
Consultant's familiarity with the project; and
Whereas, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and
staffed in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services
required of Consultant to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance
with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby
mutually agree as follows:
1. Consultant's Duties
A. General Duties
Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A,
Paragraph 7, entitled "General Duties"; and,
B. Scope of Work and Schedule
In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant
shall also perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled"
Page 1
s---f
'Scopè of Work and Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to,
and within the time frames set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City such
Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth
therein, time being of the essence of this agreement. The General Duties and the work
and deliverables required in the Scope of Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to
as the "Defined Services". Failure to complete the Defined Services by the times
indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate to terminate this Agreement.
C. Reductions in Scope of Work
City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time
reduce the Defined Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement.
Upon doing so, City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the
purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with
said reduction.
D. Additional Services
In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require
Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Defined Services
("Additional Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of
services offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials
basis at the rates set forth in the "Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11 (C), unless
a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services
shall be paid monthly as billed.
E. Standard of Care
Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement, whether Defined
Services or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of
care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing
under similar conditions and in similar locations.
F. Insurance
Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed
by it in connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the
risk of loss by the following insurance coverages, in the following categories, and to the
limits specified, policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's
Rating of "A, Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City:
Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance
coverage in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 9.
Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance
coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit
applied separately to each project away from premises awned or rented by Consultant,
Page 2
s-¡
..- ._u_-.-----.----.. -..---_u....--.-------- -
'which'names City as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the
City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the
City in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage").
Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph
9, unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy.
G. Proof of Insurance Coverage.
(1) Certificates of Insurance.
Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to
the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of
Certificates of Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies
may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional
Insured.
(2) Policy Endorsements Required.
In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary
Coverage and Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial
General Liability Insurance Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the
City demonstrating same, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager.
H. Security for Performance.
(1) Performance Bond.
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for
Consultant to provide a Performance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the
parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance
Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the City a performance bond by a surety and in
a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is
indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Performance Bond", in said Paragraph 19,
Exhibit A.
(2) Letter of Credit.
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for
Consultant to provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical
space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then
Consultant shall provide to the City an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the City at
their unfettered discretion by submitting to the bank a letter, signed by the City
Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the terms of this Agreement. The
letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and amount satisfactory to
the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to
the term, "Letter of Credit", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A.
Page 3
Sf 0
..._. . -------.-
(3) Other Security
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for
Consultant to provide security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit
(indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the
subparagraph entitled "Other Security"), then Consultant shall provide to the City such
other security therein listed in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or
City Attorney.
I. Business License
Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise
comply with Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
2. Duties of the City
A. Consultation and Cooperation
City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the
progress of the Defined Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide
direction and guidance to achieve the objectives of this agreement. The City shall
permit access to its office facilities, files and records by Consultant throughout the term
of the agreement. In addition thereto, City agrees to provide the information, data,
items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, and with the further
understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond 30 days after
authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the
Consultant's performance of this agreement.
B. Compensation
Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City
periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, but in no event more frequently
than monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, City shall
compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms
and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11, adjacent to the governing
compensation relationship indicated by a "checkmark" next to the appropriate
arrangement, subject to the requirements for retention set forth in paragraph 19 of
Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses as provided in
Exhibit A, Paragraph 12.
All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the
propriety of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable
thereunder is proper, and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated
on Exhibit A, Paragraph 18 (C) to be charged upon making such payment.
Page 4
5-//
-....-------...... --..-. -.---..-.-.-------.
3. Administration of Contract
Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on
Exhibit A, Paragraph 13, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said
party to represent them in the routine administration of this agreement.
4. Term.
This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all
executory provisions hereof.
5. Liquidated Damages
The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in
Exhibit A, Paragraph 14.
It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of
this Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in
performance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to
compensate for delay.
Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified
in this Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar
day in excess of the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment
or Deliverable, the consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld from monies due,
the sum of Liquidated Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14 ("Liquidated
Damages Rate").
Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control, other than delays
caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator, or
designee, prior to the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when
granted, will be based upon the effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for
delays to minor portions of work unless it can be shown that such delays did or will
delay the progress of the work.
6. Financial Interests of Consultant
A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer.
If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as an "FPPC filer",
Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act
conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the
City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories
Page 5
S/ .J..
-- .-. . ... --.-.--..
as are specified in Paragraph 15 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as
determined by the City Attorney.
B. Decline to Participate.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant
shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's
position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason
to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by
this Agreement.
C. Search to Determine Economic Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant
warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and
inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations
promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that
Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest
which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this agreement.
D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant
further warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an
economic interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of
interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act.
E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant
further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City
Attorney of City if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may
result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and
regulations promulgated thereunder.
F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests.
Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's
immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant
Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any
property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, or in any property
within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of any property which may be the
subject matter of the Defined Services, ("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in
Exhibit A, Paragraph 15.
Page 6
5"-/3
-.------..-------.-- ..-
Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future
employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been
made to Consultant or Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's
performance of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such
promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months
thereafter.
Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such
Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the
expiration of this Agreement, except with the written permission of City.
Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this
Agreement, or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's
responsibilities under this Agreement, except with the written permission of City.
7. Hold Harmless
Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed
officers and employees, from and against all damages, liability, cost and expense
(including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of the negligent acts, errors or
omissions or the willful misconduct of the Consultant, and Consultant's employees,
subcontractors, or other persons, agencies or firms for whom Consultant is legally
responsible. In connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement,
except only for (1) those claims, damages, liability, costs and expenses (including
without limitation, attorney fees) arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of the
City, its officers, employees, or (ii) with respect to losses arising from Consultant's
professional errors or omissions, those claims arising from the negligence or willful
misconduct of City its officers or employees. Consultant's indemnification shall include
any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers,
agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to
judgment or not. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall not be limited by any
prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant. Consultant's obligations under this
Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
8. Termination of Agreement for Cause
If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner
Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the
covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to
terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and
specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of
such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies,
surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at
Page 7
S-/¥
..-..---.---..-....--..-.--.-
the option of the City, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled
to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on
such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination,
not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by
Consultant's breach.
9. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City
City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving
specific written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date
thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that
event, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove
shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the
Agreement is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be
entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed
on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such termination.
Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation
arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein.
9. Assignability
The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not
assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same
(whether by assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby
consents to the assignment of the portions of the Defined Services identified in Exhibit
A, Paragraph 17 to the subconsultants identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants".
1 O. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material
All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans,
procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this
Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or
properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private
use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other
country without the express written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted
authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public
Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any
such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced
under this Agreement.
11. Independent Contractor
City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an
independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the
Page 8
5-/5
______HO ..._.~ -
services required unGer this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept
Consultant's work product*,-Cor1Sulfant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees
or representatives are, for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent
contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none of them shall
be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited
to, overtime, retirement bei'IË'ifits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other
leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal income tax, social
security tax or any otb~J-pa~Q!.l!a.x, and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the
payment of same and shé 1I hard the City harmless with regard thereto.
12. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures
No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the
City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted
upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the
Chula Vista Municipal CodlilJ! lS s<:ime may from time to time be amended, the
provisions of which are ifTcörporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and
such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same.
Upon request bY'City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for
the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement.
..-.
13. Attorney's Fees --
~,"
Should a dispute arising.put oftl1is Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the
prevailing party shall be e11titled 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.
14. Statement of Costs
In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the
preparation of a report ocdocument in performing the Defined Services, Consultant
shall include, or cause th.~ jll(;lusion. of, in said report or document, a statement of the
numbers and cost in dollar'amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the
preparation of the report or document.
15. Miscellaneous
", -",,-- .
A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City
Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consultant shall have no
authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever.
Page 9
-. -.. .
-- -- ;;.$'c/ ¿,
- --- -----------------
B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman
If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 is marked, the Consultant and/or their
principals is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed
real estate broker or salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither
Consultant, nor their principals are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons.
C. Notices
All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant
to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to
any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or
deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid,
registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein
as the places of business for each of the designated parties.
D. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or
contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the
parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision
hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in
writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or
discharge is sought.
E. Capacity of Parties
Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other
party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into
this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to
enable it to enter into this Agreement.
F. Governing LawNenue
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be
brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of
California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible.
Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista.
[end of page. next page is signature page.]
Page 10
s~/7
Signature Page
to
Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Allegis Development Services, Inc.
for Project Management/City's Representative Services
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement
thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and
complete consent to its terms:
Dated: ,2001 City of Chula Vista
by:
Shirley Horton, Mayor
Attest:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John M. Kaheny, City Attorney
Dated: Allegis Devel pment Services, Inc.
Exhibit List to Agreement
(x) Exhibit A.
Page 11
s-/I
._......_~...._-.. .__.__.._.~._-----
Exhibit A
to
Agreement between
City of Chula Vista
and
Allegis Development Services, Inc.
1. Effective Date of Agreement: November 1, 2001
2. City-Related Entity:
(X) City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of
California
() Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of
the State of California
() Industrial Development Authority of the City of Chula Vista, a
() Other: , a [insert
business form]
("City")
3. Place of Business for City:
City of Chula Vista,
276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910
4. Consultant:
Allegis Development Services, Inc.
Kipland H@allegisdevelopmentcom
5. Business Form of Consultant:
( ) Sole Proprietorship
( ) Partnership
( X ) Corporation
Page 12
S/7
---
6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant:
427 "C" Street, Ste 316
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 238-5466
Fax: (619) 232-0703
7. General Duties:
Consultant shall work as the City's Owner's Representative throughout the
design and construction of the Project. Consultant's duties shall include the review all
construction documents, payment applications, GMP submittal, cost estimating, and
value engineering. Consultant shall also monitor efforts of D/!Hhroughout design and
construction to ensure work is being completed in a workman like fashion. Consultant
shall advise and assist City with all aspects of the Project.
"""""C" ~
8. Scope of Work and Schedule:
A. Detailed Scope of Work:
PHASE I. PRE-CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
Consultant services shall include, but are not limited to:
1.1 Interface with the appropriate representatives of City to evaluate its
specific requirements for design and construction of the Project and the status of
project development to date.
1.2 Meet with the Design-Build Architect to obtain the ~tect;s perspective
of the Project, and to review in detail the Design Drawings that have been
generated to date.
1.3 Meet with the appropriate personnel of D/B to clearly understand their
expectations and perspective of the project.
1.4 Review and provide recommendations and suggestions to the Project
Construction Schedule to be prepared by the 0/8.
15 Working with the D/B and City, assist with the finalization of a complete
Project budget.
1.6 Prepare the Project status and other reports for City as requested.
."
Page 13
Sd-D _. ~
H___Hm__-
1.7 Review and recommend for payment all invoices, billings, payment
applications and change orders issued throughout the course of this Phase of the
Project.
1.8 Attend weekly design review, budget, schedule and general coordination
meetings.
1.9 Review all plans, specifications and construction documents generated by
the Architect and various consultants to ensure clarity and completeness and to
ensure conformance with the established schedule and budget.
1.10 If scheduling conflicts arise as a result of review of D/B 's and others'
schedules and plans, Consultant shall advise City of various methods to
eliminate time delays associated with the Project.
1.11 Consultant shall provide to the City recommendations on various
subcontractors to be utilized by the D/B in obtaining competitive bidding on the
various major trade components of the project.
1.12 Oversee the activities of the entire D/B team to ensure conformance to the
objectives of City and to ensure adherence to the established budget and
schedule.
1.13 Function as watchdog for City over all activities performed by the D/B to
ensure that the City's overall objectives and goals are provided for during the
course of design and bidding of the Project.
1.14 Other services as requested by City reasonably necessary to ensure
Project proceeds in a manner satisfactory to the City.
PHASE II. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Consultant services shall include, but are not limited to:
2.1 Ove~see the D/B 's proposed efforts associated with any potential required
remediation of the site as well as the demolition of any existing structures that
may be required.
2.2 Meet with Architect to review current construction drawings and to fully
understand the Architect's functional and aesthetic approach to the Project and
the Architect's understanding of City's goals and objectives and to review all
documentation completed to date.
2.3 Meet with D/B to fully understand D/B 's understanding of City's
Page 14
S-...<: I
.-.. ..-.-----.---
construction related goals and objectives and to review all other documentation
associated with the Project.
2.4 Meet with City's D/B Project Manager/Superintendent to fully understand
the procedure that he/they intends to follow to ensure a smooth working
relationship with the City.
2.5 Coordinate with appropriate representatives of the City of Chula Vista as
they pertain to such matters as permitting and current code compliance.
2.6 Coordinate and interface directly with the City's technical staff members.
2.7 Coordinate and interface with any and all City representatives and with the
City's Bond Council if required.
2.8 Examine in detail the D/B 's current cost estimate as to its ability to satisfy
the level of quality and specific requirements of City.
2.9 Review the current Project schedule for all work to be performed under the
scope of the D/B 's agreement with City.
2.10 Continually review all plans and specifications generated by Architect and
all other consultants to ensure clarity and completeness and to confirm
conformance with the City's goals and objectives and established budget and
schedule.
2.11 Review and make recommendations on the guaranteed maximum price
(GMP) for the Project.
2.12 Prepare Project status and other reports for City as requested.
2.13 If scheduling conflicts arise as a result of review of D/B 's schedule and
plans, Consultant shall advise City of various methods to eliminate time delays
associated with the Project.
2.14 Attend weekly design review, budget, schedule and general coordination
meetings.
2.15 Represent City in reviewing all draw requests, change orders and other
construction documentation prior to City's payment of same.
2.16 Attend weekly site and coordination meetings as required by the City or
O/B.
Page 15
sc~..2..,
..---..--..-..-..
2.17 Working with the D/B and Architect, refine a detail critical path methoèl
schedule (CPM) provided by D/B.
2.18 Monitor adherence of the D/B 's activity to the Project budget and
schedule.
2.19 If requested by City, provide reports on the general job progress and
schedule and draw request.
2.20 Provide recommendations for any additional proposed vendors and
subcontractors to be utilized during the course of construction.
2.21 Provide definitive solutions to problems arising during the course of
construction prior to them impacting the Project schedule or budget.
2.22 Oversee the preparation of a punch list by the Architect at the completion
of construction.
2.23 Oversee the securing of final approvals including the obtainment of a final
Certificate of Occupancy, release of bonds and deposits, and appropriate lien
releases.
2.24 Provide representation of the Project as City's Representative to ensure
that City receives maximum value for their Project expenditure and that the
Project adheres to the stipulated time frame and budget, thereby minimizing
penalties and unnecessary costs.
2.25 Other services as requested by City reasonably necessary to ensure the
Project proceeds in a satisfactory manner.
B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services:
( ) Same as Effective Date of Agreement
(X) Other: October 17, 2001
C. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables: N/A
Deliverable No.1:
Deliverable No.2:
Page 16
5--2.3
------------.
Deliverable No.3:
D. Date for completion of all Consultant services:
December 31,2003 or City's acceptance of the building, whichever occurs
earlier. 9. Insurance Requirements:
(X) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance
(X) Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000.
(X) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000.
() Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (included in Commercial
General Liability coverage).
(X) Errors and Omissions Insurance: $250,000 $1,000,000 (not included in
Commercial General Liability coverage).
10. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant:
(X) Master Plan
(X) Design-Build Agreement
(X) Project Plans and Specifications
(X) Soils Report
(X) Phase I: Environmental Site Investigation (Chula Vista Towne Center and
Plaza EI Dorado)
(X) Phase II: Environmental Site Investigation (Chula Vista Towne Center and
Plaza EI Dorado)
Any and all other documents pertaining to the project site.
11. Compensation:
A. () Single Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For performance of all of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required,
City shall pay a single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones or for the
Deliverables set forth below:
Single Fixed Fee Amount: ~ , payable as follows:
Milestone or Event or Deliverable Amount or Percent of Fixed Fee
Page 17
5-;;;1
() 1. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly
advances against the compensation due for each phase on a
percentage of completion basis for each given phase such that, at
the end of each phase only the compensation for that phase has
been paid. Any payments made hereunder shall be considered as
interest free loans which must be returned to the City if the Phase is
not satisfactorily completed. If the Phase is satisfactorily
completed, the City shall receive credit against the compensation
due for that phase. The retention amount or percentage set forth in
Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at
the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back from the
compensation due for that phase. Percentage of completion of a
phase shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by
the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or such
other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon
such proof demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no
event shall such interim advance payment be made unless the
Contractor shall have represented in writing that said percentage of
completion of the phase has been performed by the Contractor.
The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert
this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment.
B. ( ) Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For the performance of each phase or portion of the Defined Services by
Consultant as are separately identified below, City shall pay the fixed fee associated
with each phase of Services, in the amounts and at the times or milestones or
Deliverables set forth. Consultant shall not commence Services under any Phase, and
shall not be entitled to the compensation for a Phase, unless City shall have issued a
notice to proceed to Consultant as to said Phase.
Phase Fee for Said Phase
1. $
2. $
3. $
() 1. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly
advances against the compensation due for each phase on a
percentage of completion basis for each given phase such that, at
Page 18
S-..(S
the end of each phase only the compensation for that phase has
been paid. Any payments made hereunder shall be considered as
interest free loans which must be returned to the City if the Phase is
not satisfactorily completed. If the Phase is satisfactorily
completed, the City shall receive credit against the compensation
due for that phase. The retention amount or percentage set forth in
Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at
the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back from the
compensation due for that phase. Percentage of completion of a
phase shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by
the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or such
other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon
such proof demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no
event shall such interim advance payment be made unless the
Contractor shall have represented in writing that said percentage of
completion of the phase has been performed by the Contractor.
The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert
this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment.
C. (X) Monthly Rate Arrangement
For performance of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City
shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth hereinbelow according to the
following terms and conditions:
(1) (X) Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement
Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and
materials in excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant
agrees that Consultant will perform all of the Defined Services herein
required of Consultant for $14,500 per month including all Materials, and
other "reimbursables" ("Maximum Compensation").
(2) () Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and Materials
Arrangement
At such time as Consultant shall have incurred time and materials
equal to ("Authorization Limit"), Consultant shall not
be entitled to any additional compensation without further authorization
issued in writing and approved by the City. Nothing herein shall preclude
Consultant from providing additional Services at Consultant's own cost
and expense.
Page 19
5-.2 b
.~--_.._-
Rate Schedule
Principal $ 265.00
Project Manager $ 85.00
12. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement
For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in the performance
of services herein required, City shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth
below:
(X) None, the compensation includes all costs.
Cost or Rate
() Reports, not to exceed $_:
() Copies, not to exceed $_:
( ) Travel, not to exceed $_:
() Printing, not to exceed $_:
() Postage, not to exceed $_:
() Delivery, not to exceed $_:
() Long Distance Telephone Charges,
not to exceed $_.
() Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs:
, not to exceed $
, not to exceed $
13. Contract Administrators:
City:
Samir M Nuhaily
Consultant:
Kipland Howard
14. Liquidated Damages Rate: N/A
( )$~perday.
( ) Other:
15. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of
Interest Code:
Page 20
$-~7
- .--------------..
(X) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer.
( ) FPPC Filer
() Category No.1. Investments and sources of income.
() Category No.2. Interests in real property.
() Category No.3. Investments, interest in real property and sources
of income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of
the department.
() Category No.4. Investments in business entities and sources of
income which engage in land development, construction or the
acquisition or sale of real property.
() Category No.5. Investments in business entities and sources of
income of the type which, within the past two years, have
contracted with the City of Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to
provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment.
() Category No.6. Investments in business entities and sources of
income of the type which, within the past two years, have
contracted with the designated employee's department to provide
services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment.
( ) Category No.7. Business positions.
( ) List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radial miles of
Project Property, if any:
16. ( ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman
17. Permitted Subconsultants:
Subject to approval bv Citv Administrator
16. Bill Processing:
A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time:
Page 21
5-;"< 8
----.--.-...-. ...--....-.------.
(X) Monthly
( ) Quarterly
( ) Other:
B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing:
(X) First of the Month
( ) 15th Day of each Month
( ) End of the Month
( ) Other:
C. City's Account Number: 09200-7999/2159149100-400000
17. Security for Performance
( ) Performance Bond, $
( ) Letter of Credit, $
( ) Other Security:
Type:
Amount: $
(X) Retention. If this space is checked, then notwithstanding other provisions
to the contrary requiring the payment of compensation to the Consultant
sooner, the City shall be entitled to retain, at their option, either the
following "Retention Percentage" or "Retention Amount" until the City
determines that the Retention Release Event, listed below, has occurred:
(X) Retention Percentage: 10%
( ) Retention Amount: $
Retention Release Event:
(X) Completion of All Consultant Services
( ) Other:
J:lAttorney\AgreelAliegis2prtycm1.doc
Page 22
,:;;--c--Z ~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meetiog Date 1I/13/01
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving a grant of easements and
maintenance agreement between McMillin Otay Ranch LLC and the City of
Chula Vista for the maintenance of public landscaping within a portion of
McMi1lin Otay Ranch SPA One and authorizing the Mayor to execute said
agreement.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works NI
REVIEWED BY: City ManagerY (4/Sths Vote: Yes_NoX)
Under this item Council will consider the approval of an agreement with McMillin setting forth the
obligations of the developer (and future Homeowners Association) for maintaining certain public
landscaping improvements within McMillin Otay Ranch SPA One, Subdivision Map Nos. 13884,
13649,13885,13919 and 13920.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approves the Resolution approving the grant of easements
and maintenance agreement with McMillin Otay Ranch LLC and authorizing the Mayor to execute
said agreement.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None.
DISCUSSION: In compliance with tentative map conditions of approval, the developer has formed
the Lomas Verdes Master Association (MHOA) to maintain common area landscaping within the
project. McMillin has requested the City allow the MHOA to be responsible for maintaining certain
public landscaping improvements. Initially, the developer will construct and maintain the
landscaping until it is established. After the landscaping has been established, McMillin would
transfer its obligations under the proposed agreement to the MHOA, which in turn may transfer said
obligations to a sub-association or apartment project's owner (Transferee).
The key points of the proposed agreement (see Exhibit "A") are the fo1lowing:
1. The City grants easements for landscape maintenance purposes over those public areas to
be maintained by the MHOA. In addition the City wi1l grant easements for access over
certain open space lots. These are illustrated on Attachments 1 and 2.
2. McMillin and the Homeowners Association are required to maintain certain areas as
shown in Exhibit "B" to the proposed agreement.
b -(
_. .-..---..----.-.-.-.-.- .--
Page2,Item~
Meeting Date 11/13/01
3. The agreement requires the MHOA to repair, at MHOA cost, any City's facility (i.e.,
sidewalk, trees, driveways) damaged by the MHOA maintenance operations.
4. The agreement contains provisions governing the transfer of the MHOA maintenance
obligations, insurance requirements, and indemnity provisions to a Transferee. The
agreement provides for the developer to be released fÌom all landscaping maintenance for the
project once transfer to the MHOA occurs.
Council has already approved two previous agreements addressing HOA Maintenance of public
areas within the McMillin Otay Ranch SPA One project. This last agreement covers the remaining
areas of the subject project. Staff believes that the proposed agreement will guarantee the
maintenance of the aforementioned public improvements and recommends Council approval. The
City Attorney has reviewed and approved the proposed agreement as to form.
FISCAL IMPACT: None to the City. The developer is paying for the cost of City staff involved
in processing the agreement.
Attachments: Exhibit A - Agreement
Attachment I and 2 - Plat of Maintained Areas
nENGINEERILANDDEVIOTA Y RANCH-MCMILLINIOR226FA1l3 HOA AGREEMENT 1O-31-0I.DOC
c: -~
RESOLUTION NO. 2001- ~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A GRANT OF EASEMENTS
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN McMILLIN
OTAY RANCH LLC AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR
THE MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC LANDSCAPING WITHIN
A PORTION OF McMILLIN OTAY RANCH SPA ONE AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, in compliance with tentative map conditions of approval, the developer has
formed the Lomas Verdes Master Association (MHOA) to maintain common area landscaping
within the project and McMillin has requested the City allow the MHOA to be responsible for
maintaining certain public landscaping improvements; and
WHEREAS, initially, the developer will construct and maintain the landscaping until it is
established and then would transfer its obligations under the proposed agreement to the MHOA,
which in turn may transfer said obligations to a sub-association or apartment project's owner
(Transferee); and
WHEREAS, Council has already approved two previous agreements addressing HOA
Maintenance of public areas within the McMillin Otay Ranch SPA One project and this last
agreement covers the remaining areas of the subject project; and
WHEREAS, staff believes that the proposed agreement will guarantee the maintenance of
the aforementioned public improvements and recommends Council approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby approve a grant of easements and maintenance agreement between McMillin
and the City of Chula Vista for the maintenance of public landscaping within a portion of
McMillin Otay Ranch SPA One, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City
Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
Presented by Approved as to form by
~ ~CfYlA ~
John P. Lippitt John. eny ~
Director of Public Works City Attorney
J\,ttomcyl,.csoIIIO^ McMilim OR Spa Ooe
6
- . -.--.--. ---- --
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City Clerk
City of Chura Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chura Vista, CA 91910
No transfer tax is due as this is a conveyance to a public
agency for less than afee interest for which no cash
consideration has been paid or received. '-- -'--.-.
(.'.ROVE SP.'..:E FOR RECORDERS USE)
GRANT OF EASEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
(DEDIC A TED EASEMENTS)
This GRANT OF EASEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made
asofthis_dayof_,_, by and between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation
("City"), and McMILLIN OT A Y RANCH LLC, a Delaware linùted liability company ("LLC").
RECITALS
A. This Agreement concerns and affects certain real property located in Chula Vista. California,
more particularly described in Exhibit" A" attached hereto and incorporated herein ("Property"). The Property
is part of a planned residential development project commonly known as "McMillin Lomas Verdes". For
purposes of this Agreement, the term "Project" shall refer to the overall McMillin Lomas Verdes project,
including, but not linùted to the "Property". Agreements, in sinùlar form as this Agreement were previously
entered into for other portions of McMillin Lomas Verdes.
B. LLC is the Declarant under that certain Amended and Restated Master Declaration of
Restrictions For McMillin Lomas Verdes Master Association filed for record on December 23, 1998 as
Document No. 1998-0844432, Official Reconis of San Diego County, California (the "Master Declaration").
LLC has caused the formation of McMillin Lomas Verdes Master Association, a nonprofit mutual benefit
corporation (the "MHOA") to maintain certain areas in the Project. Funhermore. one or more sub-associations
may be formed ("SHOA") for a particular project(s) within McMillin Lomas Verdes, the purposes of which
would include the maintenance of certain amenities within the project over which the SHOA has jurisdiction.
C. The Property is covered by those certain final maps (the "Final Maps") described on Exhibit
"A" attached hereto.
D. In order for LLC to obtain the Final Maps and for the City to have assurance that the
maintenance of certain areas within the Project would be provided for, the City and LLC entered into
Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreements, pursuant to City Council resolutions, in which LLC
DAJH\MCMILLlNlOT A Y\DREIPrkwysIPrkwEaseI2SeptOl. wpd
-1-
r;
....--- ..-... ._-----
agreed that maintenance of such areas shall be accomplished by the creation of a home owners association
and the establishment of a Community Facilities District. Parcels "F", "G" ,"H", "I", "J", "X" and"Y" described
on Exhibit" A" which consists of seventeen (17) pages attached hereto describe those particular easements
and rights-of-way which were dedicated to the public on the Final Maps, but which include landscaping
improvements to be maintained by the MHOA. The public areas to be maintained by the MHOA are collectively
referred to as the "MHOA Maintained Public Areas".
E. The City desires to grant to LLC easements for landscape maintenance purposes upon, over
and across the MHOA Maintained Public Areas in order to facilitate the obligations ofLLC as set forth in
Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreements, adopted pursuant to City resolutions.
F. The City also will allow LLC to cross appropriate portions of that certain open space areas
("Open Space Areas") described as Parcels "A", "B", "C", "D" and "E" on Exhibit "A" attached hereto for
purposes of access to slopes and other 4-"aS within the Project which will initially be maintained by LLC and
eventually maintained by the MHOA.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained. the parties agree
as set forth below.
1. Grant of Easements By City. The City hereby grants to LLC and its agents, successors and
assigns, non-exclusive easements and rights-of-way over and across the MHOA Maintained Public Areas,
for the purpose of maintaining, repairing and replacing the landscaping improvements located thereon. The
City also hereby grants to LLC and its agents, successors and assigns, a non-exclusive access easement across
the Open Space Areas for the purpose of obtaining access to maintain those slopes and other areas within
the Project which will become part of the area maintained by the MHOA. This grant is made without any
warranties of any kind, express or implied, other than the warranty stated in Section 13 (0 below.
2. Maintenance Obligations.
(a) LLC to Initially Maintain MHOA Areas. LLC hereby covenants and agrees, at its
sole cost and expense, to maintain, repair and replace, or cause to be maintained, repaired or replaced,
the MHOA Maintained Public Areas, including all landscape improvements located thereon at a level
equal to or better than the level of maintenance set forth in the Project's Landscape and Irrigation Plan
("Landscape Plan"), as approved by the City. For purposes ofthis Agreement, the term "Maintenance"
or "Maintain" shall mean the maintenance, repair and replacement obligations described herein and
on Exhibit "B" hereto. (Exhibit "B" also refers to the maintenance responsibilities of certain other
parties with respect to Property described in Exhibit "A" hereto). LLC also hereby covenants and
agrees. at its sole cost and expense, to maintain, repair and replace orcause to be maintained, repaired
or replaced, any walls within Parcels "I" or "J".
(b) Transfer to MHOA. Upon LLC's transfer of Maintenance obligations to the MHOA,
LLC (i) the MHOA shall become obligated to perform the obligations so transferred and (ii) subject
to the City determining that the requirements of Section 3 below have been satisfied, LLC shall be
released from such obligation.
T:\A1H\MCMILt./NlOT A YlDRElPrkwyslPrkwEase 12SeptO I. wpd
-2-
[,-5'
- --.--.--.---...-. ..-. .."'0- --""'--"------'-" --
(c) Transfer By MHOA. The MHOA shall have the right to transfer Maintenance
obligations to a SHOA or to the owner of an aponment project ("Transferee"). Upon the MHOA's
transfer of Maintenance obligations to a Transferee, (i) the Transferee shall become obligated to
perform the obligations so transferred, (ii) MHOA shall retain the right to perform the Maintenance
should the transferee fail to do so, and (Hi) the MHOA shall be released from the obligations so
transferred subject to the City determining that the requirements of Section 4 below have been satisfied.
3. Assignment by LLC and Release of LLC.
(a) Assignment. Upon LLC's transfer of the Maintenance obligations to the MHOA, it
is intended by the ponies that the MHOA shall perform the Maintenance obligations either by its own
forces or by contractors. Such transfer will release LLC from its obligations only if all of the following
occur:
(i) MHOA Acceots Obligation. The MHOA has unconditionally accepted and
assumed all ofLLC's obligations under this Agreement in writing, such assignment provides
that the burden ofthis Agreement remains a covenant running with the land, and the assignee
expressly assumes the obligations ofLLC under this Agreement. The assignment shall also
have been approved by the appropriate governing body of the MHOA by resolution or similar
procedural method and approved as to form and content by the City Attorney. The City shall
not unreasonably withhold its consent to such assignment.
(ii) MHOA's Master Declaration. The City has reviewed and approved the MHOA's
recorded Master Declaration to confirm that said document contains appropriate maintenance,
indemnity and insurance provisions. The City hereby acknowledges that it has so approved
the Amended and Restated Master Declaration of Restrictions For McMillin Lomas Verdes
Master Association filed for record on December 23, 1998 as Document No. 1998-0844432,
Official Records of San Diego County, California. This condition (ii) will apply to any further
amendments which require City consent pursuant to provisions of the Master Declaration
or which would be contrary to the terms of this Agreement.
(iii) MHOA Insurance. The MHOA procures and fonnally resolves to maintain
at its sole cost and expense, commencing upon the City's release of all of LLC's landscape
maintenance bonds, a policy of comprehensive general :iability insurance written on a per
occurrence basis in an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) combined single
limit. The insurer issuing such insurance shall have a rating of "A, Class VTI" or better with
no modified occurrences and as admitted by Best's Insurance Guide. Said insurance shall be
primary insurance and shall name the City, its officers. employees and agents as additional
insureds. The MHOA shall provide the City with a Certificate of Insurance upon acceptance
of the transfer of the Maintenance obligations herein.
(b) Release. When all conditions precedent in Paragraph 3(a) are fulfilled, LLC shall
be released from its obligations under this Agreement, including its security and insurance requirements.
LLC acknowledges that it has a contractual obligation to perform the terms and conditions of this
Agreement until and unless released by the City from this Agreement. At least sixty (60) days prior
T:\AJH\MCMILLIN\OT A YlDRElPrkwyslPrkwEase12SeptOI. wpd
-3-
& I
'0
- ...... . ------.------ ------ -.
to such transfer. LLC shall give notice to the City ofLLC's intent to transfer its Maintenance obligations
herein and provide the City with the appropriate documents listed in Paragraph 3(a).
4. Assil!nment by MHOA and Release of MHOA.
(a) Assignment. Upon MHOA's transfer of the Maintenance obligations to a Transferee,
it is intended by the parties that the Transferee shall perform the Maintenance obligations either by
its own forces or by contractors. Such transfer will release the MHOA from its obligations only if
all of the following occur:
(i) Tcansferee AcceDts Obli"ation. The Transferee has unconditionally accepted
and assumed all of the MHOA's obligations under this Agreement in writing, such assignment
provides that the burden of this Agreement remains a covenant running with the land, and
the assignee expressly assumes the obligations of the MHOA under this Agreement. If the
Transferee is an SHOA, the assignment shall also have been approved by the appropriate
governing body of the SHOA by resolution or similar procedural method and approved as
to form and content by the City Attorney. The City shall not unreasonably withhold its consent
to such assignment.
(ii) SHOA's Declaration of Restrictions. The Transferee is an SHOA, the City
has reviewed and approved the SHOA's recorded Declaration of Restrictions toconfmn that
said document contains appropriate maintenance, indemnity and insurance provisions.
(iii) SHOA Insurance. The Transferee procures and formally resolves to Maintain
at its sole cost and expense, a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance written
on a per occurrence basis in an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000)
combined single limit. The insurer issuing such insurance shall have a rating of "A, Class
VII" or better with no modified occurrences and as admitted by Best's Insurance Guide. Said
insurance shall be primary insurance and shall name the City, its officers, employees and
agents as additional insureds. The SHOA shall provide the City with a Certificate of Insurance
upon acceptance of the transfer of the Maintenance obligations herein.
(b) Release. When all conditions precedent in Paragraph 4(a) are fulfilled, the MHOA
shall be released from its obligations under this Agreement, including its sewrity and insurance
requirements. At least sixty (60) days prior to such transfer, MHOA shall give notice to the City of
MHOA's intent to transfer its Maintenance obligations herein and provide the City with the appropriate
documents listed in Paragraph 4(a).
5. Insurance. Section 5.1 (a) of the Master Declaration requires that the MHOA procure and
maintain certain insurance. That Section reads as follows:
(a) General Liability Insurance. The Master Association shall obtain a comprehensive
general liability and property damage insurance policy insuring the Master Association and
the Owners against liability incident to ownership oruse of the Master Association Property.
The limits of such insurance shall not be less than $3 Million covering all claims for death,
TIAJH\MCMILLIN\OT A Y\DREIPrkwysIPrkwEaset2SeptOI. wpd
-4-
~-7
- ~_._"--"_._"._.. - .-...-..---.-.."
personal injury and property damage arising out of a single occurrence. Such insurance shall
include the following additional provisions provided they are available on a commercially
reasonable basis:
(i) The City of Chula Vista shall be named as an additionally insured party to
such insurance;
(ii) The policy shall not contain a cross-suit exclusion clause which would abrogate
coverage should litigation ensue between insureds;
(iii) The policy shall contain the following severability clause (or language which
is substantially the same): "The coverage shall apply separately to each insured except with
respect to the limits of liability."
This Section 5.1 (a) may not be amended without the written consent of the City Planning
Director or City Attorney.
Until such time as the MHOA has obtained such insurance, LLC hereby agrees to procure and maintain a
policy of comprehensive general liability insurance written on a per occurrence basis in an amount not less
than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit, at its sole cost and expense.
6. Indemnitv. LLC hereby indemnifies the City as stated in Section 6.3 of the Master Declaration
which reads as follows:
Indemnitv The Declarant and Master Association, respectively shall
indemnify and hold the City, its officers, agents and employees, harmless
from any liability, cost or expense, including reasonably incurred attorneys'
fees, which result from the Declarant's or the Master Association's respective
failure to comply with the requirements of the Section above entitled
"Continuing Obligation To Maintain Certain Public Areas". Neither the
Declarant nor the Master Association shall have any liability under this
Section by reason of (i) the other party's failure to maintain or (ii) any
Transferee's failure to maintain. It is specifically intended that the City shall
have the right to enforce this Section. This Section may not be amended
without the written consent of the City Planning Director or City Attorney.
7. Indemnitv If Transferee. The document whereby the MHOA transfers a Maintenance
obligation to a SHOA or apartment owner shall be signed by both the MHOA and the Transferee and shall
set forth an express assumption of Maintenance and other obligations hereunder and shall include the following
indemnification provision:
Indemnitv The [Transferee's name] shall indemnify and hold the City, its
officers, agents and employees, harmless from any liability, cost or expense,
including reasonably incurred attorneys' fees. which result from the
Transferee's failure to comply with the requirements of the obligations
transferred hereby to Transferee. Transferee shall not have any liability under
BAJH\MCMILLIN\OT A Y\DREIPrkwysIPrkwEase 12SeptOl.wpd
-5-
{;-f
this Indemnity by reason of another party's failure to maintain. It is
specifically intended that the City shall have the right to enforce this
Indemnity. This Indemnity may not be amended without the written consent
of the City Planning Director or City Attorney.
8. Al!reement Applicable to Subsequent Owners.
(a) Agreement Binding Upon any Successive Parties. This Agreement shall be
binding upon LLC and any successive Declarant under the Master Declaration. This Agreement shall
be binding upon MHOA and any Transferees upon transfer of Maintenance obligations to the MHOA
or Transferee, respectively. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of the successors, assigns and
interests of the parties as to any or all of the Property.
(b) Agreement Runs Witb the Land. The burden of the covenants contained in this
Agreement ("Burden") is forthe benefit of the Property and the City, its successors and assigns, and
any successor-in-interest thereto. The 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 private, in whose favor and for whose benefit such covenants running with the land have been
provided, without regard to whether the 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.
9. Governinl! Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of California.
10. Effective Date. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be effective as of the date
this Agreement is recorded in the Official Records of the San Diego County Recorder's Office.
II. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which
shall be original and all of which shall constitute one and the same document.
12. Recordinl!. The parties shall cause this Agreement to be recorded in the Official Records
of the San Diego County Recorder's Office within thirty (30) days after this Agreement has been approved
by the City Council.
13. Miscellaneous Provisions.
(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 United States mail, certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, flIst-class postage
HAJH\MCMILLIN\OT A Y\DREIPrkwyslPrkwEase 12SeptO 1. wpd
-6-
h-9
- ..------ - --- - ---------.----
prepaid, addressed to the address indicated in this Agreement. A party may change such address for
the purpose of this Paragraph by giving written notice of such change to the other party.
If To City:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Department of Public Works/Engineering Division
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Ann: City Engineer
¡fToLLC:
McMÚiin Otay Ranch LLC
Development Engineering
The McMillin Companies
2727 Hoover Avenue
National City, California 91950
Attn: Mr. Robert A. Pletcher
(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, together with any other written document referred
to herein, embody the entire agreement and understanding between the parties regarding the subject
matter hereof, and any and all prior or contemporaneous 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) Recitals; Exhibits. Any recitals set forth above and any attached exhibits are
incorporated by reference into this Agreement.
(e) Compliance With Laws. In the performance of its obligations under this Agreement,
LLC, its agents and employees, shall comply with any and all applicable federal, state and local rules,
regulations, ordinances, policies, permits and approvals.
(f) Authority of Signatories. Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and
represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal
to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions and/or other actions have been taken so as to
enable said signatory to enter into this Agreement.
(g) Modification. This Agreement may not be modified. tennioatedorrescinded, in whole
or in part, except by written instrument duly executed and acknowledged by the parties hereto, their
successors or assigns, and duly recorded in the Official Records of the San Diego County Recorder's
Office.
T:\AJH\MCMILLIN\OT A YlDRElPrkwyslPrkwEasel2SeptOI. wpd
-7-
t-IO
-
(h) Severability. If any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable. the remainder
of this Agreement, or the application of such term, covenant or condition to person or circumstance,
shall not be affected thereby and each term, covenant or condition shall be valid and be enforced to
the fullest extent permitted by law.
(i) Preparation of Agreement. No inference, assumption or presumption shall be drawn
from the fact that a party or its attorney prepared and/or drafted this Agreement. It shall be conclusively
presumed that both parties participated equally in the preparation and/or drafting of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day
and year first set forth above.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation McMILLIN OT A Y RANCH, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
BY:
By:
Mayor
Attest:
V~L-
--tlrtCPt?1:::--<;1~í'- Title
Susan Bigalow, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: /ii£.crrq.~r; IVlL>¿,"'í +'" By: Q.~~
í,"-1~~- r<.o-;~c '."-\ ,City Attorney
Attorney for McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC
BAJH\MCMILLINIOT A Y\DREIPrkwysIPrkwEase12SeptOl. wpd
-8-
r;, -/1
--_. ---------------._-
}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO }
On 9/20/01 . before me, Dawn B. Mendoza Notary Public personally
appeared Don Mitchell and Sohail Bokhari personally known to me to be the persons
whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they
executed the same in their authorized capacities, and that by their signatures on the instrument
the persons or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal. ~
~ COMM.# 1289356 z
~ NOlARY PUBUC.CALIFORNIA ~
Signature ~ (l) 171ß.-1t.~~ " SAN DIEGO COUNTY ~
~
Th', "" fOf omo',1 001,",1 ,.,1
Title of Document Grant of Easements and Maintenance Agreement Otay Ranch
Date of Document No. of Pages
Other signatures not acknowledged
(; -í.J,
Nof'fYFo~.2 -'----- - .._------
-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
On '11:)4101 , before me, [/imWh u. We~t71.r, Notary Public, personally appeared-
A. John H-ec..h.t
, personally known to me (Of !,fe . eà te "'" gR th@ Basis ef Sflti~fadu,y
eJÚ4me€) to be the person()¡:) whose nameoo~ subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged
to me that@s'k'e/t rey executed the same in is rffltêir authorized capacity(i~), and that by~/tkéir
signature~ on the instrument, the person ){), or the entity upon behalf of which the person~) acte , executed
the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal. I @ EUlABE<H u. "","1
S;S"""~ ~LL~
COMM. #1225044
M" NOTARYPUBUC-cAUFORNIA H
~DIE~O C~NTY
~ My mmsslon Ires I (Seal)
JUNE 18, 2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) 5S.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
On , before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared-
, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged
to me that he/she/they executed the same in hislher/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hislher/their
signature( s) on the instrument, the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed
the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (Seal)
TIAJHIMCMILLINIOT A YIDREIPrkwyslPrkwEase 12SeptOl. wpd
-9-
r;-/3
EXHIBIT "A"
Exhibit "A" consists of seventeen (17) pages
which show and describe Parcels "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", "F", "G", "H", "I", "J", "X" and "Y"
T:\AJH\MCMILLIN\OT A YlDREIPrkwysIPrkwEase12SeptO l.wpd
b - /if
...,---...-...---.. ----
J-13126L
RIGHT TO PASS OVER
Parcel "A"
Lot "A" of Chula Vista Tract No. 98-04, McMillin Otay Ranch SPA I, Phase 3 in the
City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 13884 filed in the Office of the Recorder of said County December 8,
1999.
jb/131261.O36
6 -IS
-- ----- ----------- ----- --.
j-13126L
RIGHT TO PASS OVER
Parcel "B"
Lot "B" of Chula Vista Tract No. 98-04, McMillin Otay Ranch SPA I, Phase 3 in the
City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 13884 filed in the Office of the Recorder of said County December 8,
1999.
JbJ131261.036
b -í(¿
- ~-----~-------
J-13126L
RIGHT TO PASS OVER
Parcel "C"
Lot "C" of Chula Vista Tract No. 98-04, McMillin Otay Ranch SPA I, Phase 3 in the
City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 13884 filed in the Office of the Recorder of said County December 8,
1999.
jbl131261.036
~ -/7
j-13126L
RIGHT TO PASS OVER
Parcel "0"
Lot "0" of Chula Vista Tract No. 98-04, McMillin Otay Ranch SPA I, Phase 3 in the
City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 13884 filed in the Office of the Recorder of said County December 8,
1999.
jb/131261.036
& -if
~----- -~ ~-----
J-13126L
RIGHT TO PASS OVER
Parcel "E"
Lot "An of Chula Vista No. 98-04, McMillin Otay Ranch SPA I, Phase 2 in the City
of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 13649 filed in the Office of the Recorder of said County
October 15,1998.
Jb/131261.036
~ -(9
------------------ - - - ---
J-13126L
MASTER HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION
MAINTAINED PUBLIC AREAS
Parcels "F". "G" and "H"
That portion of Santa Cora Avenue as dedicated to public use on Chula Vista Tract
No. 98-04 McMillin Otay Ranch SPA I, Phase 2, Map No. 13649, shown as Parcels
"F", "G" and "H" on Exhibit 1.
jbl131261.037
~ -~O
- . -----_.-..-- .----.-.--.-.- -
.,'.
#c~ (",
Y~~/+-ryu~-1 CHULA YISTA TRACT 9a-D4
.:' 0;--1)- 1//0$7'-1 I \ McMILLIN DTAY RANcH
#"¡p :-1/);0..." 7'ri:4°J sPA I PHASE 3
/0. /~ o$P-1 Ja-Oý MAP NO, 13884
. 6Ý9 \ '...y-1o$
LOT -4 \ ¿- <'
I I
) )
16' CHULA YISTA TR%Ct '98-04
McMILLIN DrAY RANCH SPA 1
17 PHAsE 3 UNI T 2 (,7-42)
18 MAP NO, 13920
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
CIVil ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS' PLANNERS McMILLIN OTA Y RANCH SPA I
5620 FRIARS ROAD. SAN DIEGO PHASE 3, EXHIBIT "1"
CA. 92110-2596 PHONE.¡ (619) 291-0707~, , CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NUMBER. 13126L :).j C. V. T. 97-02
.., -<' ,..,
nOTC. ~~~~-_.- _M- ... .,,_. ----- -."..--...- ~.._, ,.----..--
------------
EXHIBIT' ,
1-
/
~A /
NO SCALE
;:,j:'(:Z-¡;:jI 1.0.0. OF FEE INTEREST FOR PEDESTRIAN
---- OR PUBUC ACCESS PURPOSES
,f'; "
V'
EASEMENT FOR PUBL lC ACCESS
TO THE CITY OF CHULA V¡STA
DOCUMENT NO. 2000-0475475
RECORDED SEPTEMBER 5. 2000
(SEE ATTACHED DWG. )
'" ~ RICK J.13126-L
! ~ ENGINEERING McMILLIN OTA Y RANCH SPA I
~ ww,utcla~,"" '" CCMPANY PHASE 2
s CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CAUFORNIA
~ ROBERT G. SCHOETTMER. LS 4324 DATE C.v'T. 97-02
~::;~~:'::=;;""" ~ ~ l - - --
--- - --0_--_-------
--~
z ~ $J ~
SCALE: l' = 100'
Ú/ iI1EDt<t
!/..8?24'581Y. ROAD
-----JRJ
---- :
tz; -- C
~ yffj<N?"I4'f5'~ (8(.9~~- - -
~ I 'f1!~ N7'4'~E "fW~ ~
-..,
(\1 ~ li) ~
~è(c:-, ~ &~ ~O:_--~,;~~~:~~~;,S:~~,~
~ (i) '-i:ì
lj\ "J ~
::C:-.., ~
~~ , ~ ~ LI N 89'08'27' E 48.09
';::~i:::) ~ ;J::~"v L2 N 67' 18'27' E 10.17
~~< ~ L3 N 69'24'06' W 67.0S
I s::o:: L4 N 37' 46' 30' W 14. IS
~-Äi\ ~ ~~ LS N 82'43'S7' W 22.S2
'\~~ I!:ft L6 N 82' 43' 57" 52.50
)-..;, -..; ~ ~ L7 N 69'24'06' W 49,S2
(1') i:::) '..., PARCEL "I" ~ L8 NI7'SI'2I'W 2.92
:::::<-'"
-..,
'\ --I ~l CHULA VISTA TRACT 97-02
--1--1 (i) jl¡JcMILLIN OTA Y r?ANCH SPA I
:::)-..,:'\
:::;::S::~ PHASE 2>, MAP No - 13BB5
C3~l1..;
~
CURVE TABLE
No, DELTA RADIUS ARC
R.759SO' --------------------------------
CI 21' 50' 00' 249. SO 9S.08
1'ÌC!}Y-5..6_'Y!fll- - - - - C2 0' 33' 00' 2083.00 20.00
Ñf;ï<jN-wCRJ- - - - - - C3 II' 34' 24' 739.50 149.37
C4 II' 22' 47' 759,50 150.85
R-52250' C5 17'27'26' 522.50 159.20
~
. ORNER ,--
-- svil~Y C 3605 - - -
¡.¡,Þf' I -~p.)
-'{)S
~í54
RICK ENGINEERING COMPAN
CIVIL ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS PlAT TO ILLUSTRATE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF
5620 FRIARS ROAD. SAN DIEGO WALL" WALL MAINTENANCE, lANDSC4PE AND
CA- 92110-2596 PHONE2 (619) 291-0707 lANDSC4PE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT 0 VER
A PORTION OF lOT "C"OFMAPNUMBER 13885
PROJECT NUMBER. 13126-L
-----. '-~3
DATE. AUGUST 29. 200 I
~'~"""'-""'"
- ~ ----~
COURSE TABLE CURVE TABLE .~
No. DIRECTION DISTANCE No. DELTA RADIUS ARC Ò
--------------------------- -------------------------------- co
II N 79' 17' 09' W 0.40 CI 71' II' 44' 92.50 114.94 II
L2 N 82'43'57' W 55.61 C2 13' 36' 30' 84.50 20.07 :..
l3 N 82'43'57' W 38.41 C3 0' 35' 45' 1923.00 20.00 ~
L4 N 15'54'37' E 47.44 ð
'"
LEGEND
POD. INDICATES POINT OF BEGINNING
(RJ INDICATES R.ADIAL BEAAING
- ~LOItt4R
-~
PARCEL"Ju --------
NBTO6'2I'E 2/5B2'
~#:fM
McMILLIN OrA Y RANCH SPA 1 'I¡'- !<J
c..;" i?;
èvb
.'>'~
~
PHASE 2, MAP No. 13849
LOT J
APN 642.080-09
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY PiA T TO ILLUSTRA TE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
CIVIL ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS OF WALL- WALL MAINTENANCE, iANDSC4PE
AND iANDSC4PE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT
5620 FRIARS ROAD, SAN DIEGO OVER A PORTION OF LOT "8" OF McMILLIN
CA. 92110-2596 PHONEI (619) 291-0707 OTA Y RANCH SPA 1, PHASE 2, MAP 13649
PROJECT NUMBER. 13126-L (DOC NO. 2000-0475475)
DATE. AUGUST 29. - 200 I b-,),f
-,,-""" ,,-,-...
-,,~,-,~- -- ----------- ---
J-13126L
MASTER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
MAINTAINED PUBLIC AREAS
Parcel "X"
Those portions of the Right-of-way of Bull Canyon Road, Santa Flora Road,
Alondra Court, Rossin Court and Hayford Road adjoining HOA maintained open
space Lots Band C as shown on Chula Vista Tract No. 97-02, McMillin Otay
Ranch SPA I, Phase 2, Unit 7 (R-12E), in the City of Chula Vista, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to Map No. 13885 filed in the Office of the
Recorder of said County on December 8, 1999 (See Exhibit "X 1 "); together with
those portions of the Right-of way of Corral View Avenue, Valley Bend Street and
Ranchette Place adjoining HOA maintained open space Lot A as shown on
Chula Vista Tract No. 98-04, McMillin Otay Ranch SPA I, Phase 3, Unit 1 (R41),
in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, according to
Map No. 13919 filed in the Office of the Recorder of said County on January 28,
2000 (see Exhibit "X2"); together with those portions of the Right-of-way of
Falcon Peak Street, Deer Peak Court and Ridge Rock Court adjoining HOA
maintained open space Lot A as shown on Chula Vista Tract No. 98-04, McMillin
Otay Ranch SPA I, Phase 3, Unit 2 (R42), in the City of Chula Vista, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to Map No. 13920 filed in the Office of
the Recorder fo said County on January 28, 2000 (see Exhibit "X3").
jb/13126iO36
&-~S-
- .....-..-....--- --------..--------.
í
33 I 34
k:
~
N
~
t
HOA MAINTAINED CITY PROPERTY
EASEMENT OR RIGHT OF WAY NO SCALE
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
CIVIL ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS, PLANNERS McMILLIN OTA Y RANCH SPA I
5620 FRIARS ROAD. SAN DIEGO PHASE 2J EXHIBIT 11)(111
CA. 92110-2596 PHONE! (619) 291-0707 CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NUMBER. 13126l C.v'r. 97-02
DATE. JUNE 5, 2001 ~:~E: 6' - .l fa
----- ----------
81
88 82 75 \
87 83 74 a
S t:--
84 73 \
72
'00 ~
"
'" 1
z
([)
" ..."
».
'"
'"
¡-
'00
-\
~
.
HOA MAINTAINED CITY PROPER1Y .~
EASEMENT OR RIGHT OF WAY NO SCALE
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY McMILLIN OTA Y RANCH SPA I
CIVIL ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS. PLANNERS
5620 FRIARS ROAD. SAN DIEGO PHASE 3~ EXHIBIT /1)(2/1
CA. 92110-2596 PHONE: <619) 291-0707 CITY OF CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NUMBER, 131261 C. V. T. 97-02
DA TE. JUNE 5. 2001 ~:=~.: b - ), 7
- --.--.-----.-.-- .
t
ê 54 53 52 31 16
:;;: en
32 17 >-
DEER PEAK 18 ~
33 >-
34 19
60
::.;¡
~
I\(
I
NO SCALE
'>!æiJ#¡~ HOA MAINTAINED CITY PROPERTY
- -""* EASEMENT OR RIGHT OF WAY
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY McMILLIN OTA Y RANCH SPA I
CIVIL ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS, PLANNERS
5620 FRIARS ROAD. SAN DIEGO PHASE 3~ EXHIBIT 11)(3'1
CA. 92110-2596 PHONE! (619) 291-0707 CITY OF CHULA VISTA,. CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NUMBER. 13126L C.v.T. 97-02
DA TE. JUNE 5, 2001 ~:=:;;;: b - ~B
-~ _.~"._.. -_._----
J-13126L
MASTER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
MAINTAINED PUBLIC AREAS
Parcel "Y"
The pedestrian access easement granted to the City of Chula Vista over a portion
of Lot A of Chula Vista Tract No. 98-04, McMillin Otay Ranch SPA I, Phase 3, Unit
1 IR41) in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map No. 13919 filed in the Office of the Recorder of said County on
January 28, 2000 (see Exhibit "Y1 HI; together with the pedestrian access
easement granted to the City of Chula Vista over a portion of Lot B of Chula Vista
Tract No. 97-02, McMillin Otay Ranch SPA I, Phase 2, Unit 7 (R-12E) in the City of
Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map No. 13885
filed in the Office of the Recorder of said County on December 8, 1999 (see Exhibit
"Y2H); together with the slope area and retaining wall that lie North of the
pedestrian access easement granted to the City of Chula Vista over a portion of Lot
C of Chula Vista Tract No. 97-02, McMillin Otay Ranch SPA I, Phase 2, Unit 7 (R-
12E) in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to Map No. 13885 filed in the Office of the Recorder of said County on December
8, 1999 (see Exhibit "Y2").
b/131261.036
C-;<~
81
88 82 75 \
87 83 74 a
S iO"
84 73 ~
86 C')
72
\
C!> '>
"1l .....
'þ.
'"
""
¡--
'"
""
HOA MAINTAINED CITY PROPERlY ~~
EASEMENT OR RIGHT OF WAY NO SCAlE
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY McMILLIN OTA Y RANCH SPA I
CIVil ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS. PLANNERS
5620 FRIARS ROAD. SAN DIEGO PHASE 3, EXHIBIT "Y1"
CA. 92110-2596 PHONE: (619) 291-0707 CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NUMBER, 13126L C. V. T. 97-02
DATE, JUNE 5, 2001 ~:¡¡r..:::;:;:: 6-30
-, --- -- -"_.._---------
EAST
.P-t¿O~
~- (
S~
10 II 12 13 14
9
PLEAsANTON
24 23
CHULA VISTA TRACT 98-04
McMILLIN OTAY RANcH SPA I
49 PHASE 2 - MAP NO, 13885
51 52
N
~ NO SCALE
- ~:~~~~WGW o';:RæÄ~RlY
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY McMILLIN OTA Y RANCH SPA I
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS. PLANNERS
5620 FRIARS ROAD, SAN DIEGO PHASE 2, EXHIBIT IIY2"
CA, 92110-2596 PHONE: (619) 291-0707 CITY OF CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NUMBER, 13126L C.v.T.97-02
DATE> JUNE 5, 2001 ~::;;'::~: ¿ - j /
- --- ------------------------- ---
EXHIBIT B
Description of Maintenance Responsibilities
McMillin Otay RanchSPA One - South of East Palomar Street (excluding Chelsea project)'
Area MHOA Homeowner Maintains CFD 97-1 Maintains City's General
Maintains Fund Maintains
Residential Streets All public parkways not Public Parkway along N/A Tree Trimming
adjacent to single family the frontage of single
residential lots family residence lot
including tree irrigation
Southerly public parkway Landscaping within the N/A N/A Tree Trimming
along Santa Cora A venue public right-of-way.
(Parcels F, G, and H) Tree irrigation
Portions of public right-of- Landscaping within the N/A N/A Tree Trimming
way adjoining open space public right-of-way.
lots maintained by MHOA Tree irrigation
(Parcel X)
Pedestrian Access All pedestrian access N/A N/A N/A
Easements on Map 13919. improvements including
(Parcel Y) but not limited to: fence,
improved surface, brow
ditches, earth swales,
landscaping.
Pedestrian Access All pedestrian access N/A N/A N/A
Easements on Map 13885. improvements including
(Parcel Y) but not limited to: fence,
improved surface, brow
ditches, earth swales,
landscaping. ..
Slope and retaining wall All landscaping, trees, N/A N/A N/A
located within East Palomar and retaining wall
Street right-of-way between
stations 29+50 and 34+50
adjacent to Unit R- 7 of
McMillin SPA 1 Phase 2
(Parcel Y)
Pedestrian Access Easement All landscaping, N/A 15 foot pedestrian cart path
on Map 13885 and irrigation lines and walls. and lighting.
Document No. 2000-
0475475.
(Parcel I and J) '-'-----.-. -.
, See Resolution No. 19402 for maintenance responsibilities afChelsea project. See Resolution No. 2000-013
for maintenance responsibilities north afEast Palomar Street within McMillin Otay Ranch SPA One
J:\Engineer\LANDDEV\Otay Ranch-MeMillin\Maintenance Respansiblities HOA Agreement No.3 final.doc
{; ,..3~
.. -.--.-- ..---.-------------
¡ñ_r-
~."o
¡¡;~....
Q~~ ~
17\- HOA MAINIAINf I) CIIY PROPIRìY
(Ÿ (WAil S ANI) I ANI)SCAPINC ONI Y)
'2' ~.' ~.' .'.~'.'i rlOA MAINTAINED CITY PROPERTY.
\61~ EASEMENT OR RIGHT OF WAY
@1111 RIGHT TO PASS OVER
¡;¡
I' ~, }ß
...----- .-.-- ----_. ------
Attachment 2
CD
....
(~$è',¡
ì, 4CJ
17\- HOA MA/NfA/NED CITY PROPfRT
\.Ÿ (WALl SAND IANDSC APING ONL'
~2 ;1¡¡.'~.;"';Ð>.i rlOA MAINTAINED CITY PROPERT
\é) ,&, g:¡(-., EASEMENT OR RIGHT OF WAY
en
-
:f~
oS
I
Õ;
¡ Co
~
J>
2
b :3tf
;,.. ,
COUNCIL AGENDA 8T A TEMENT
ITEM ry
MEETING DATE: November 13,2001
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Increasing CY2002 flex plans for CVEA, WCE,
Confidential, Mid-Managers, Senior Managers by an additional $100, and
for POA and IAFF for Family, Employee + I and Employee Only, by an
additional $100, $70 and $35 respectively.
SUBMITTED BY: City Manager Q (4/5th Vote: Yes _No K>
Subsequent to City Council adoption of the Memorandums of Understanding (MOD) and the
Compensation Resolutions, covering FY02-FY05, the City received Calendar Year 2002 insurance
premium quotes. As a means of mitigating the impact of the insurance rate increases on both the City
and the employees, the City recommended increasing or implementing co-payments for office visits and
prescriptions ($5 average increase). In order to make this transition a win-win for the City and
employees it is being recommended that the flex plans be augmented to ensure employees benefit fÌom
the change in co-payments. This change will save the City $50,000 in the current fiscal year, and is
supported by all associations and employee groups in the City.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the resolution increasing the Calendar Year 2002
flex plans for CVEA, WCE, Confidential, Mid-Managers and Senior Managers by an additional $100,
and increasing the flex plan for IAFF and POA full family coverage by an additional $100, for POA and
IAFF Employee plus one coverage $70 and for POA and IAFF employee only coverage $35.
DISCUSSION:
Unfortunately, as expected, health insurance premiums are slated to increase significantly in January
2002. All MOD and compensation resolutions require that each January the City increase flex plans
(via specified formulas) to pick up 50% of the increase in health insurance premiums. Due to the
high premium increases proposed by our health care providers for 2002 and the uncommonly low
deductibles, Human Resources staff, with the assistance of the Benefits Advisory Group (made up of
representatives of all associations and employee groups), met to discuss initiating or increasing co-
pays to levels comparable with the vast majority of other jurisdictions in an effort to better control
health care costs now and in the future.
Initiating or increasing the co-payments for doctor visits and prescription drugs (in most cases by $5)
would significantly mitigate the magnitude of the proposed premium increases. By making a one
time adjustment to the flex plans moving to the co-pays is a win-win for the City and the employees.
The additional flex plan monies provides the vast majority of employees with more than sufficient
funds to cover the higher co-payments while saving the City an estimated $50,000 for the remainder
7-/
-, ,----,-
MEETING DATE: November 13, 2001
Page 2
of this fiscal year and $100,000 annually, over the amount the City would have had to place in the
flex plans given the 50-50 language had the co-pays not been implemented. All employee groups
have indicated their support for this proposal as it provides a win-win solution by mitigating
escalating health care costs for both the City and the employees while at the same time protecting the
employees' recently-negotiated benefits.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact of increasing the flex plans for the employees, as specified, is approximately
$50,000 during the current fiscal year and $100,000 on an ongoing basis. This represents a 50%
savings over what the City would have to pay if the co-payment plan was not implemented. There
are sufficient salary savings in the budget to cover the cost of the additional flexible benefit increases
of $50,000 in the current fiscal year and $100,000 in FY03.
7-~
. -.. .-- ---------_.-
RESOLUTION NO. 2001- ~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA INCREASING CY2002 FLEX PLANS FOR
CVEA, WCE, CONFIDENTIAL, MID-MANAGERS, SENIOR
MANAGERS BY AN ADDITIONAL $100, AND FOR POA
AND IAFF FOR FAMILY, EMPLOYEE + I AND EMPLOYEE
ONLY, BY AN ADDITIONAL $100, $70 AND $35
RESPECTIVEL Y
WHEREAS, subsequent to City Council adoption of the Memorandums of
Understanding (MOU) and the Compensation Resolution, concerning FY02-FY05, the City
received CY 2002 insurance premium quotes; and
WHEREAS, as a means of mitigating the impact of the insurance rates increases on both
the City and the employees, the City recommended increasing or implementing co-payments for
office visits and prescriptions ($5 average increase); and
WHEREAS, in order to make this transition a win-win for the City and employees, it is
being recommended that the flex plans be augmented to ensure employees benefit fÌom the
change in co-payments; and
WHEREAS, this change will save the City $50,000 in the current fiscal year, and is
supported by all associations and employee groups in the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby increase CY2002 flex plans for CVEA, WCE, Confidential, Mid-Managers,
Senior Managers by an additional $100, and for POA and lAFF for Family, Employee + I Only,
by an additional $100, $70 and $35 respectively.
Presented by Approved as to form by
David D. Rowlands, Jr.
City Manager
j,\aUomey\ceso\ lle, plan ;ncreasc
7-3
- -----.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 11/13/01
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Consideration of Master Fee Schedule Update
Resolution Amending the Master Fee Schedule to effect
changes in the Traffic Signal Participation Fee from the existing
adopted fee of $13.00 to $23.00 per average daily vehicle trip, and
adopting a revised Council Policy No. 478-01 that reflects the fee
'lilli"~ effocti" "PO" ,'OPti°1
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public wor~
REVIEWED BY: City ManageP (4/Sths Vote: Yes L No->
On August 8, 1978, the City Council, by Resolution No. 13857, adopted a policy regulating
participation by private developers of residential, commercial and industrial uses in the financing
and/or installing of traffic signals on public streets within the City ofChula Vista. This was done
to insure there was an equitable and proportionate contribution to be borne by all traffic-
generating private developments to satisfy the projected traffic signal needs of the City.
Currently, private developers pay for their share of financing traffic signals in the form of a
$13.00 traffic signal charge per each additional trip their developments generate. The increases
in signal equipment and traffic signal installation costs triggered the need to update the traffic
signal participation fee fÌom $13.00 to $23.00 per average daily vehicle trip in order to provide
and future signals and perfonn necessary signal upgrades.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule
to effect changes in the Traffic Signal Participation Fee from the existing adopted fee of$13.00
to $23.00 per average daily vehicle trip, and adopting a revised Council Policy No. 478-01 that
reflects the fee change
BOARDS/COMMISSION: Not Applicable.
DISCUSSION:
It has been the general policy of the City Council that the public at large should not subsidize
activities of private developments through general tax revenues. To implement this policy, the
City has established user fees to best ensure that those who primarily utilize a specific service
participate in paying for that service. One of the fees established has been the "Traffic Signal
Participation Fee."
i-)
-, --. '---'-' ----'
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 11/13/01
The "Traffic Signal Participation Fee" became effective on August 8, 1978 when it was adopted
by the City Council, per Resolution No. 13857. The City Council adopted a policy regulating
participation by private developers of residential, commercial and industrial uses in the financing
and/or installation of traffic signals on public streets within the City of Chula Vista. This was
done to insure there was an equitable and proportionate contribution to be borne by all traffic-
generating private developments to satisfy the projected traffic signal needs of the City. The
base traffic signal charge for private developers to pay for their share of financing traffic signals
was initially set at $7.00 per each additional daily vehicle trip their developments generate. City
Council established the current 'Traffic Signal Participation Fee" of $13.00 per average daily
vehicle trip in their March 23, 1993 meeting, per Resolution No. 17048 (copy is attached).
Presently, the influx of new development infÌastructure demands in the City's eastern territories
and the increases in signal equipment and traffic signal installation costs have triggered the need
to update the "Traffic Signal Participation Fee" to provide and maintain needed future signals.
Since 1993, costs associated with installing a fully operational traffic signal have increased fÌom
$120,000 to $192,500, or approximately a 6Q% increase. In considering this increase, one must
note that not only has the basic cost of a traffic signal increased, but the types of equipment that
are now included with a normal signal have also expanded and become more sophisticated. In
1993, signals generally consisted of a controller, signal heads, poles, mast arms and in-pavement
loop detectors. When constructing signals now, all of these items are included, except in-
pavement loop detectors in some cases, plus additional features such as emergency vehicle
preemption, video detectors, uninterruptible power supply systems, interconnect cabling, LED
indicators (including pedestrian indicators), internally illuminated street name signs and other
features. As the fee has not kept up with the increased cost of the basic traffic signal
components, the most recent update did not consider these technological innovations whatsoever.
In addition to the on-site traffic signal components, the additional features that are now part of a
typical traffic signal package also require additional costs with respect to maintenance,
monitoring and evaluating the performance of the traffic signals with equipment not located at
the traffic signal location itself. Lastly, the City must also undertake modifications of existing
signals due to increased traffic demand from new developments. These modifications have
averaged $188,296 per year over the past four years. Staff estimates that roughly 50% of the
need for these modifications is caused by traffic from new developments. The other 50% results
from the normal need to replace and/or upgrade outdated equipment or to address the safety
needs of the traveling public. This estimate was arrived at by reviewing the nature and scope of
traffic signal modification projects over the past four years, making a determination whether they
were required as a result of increased traffic generation and then assigning a percentage of
contribution by new development related traffic to the project. See Table A for how the analysis
was performed.
In arriving at the figure of $23.00 per average vehicle trip, staff endeavored to utilize as scientific
an analysis as possible. As shown on Table B, the costs for a new traffic signal are easily
quantifiable at $192,500.00 based on actual costs of time and materials for a typical signal. On
Table C, staff utilizes the best available historical data to determine the expected demands for
new signals that the City will face. In this analysis, we are able to determine that based on the
total number of average weekday vehicle trips in the City in 1998 of 1,459,949 trips and the
presence of 145 signals in the same year that there is a need to provide a signal for roughly every
10,068 average daily vehicle trips. Another way to view this is that one signal is needed for
roughly every 1,000 of population in the City. By applying this ratio to expected new trip
f'~ ----
___..m .._. ....-.-..-......---.
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 11/13/01
generation based on additional development, we then can project the number of new signals
needed in the City at the time of build-out. We can then multiply this number by the cost of a
typical traffic signal and determine the total costs for new signals. Lastly, we factor into the
equation the annual costs the City incurs to upgrade existing signals due to increased traffic in
the City as a result of development. Not al1 upgrades are related to development; therefore, we
assume that 50% of the necessary upgrades are development related. We have assumed that
build-out is 20 years in the future. The average annual upgrade cost is multiplied by twenty (20)
then added to the costs for new signals.
This sum is then divided by the total number of new average daily vehicle trips which brings us
to a cost per trip of$23.04 which is then rounded down to $23.00.
Based on the actual cost increases for traffic signal related work, either new signals or upgrades
to existing signals, staff believes this proposed increase is justified. As stated earlier, the fee has
not been increased since 1993 and the costs of a new signal have increased approximately 60%
in the intervening eight (8) years. This proposed increase simply al1ows the City to catch up to
the actual marketplace cost of these facilities. Also, in order to avoid having to routinely update
the fee in future years, it is proposed that the "Traffic Signal Participation Fee" be automatical1y
updated on October 1, 2002 and each October I st thereafter based on the one (1) year change
(fÌom July to July) in the 20 City Construction Cost Index as published monthly in the
Engineering News Record. This mechanism for future adjustments to the Traffic Signal
Participation Fee is identical to how other development-related fees are adjusted on a regular
basis within the City. This methodology wil1 insure that the City's "Traffic Signal Participation
Fee" remains at a level commensurate with the actual costs of providing these necessary
servIces.
Failure to adjust the fee wil1, as shown on Table D which provides a cash flow analysis
comparison for the Traffic Signal Fund based on the current fee and the proposed fee, result in
the depletion of the existing fund balance in the Traffic Signal Fund and would likely require the
use of general funds to maintain service levels in the near future. It should be clearly noted that
the proposed increase will simply ensure that new development will only pay for its appropriate
share of traffic signal related work and that the increase is not related to the City's ongoing need
to maintain its traffic signal system in a safe, efficient and cost effective manner.
In light of the fact that the "Traffic Signal Participation Fee" has not been updated in eight (8)
years, the cost increase in traffic signal instal1ation and the repeated demand for new signals has
strained our ability to have sufficient funds in order to maintain our infrastructure. The fee
increase is fair and is consistent with increases in equipment, material and labor costs.
Lastly, the City wil1 utilize the latest version of the "Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation
Rates for the San Diego Region" as its basis for calculating the trip generation of specific
development projects. This document is prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments
and is updated frequently. A copy of the latest version is attached.
f;J
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 11/13/01
Public Hearing Process
To prepare for the public hearing, copies of the proposed fee change were sent to individual
users of the service more than 45 days in advance of this City Council meeting. An
infoffi1ational meeting was scheduled for and held on Tuesday, September 18,2001. None ofthe
recipients of the proposed fee change documents attended the meeting. Subsequent to the
meeting, the City received a letter from Pacific Bay Homes expressing concerns regarding the
proposed changes. A copy of the letter is attached as Attachment No.9. Staff has summarized
and provided the following responses to the letter:
ITEM I:
PBH Position:
50% allocation of upgrades to existing signals is arbitrary.
Response:
Staff undertook to review all traffic signal upgrade related projects since FY 1998/99. In
reviewing these projects we attempted to assign percentages of the need for the upgrade due to
new development. We believe that we were quite conservative in our assessment of the cause of
the needed upgrades. It should also be noted that we perfoffi1 significant amount of this upgrade
work with non-Traffic Signal Fee funding sources (CMAQ or Gas Tax).
The PBH letter also inquires into the upgrade costs for signals in the eastern section of the city.
The largest single project in the analysis is the Traffic Signal Interconnect Project at $163,000
and caused entirely by the traffic generated by new development. It is also inaccurate to simply
look at signals on the east side of the City (east of 1-805) as being impacted by development.
There are significant volumes of traffic generated, in all directions, by development in the
eastern portion of the City that utilizes the surface streets west of 1-805. For this reason, we
attempted to quantify by percentage the amount of those upgrades that were assignable to
development related traffic increases City-wide.
It should also be noted that the Traffic Signal Participation Fee is paid City-wide. Therefore,
development anywhere in the City pays into the Traffic Signal Fee fund and those funds can be
utilized throughout the City. Certainly, over a period of years, funds generated in the west or
south of the City helped pay for improvements in the east and vice-versa.
ITEM #2
PBH Position:
The use of a trip-based foffi1ula is "fundamentally flawed" and "significantly overstates the need
for new signals".
R-t(
..- -- -----. -----.-.---
Page 5, Item
Meetiug Date 11/13/01
Staff Response:
The methods utilized for determining the need for a signal or to upgrade a signal are essentially
based on the generation of vehicular trips and capacity of the circulation system to handle those
trips. The alternative to a trip based system would be a system based on either population
increases, building square footage increases, increases due to change in land uses or a
combination of all of them. In any respect, the net effect would likely be negligible. The fee is
only paid if development occurs and additional signals will be constructed only if development
occurs. Additionally, the report assumes that the average number of signals needed per year is
directly related to the estimates for new development. Whether they are based on a trip basis or
a population/development basis is irrelevant since the signals will be needed and the fees paid if
the development occurs or the signals will not be needed and the fees not paid if the development
does not occur. In the eastern portion of the City, which is the area that PBH addresses, the lack
of a formal grid street pattern as is typical in the area west ofI-805 tends to produce fewer traffic
signals. In addition to the street design, the extensive open space and less dense development
contributes to less population growth which maintains the population/traffic signal ratio in a
manner consistent with Chula Vista experience.
It should be noted that the estimate of the need for new signals is consistent not only with
historical trends in Chula Vista but is also consistent with recognized national traffic engineering
studies. The Institute of Traffic Engineers Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook,
Second Edition by Wolfgang S. Homburger, contains a study, found in Chapter 24, performed by
Leonard Rach, Director of Traffic for the Metropolitan Toronto Roads and Traffic Department
(See attachment 10). This study looked at the relationships between urban populations and the
numbers of traffic signals in a jurisdiction. It found that in the United States, a city with a
population of 175,000 would typically have approximately 175 traffic signals. The study
indicates that this typical city should expect to provide an additional traffic signal for every 1,000
of additional population. This result is quite consistent with our estimates for future traffic signal
growth in the City.
In our view, the methodology of how the fee is calculated is less important than the realization
that the lack of an adjustment in this fee for the past eight years is leading the City towards not
being able to undertake the necessary projects it needs regarding traffic signals and traffic signal
upgrades.
ITEM #3
PBH Position:
The assumed costs of new signals are inflated. There is no justification for a five percent price
differential and a five percent contingency. The figure of 12% for inspection and administration
is high.
Responsc:
The PBH response does not dispute the basic cost assumptions for the actual signal work. The
focus of their comments are the "soft costs" that are built into the total estimate for a new signal.
£.S
._. - ...-.,-- ---- .."..-.- ....- .-.
Page 6, Item
Meeting Date 11/13/01
Taking them in reverse order, the 12% figure for inspection and administration is a reasonable
estimate and includes work associated with project inspections, review and approval of
construction materials and contract administration. In some cases, the inspection costs could be
less than 12%, particularly with contractors that perform high quality work. In light of this we
reduced that portion of the estimate fÌom 12% to 9%.
With respect to the issue of price differential/contingency, we have reviewed this item and are
comfortable with removing the price differential item. This action reduces the estimated total
cost of a signal to $192,500. We do believe that the contingency is warranted, as the City is
susceptible to market changes with respect to the costs of material and labor.
Legal notices were also placed in the Star-News for a period of two weeks preceding this City
Council meeting.
A complete list of the individuals that were notified is included in this report.
Update of Policy No. 478-01
The approval of the proposed increase in the "Traffic Signal Participation Fee" by the City
Council will trigger the need to revise City Council Policy No. 478-01, titled "Participation by
Private Developers in the Financing and/or Installation of Traffic Signals." A description of the
changes to the policy is below. The actual language of the policy is attached.
1) Amend Item I ofthe STATEMENT OF POLICY on page I:
Modify the language of this Section to reflect the change fÌom $13.00 per average
daily vehicle trip to $23.00 per average daily vehicle trip.
2) Amend Item 6 of the STATEMENT OF POLICY on page 2:
Modify the language of this section to indicate that the trip generation rate will be
calculated based on the "Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the
San Diego Region", which is published by San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG). Traffic generation rates for land uses not addressed by the SANDAG
guide shall be determined using the latest Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Trip Generation book, or as approved by the City Engineer.
3) Remove Table I from pages 3, 4 and 5.
4) Insert New Item 12 of the Statement of Policy on page 3:
Establish language clarifying the issues pertaining to the construction of a traffic
signal by a private developer in the situation where that signal is not required by the
City nor meets traffic signal warrants.
5) Insert New Item 13 of the Statement of Policy on page 3:
Establish language that will automatically adjust the "Traffic Signal Participation
Fee" starting on October I, 2002, and on each October I st thereafter, based on the one
¡:-(p
-----.,
Page 7, Item -1-
Meeting Date 11/13/01
year change (from July to July) in the 20 City Construction Cost Index as published
monthly in the Engineering News Record.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The estimated fiscal impact of the above changes is an increase of approximately $235,080 in
"Traffic Signal Participation Fee" revenues in FY 2001/02. This is based on anticipated fund
revenues of $744,420 during FY 2001/02 as a result of charging private developments for
additional 39,180 average weekday daily trips. This revenue projection assumes charging
$13.00 per average weekday daily trip fÌom July 1,2001 through November 2001 and $23.00 per
average weekday daily trip fÌom November 1,2001 through June 2002. The fund revenues for
FY 2002/03 are anticipated to be $806,383 based on 34,180 additional average weekday daily
trips.
Attachments: I) Copy of Reso]ution No. ]7048
2) Tab]e A, Traffic Sigoal Modification Work Analysis
3) Table B, Traffic signal installation cost estimate
4) Table C, "Traffic Signal Participation Fee" Analysis
5) Tab]e D, Traffic Signal Fund Cash Flow Analysis
6) List of individuals that were notified of the public hearing
7) Copy of revised Council Policy 478-01
8) Copy of latest "Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego
Region
9) Copy of Pacific Bay Homes Letter
10) Institute of Traffic Engineers Traffic SignalJPopulation Study
Prepared by: Majed AI- Ghafry/Jack Griffin
J:\EngineerIAGENDA\TRAFFIC SIGNAL FEE_UPDATE.ma.doc
f7
ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 17048
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the Master Fee Schedule has not undergone a comprehensive review
and update since August, 1987; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 66016, notice was
mailed at least 14 days prior to the public hearing to all parties which filed
a written request for notification of new or increased fees; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Sections 6062a, 66018 and
60629, noti ce of the pub 1 i c hea ri ng was pub 1 i shed i n a newspaper of general
circulation twice within 10 days prior to the public hearing and said notices wee
published at least five days apart; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 66016, estimated cost
data was made available for public review at least 10 days prior to the public
hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the noti ced pub 1 i c heari ng was hel d on March 23, 1993; and,
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to adopt the amended Master Fee Schedule, as
set forth in Exhibit "A", known as document number C093-064, a copy of which is
on file in the office of the City Clerk.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vi sta does hereby adopt the amended Master Fee Schedul e, and hereby repeals a 11
versions of said Master Fee Schedule, said changes and repeal to be effective on
the later of 60 days foIl owi ng adopti on, in accordance with Government Code
66017, or when a report addressi ng the foIl owi ng matters:
1. Impacts on the general taxpayer.
2. Impacts on affordable housing in the process of expansion or improvement.
3. Impacts on estab 1 i shed businesses in the process of ex pans i on or
improvement.
has been returned to, and acted upon by, the City Council, except for the changes
in Chapters I through VI II and Chapter XV, whi ch are not subject to Government
Code 66017 and shall therefore be effective when said report has been returned
to, and acted upon by, the Ci ty Counci 1.
Presented by 1l;1 '0 'J
LY'~~" c~;j S(~:h,~!t.;,U{ ,
Bruce M. Boogaard
Oi rector of Fi nance Ci ty Attorney
H ~~ ~--_. ! JrT
I cf _oj>
- ._~--,----- .._~ ,----- ~.._,._--
Resolution No. 17048
Page 2
'"""'"
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California. this 23rd day of March, 1993, by the following vote:
YES: Counei 1 members: Fox, Horton. Moore. Rindone, Nader
NOES: Counc i 1 members: None
ABSENT: Counci 1 members: None
ABSTAIN: Counc il members: None
J- /t~
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
¡J /1 /] /7 -,
/(k~Ú. ~~
Beverly. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ? ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I. Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California. do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 17048 was duly passed, approved,
and adopted by the City Council hel d on the 23rd day of March. 1993.
Executed this 23rd day of March, 1993.
'7
~7 Úd£ß£
Beverly A Authelet. City Clerk
-.
-- I (I
f-1
AD ACHMENI
Traffic Signal Fee Projects TABLE A
Excluding New Signals
Portion of
Percent Attributal Budget Attributal
to Increased to Increased
Traffic Due To Traffic Due To Other Funding
Project Name Project No. Budget Development Development Sources
FY 2001/02
Traffic Signal Interconnect TF 263 $163,000 100.00% $163,000 None
Internally Illuminated Street Name Signs TF 279 $25,000 50.00% $12,500 Gas Tax
Purchase 30 Controllers TF 272 ~ 50.00% lli.QQQ None
Total $218,000 $190,500
FY 2000/01
Protective Permissive Signals - 5 Locations TF 278 $97,000 50.00% $48,500 CMAQ
Internally Illuminated Street Name Signs TF 279 $25,000 50.00% $12,500 Gas Tax
Protective Permissive Signals - 7 Locations TF 282 $36,000 50.00% $18,000 CMAQ
Minor Signal Modifications - Various Locations TF 283 $14000 0.00% ~ CMAQ
Total $172,000 $79,000
FY 1999/00
Traffic Signal System Update TF 237 $73,000 100.00% $73,000 CMAQ
Purchase of 20 Controllers TF 272 $28,000 50.00% $14,000 None
Protective Permissive Signals - 5 Locations TF 278 $56,000 50.00% $28,000 CMAQ
Internally Illuminated Street Name Signs TF 279 $30,500 50.00% $15,250 Gas Tax
Protective Permissive Signals - 7 Locations TF 282 $15,684 50.00% $7,842 CMAQ
Minor Signal Modifications - Various Locations TF 283 M..QQQ 0.00% ~ CMAQ
Total $207,184 $138,092
FY 1998/99
Emergency Vehicle Preemption: 4th Avenue TF 261 liQMQQ 0.00% ~ None
Total $156,000 $0
Grand Total $753,184 $407,592
Total Percentage Attributable to Increased Traffic from New Development 54.12%
Say 50%
J:/JackGRlExcel Files/trafsigfeemodbreakdown.xls
-. ---- ------..... .------ -...-----.----- ...---
A 'QACHMENì
"'
x
en
m ~
w ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
<.)
gggggggggggggggggggggggggg z
~ ' , . , , , , , , , , , , ' , , , , , , , . , , , . Œ
zgggggggggggggggggggggggggg ~
ðâ$~~â~~~â~~~~~~â~~~~~~ââ~~ ~
~N N N ~~ ~~m Û
« ~~ ~ ¡¡:
U-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
wOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ~
g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ oc
Œoooooo~~ooo~oooooooo - ~
~~~~~~MN ~~N~~~~~~~~~ ro z
~ ~O.N~~ ~ ~m MOONNNN ø -
« ZN N ~
c: ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
.2 ¡¡j 2' ~ <C <C <C <C <C <C <C Ii <C <C <C <C en <C en en en en en en ~ g ,~ ,§ ~ ð
.~ !:2:E ~WWWWWWW..JWWWW..JW..J..J..J..J..J..J:E "':ß~~ ;:¡::
> u..Þ :0 g' 0 ëñ -g ,co.
.- u.ø ç ø Z;.R"ë",
0 ~ ~ ¡:: a 8~~ð
m I-j z~~~~~~mg~oooo~~~~~~~~~ o~«
, « <I'
c: 3:'6 ~ ~ ~
... W ~ a 0
~ z~ ~
~ «:É ð ~
~ ~ ~ "'
m It: (¡j E
c: fr2 § *
w wá1 ~ ~ ~I
n:s I-t ~¡j) -g
- «- "'~ E ~
.~;;!1~ ~3 ~ c ~
> I-g¡, OE E ! ~ ifj
C/)o> -"'- ~ "'
~ w~ ,~~i)¡.o: ~ ~ ð 'E
::J Iii"- -g~~]j J ~ 'Ë. ~
.s:: 0'" Uc.æ~ -cð -"' E ~
U HE oðc.~oð'E á1,gz",:E.9! L';I e
~ :0 ~ :0 '" '" C '" '" c ~ ~ E '" c.
'õ !:2~ ¡:¡¡~~ã)~-g ~ð~~gû5J~2a: E
It:~ ~.Þ"'~~2 E~cE:O~~",~ro 0>
Þ w -ð~-gj~ ~~~~~~ß~ø~ §
.- z u~ðøê ~=~:¡;~'Ë~§,§-áj ,~
U w ro~Ciõi,QJ ~ê,~:ß~:Oð~t5> W
C) §,z«c.§,øðð,QJ"áj~c=U.c2ì) -
~c. ~«mmø>"'Æ>- ~"'c 0 ~
~~W~~=-~",~'~~~O& ð ~
~~~~~ææ~~O~~~:Eg~ ~ á
~cO~>-m~~~W""E~.Þ~E ~ ~
~~ø~~~~~M~~-Eø>W ëñ «
~~~~~~~ð~~~~ð~~~ -'" -g
",",",",",","'U "'"'"'"'z "'"'"' eΠ,.
EEEEEEE EEEE~EEE 'Eoð ~
oðoðoðoðoðoðoðg'oðoðoðoð~oðoðoð °ð ~~
.c.c.c.c.c.c.c~.c.c.c.c'E.c.c.co>o>U~ e~
~~~~~~~<.)~~~~-~~~~~~'" ~~
E E E E E E E ~ E E E E ~ E E E §,,~ '" õ ~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~w~~a: "'~
- '"
z~NM~~m~oom~~NM~~m~~~~ ~a:
Ç-I/
. --"-.-.----.-.--
,t\ TTACHMENT,- 1-/ ,
TRAFFIC SIGNAL PARTICIPATION FEE TABLE C
15.51,020
May 24, 2001
1998 - Number of Signals 145
*1998 - Number of Trips 1,459,949
*Buildout Trips 2,393,949
City Population in 1998 162,047
City Population at buildout 275,455
Buildout Signals = ( 275,455 / 162,047 ) x 145 = 247
Additional Signals = 247 - 145 = 102
Additional Trips = 2,393,949 - 1,459,949 = 934,000
Basic Estimated Signal Cost (Regular Signals) $ 152,000.00
Associated Cost per Signal ( :'::35 % total) :
1.) Contingencies ( :,::5%) $ 8,000.00
2.) Design Engineering ( :,::13%) $ 19,000,00
3.) Construction Engineering and Administration ( +9%) $ 13,500.00
Total Cost per Signal $ 192,500.00
Cost of Additional Signals = ( 102 x $197,000.00) $ 19,635,000.00
Cost of Upgrades to Exisiting Signals (50%) $ 94,148,00
Cost of Upgrades at Buildout (20 years) $ 1,882,960.00
Total Cost of Development Related Signal Work $ 21,517,960,00
Cost per Additional trip = ( $22,792,960.00/934,000) $ 23.04
Say $23.00
Proposed Traffic Signal Participation Fee = $23.00
Previous Traffic Signal Participation Fee = $13.00
. Figures Provided by SANDAG based on 1998 Land Use
J:\HOME\ENGINEER\TRAFFIC\iNTERN\signal fee.xis
.- -.-.------. _.._._-_..
An ACHMENì
TRAFFIC SIGNAL FEE - CASH FLOW ANALYSIS COMPARISON TABLE 0
Traffic Signal Fee @ $13
Fiscal Ye" 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05
Revenues
Starting Balance $533,050 $194,027 ($130,195) ($402,283)
Residential Tcaffic Si9nal Fees (1) $325,000 $260,000 $172,770 $0
Non Res. Traffic SI9nai Fees (2) $184,340 $184,340 $147.420 $97,890
Total Revenues $1,042,390 $638,367 $189,995 ($304,393)
E'pendltuces
New Signals (3) $754,215 $674,414 $498,130 $156,098
Signal Modification Work (4) $94,148 $94,148 $94,148 $94,148
Total E,pendltures $848,363 $768,562 $592,278 $250,246
Year End Balance $194,027 ($130,195) ($402,283) ($554,639)
(1) Assumes 2500 EDU In FY 01/02,2000 EDU In FY 02/03, 1329 EDU In FY 03/04 and 0 EDU In FY 04/05
(2) Assumes 1418 EDU In FY011O2, 1418 EDU In FY02/03, 1134 EDUin FY03/04and 753 EDU In FY04105
(3) Assumes 1 new signals per 10,000 new trips at $205,500 escalating at 2.5% per year
(4) Based on 50% of annual average from 1998/99 through 2001/02
Traffic Signal Fee Starting at $23 by Average Construction Cost Index Increase of 2.575% per year
Fiscal Year 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05
Revenues
Starting Balance $533,050 $429,107 $466,928 $470,690
Residential Traffic Signal Fees (1) $475,000 $471,845 $321,615 $0
Non Res. Traffic Signal Fees (2) $269,420 $334,538 $274,425 $186,916
Total Revenues $1,277,470 $1,235.490 $1,062,968 $657,606
E'pendltures
New Signals (3) $754,215 $674.414 $498,130 $156,098
Signal Modification Work (4) $94,148 $94,148 $94,148 $94,148
Total E'pendltures $848,363 $768,562 $592,278 $250,246
Year End Balance $429,107 $466,928 $470,690 $407,360
(1) Assumes 2500 EDU In FY 01102, 2000 EDU in FY 02/03, 1329 EDU In FY 03/04 and 0 EDU In FY 04105
(2) Assumes 1418 EDU In FY01102, 1418 EDU in FY02/03, 1134 EDU In FY 03/04 and 753 EDU In FY041O5
(3) Assumes 1 new signals per 10,000 new trips at $205,500 escalating at 2.5% per year
(4) Based on 50% of annual average from 1998/99 through 2001/02
¡\home\eng"",\odminltcoff"""hflgw ,"
E-ß
--- - - - --------
ATT.ACHMENT .-.L
Company Addressl City State PostalCode
Stone Creek Advisors 1750 Sixth A venue San Diego CA 92101
Agra Earth & Environmental, 16760 W. Bernardo Drive San Diego CA 92127
- -
Inc.
Hallmark Communities, Inc. 1202 Bernardo Ridge Place Escondido CA 92029
Barrett Homes 2035 Corte Del Nogal, Suite 160 Carlsbad CA 92009
Richmond American Homes 16845 Yon Karman Ave., Suite Irvine Ck 92606
100
Techbilt Companies P.O. Box 80036 San Diego CA 92138
Greystone Homes, Inc. 5760 Fleet Street Carlsbad CA 92008
Brehm Homes 5770 Oberlin Drive San Diego CA 92121-1723
Kaufman & Broad 12235 El Camino Real, Suite San Diego CA 92130
100
Presley Homes 15373 Innovation Drive, Suite San Diego CA 92128
380
Pardee Homes 12220 El Camino Real, Suite San Diego CA 92130
300
Western Pacific Housing 5790 Fleet Street, Suite 210 Carlsbad CA 92008
Centex Homes 1815 Aston Avenue, Suite 101 Carlsbad CA 92008
Continental Homes 2237 Faraday Avenue, No. 100 Carlsbad CA 92008
Davidson Communities 1302 Camino Del Mar Del Mar CA 92014
Cornerstone Comrnurrities 4365 Executive Drive, No. 600 San Diego CA 92121
Standard Pacific Homes 9335 Chesapeake Drive San Diego CA 92123
R WR Companies 3130 Bonita Road, Suite 200B Chula Vista CA 91910
Shea Homes 10721 Treena Street, Suite 200 San Diego CA 92131
Brookfield Homes 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200 Del Mar CA 92014
Buie Comrnurrities 11260 EI Camino Real, Suite San Diego CA 92130-2647
200
D.R. Horton 2237 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100 Carlsbad CA 92008
Fieldstone Communities, Inc. 5465 Morehouse Drive San Diego CA 92121
The Corl-)' McMillin 2727 Hoover Avenue National CA 91950
Companies City
Pacific Bay Homes 2300 Boswell Road, Suite 209 Chula Vista CA 91914
The Otay Ranch Company 350 West Ash Street, Suite 730 San Diego CA 92101
='.-:'::..:::.-1 !'x-:!5:: }'h==~. !..!..? E5 ."--;:.:-".: S~:::: 2C5 -"..1.::.;; ':,: =:: C.~ 921;5&
The Eastlake Company 900 Lane Avenue, Suite 100 Chula Vista CA 91914
John Laing Homes 10737 Laurel Street, Suite 280 Rancho CA 91970
Cucamonga
Capital Pacific Holdings 4100 MacArthur Blvd., Suite Newport CA 92660
200 Beach
,
£-/1
-- ..----....-. -------
ATTACHMENl
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION BY PRIVATE POLICY EFFECTIVE
DEVELOPERS IN THE FINANCING NUMBER DATE PAGE
AND/OR INST ALLA TION OF
TRAFFIC SIGNALS 478-01 I OF 5
I ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. i DATED: I
PURPOSE
To establish a policy for participation by private developers for the tìnancing and/or installation of traffic
signals on public streets within the City of Chula Vista.
BACKGROUND
New developments, whether residential, commercial, or industrial, generate additional traftìc which results
in increased congestion or safety hazards at various street intersections throughout the City. The installation
of traftìc signals is sometimes necessary in order to accommodate the safe and eftìcient flow of vehicular
traftìc.
The City has in the past required developers to participate in the cost of signalization which directly
impacted a major individual development. Lesser developments, however, were not required to participate.
The system was inherently inequitable.
This policy provides for proportionate contribution by all private developments generating signitìcant traftìc
toward the projected traffic signal needs of the City. It is the intent of the City Council in establishing this
policy that all development, redevelopment, remodeling or other activity which will result in a long-term
INCREASE in the number of vehicle trips upon the City's system of streets shall be subject to the traftìc
signal charge. That charge shall be based on upon the net INCREASE in number of trips generated by any
specitìc site, and shall NOT include trips generated at such site under previous or current usage.
STATEMENT OF POLICY
1. All new private residential, commercial or industrial development as described below shall, as a
condition of building pennit issuance (or approval of a rezoning action relative to creation of new
mobile home spaces), pay a traffic signal charge for -\DOnlON ^ L additional trips generated as
authorized by ordinance of the City Council, and in such amount per additional trip as stipulated by
City Council resolution fÌom time to time. The base charge is initially set at $+00 $23.00. per 900-
may trip p3r day average weekday daily trip. Trips generated by current propel1y usage or veritìable
prior usage shall be excluded in detennining the total charge which shall be based on WDITIONAL
additiq!l~1 trips generated at the site under the new use...Jor the purposes of this policy, verifiable
pna/" w,age sha]] be the last known usage ..!~~roperty . within five (5) years of the date of
"J'I1!ication for <:levelopment approval!f said propertv is currently vacant. In the event that the
P.r9~...s.1:Jeen va.(;"nt ¡(lrmOre .tl1<1n tivcJ.5l..yt:.<lrs. no .c,,<Jusions.. will be..-'l1e made regardl"s~
pg>¡:Jel1y usa~e more than tive.ill.Y.c"rs in the.JJ'l"L
2. Remodeling (enlarging, altering, repairing or improving and/or replacement) of existing residential
development is exempt from the traftìc signa] charge except where and to the extent additional
residential dwe]]i~gunitsare cre~i!ed.
Ç-/5
..-.......... .._._--_. - ...--
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION BY PRIVATE POLICY EFFECTIVE
DEVELOPERS IN THE FINANCING NUMBER DATE PAGE
AND/OR INSTALLATION OF 478-01 2 OF 5
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
I ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. I DATED: I
-
3. Structural, occupancy, or use modifications to existing commercial or industrial developments which
are projected to increase the average daily traffi6 'generated relative to the total development site by
2% or more shall be subject to payment of the traffic signal charge to the extent of the projected
increase in traffic. Traffic volume determinations/projections for CUITent and future traffic at the site
shall be made by the City Engineer who shall be required as a condition of approval to any action
formally pennitting a structural, or occupancy, or use modification to an existing commercial or
industrial/development.
4. Notwithstandiog any other provisions of this policy, no private development shall pay the traffic
signal charge more than once for a given level of traffic generation. Where ADDITIONAL trips are
generated relative to a previously developed property, the traffic signal charge will be applied only to
the ADDITIONAL units and/or trips generated.
5. Any private development which has been required to install a traffic signal shall get credit for the cost
of that installation in computing traffic signal charges for subsequent development within the
boundaries of that private development.
6. The traffic signal charge shall be based on the vehicular trip generation rate for the applicable land use
cat~gory as shown Of} Table I 1ose credit fur an;'l'rier le"ol eftraffic g'f}oratÜm. Credit applied ,ha!1
not o,'£€od tho amount duo under the ne'" 'Ise. "'horo a sp.cific traffic generation prGjection has b"f}
prepared by a traffic engineer ana appro".d I)y the City Engineer for a Flen resia.ntial de".lopment,
that study "ha]] be used in lieu of the standard ;;'f}.ratien rates 5ho"'T! in Tabl. I. Traffic goB.ration
ratos fer ],md >lses not specifically co"ered b;' the Table sha]] be deteTIHined bo' the City Engineor...JJ<:T
the latest "Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region", which is
published by San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Traffic generation rates for land
uses not addressed by the SANTIAG guide shall be determined using the latest ITE Trip Generation
book or as approved bv the Citv Engineer.
7. No additional charge will be required of residential developments for on-site recreational or service
facilities (cabanas, clubhouses, swimming pools, meeting rooms, etc.) unless such facilities are open
to the public. Any such public facilities sha]] pay a charge based on the total acreage of the facility
including parking areas and a vehicular trip rate of 200 per acre.
8. For all private development~ H> the traffic signal charge shall be computed by multiplying the new
additional vehicle trip generation times the established base charge (in dollars per one-way trip per
day).
'
F/~
----_.-
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION BY PRIVATE POLICY EFFECTIVE
DEVELOPERS IN THE FINANCING NUMBER DATE PAGE
AND/OR INSTALLATION OF
TRAFFIC SIGNALS 478-01 3 OF 5
I ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. I DATED: I
9. The entire City, including subsequent annexations, shall be the same Benefit Area for Traffic Signals.
All traffic signal charges shall be placed in the Traffic Signal FW1d. Use of ~ funds ITom such
account shall be limited to design, construction inspection and modification of traffic signals within
the Benefit Area for Traffic Signals. Traffic signal construction may include: traffic signal controller,
standards, signal heads, wiring, conduit, power supply, detectors, pedestrian push buttons,
uninterruptible power supply systems and indicators, painting of street striping, interconnection with
signals W1der master controller, signal-related street widening and signal-related raised median island
construction.
10. The City may require that a developer whose project creates an immediate need for signalization (per
wa!Tant system specified in c.v. Code Section 10.24.070) undertake to install such signalization
subject to future reimbursement ITom the Traffic Signal Fund. Reimbursement of a developer to the
extent that I>i5 their construction cost (including design) exceeds his traffic signal charge shall have
first call on the Traffic Signal Fund. No interest shall accumulate on the amoW1t to be reimbursed.
Reimbursement for any given installation shall commence only when and if funds are available in the
Tramc Signal Fund and when all prior date reimbursement commitments have been satisfied in full.
11. Any private development which installs a traffic signal that is not required by the City or does not
meet traffic signal wan'ants as specified in Chula Vista Code Section 10.24.070, mav not be given any
credit for the costs of the signal against their required traffic signal fee. The Citv reserves the right to
grant credits if it concludes alier performing an appropriate engineeling analysis. the cost of such
analysis bemg borne bv the developer. that the signal will provide signilicant benefit to the general
public. Such consideration by the City will only be provided if the signal is installed on a public
street. or streets, and any credit will be prorated based on the affected approaches to the intersection
owned bv the CitY. Example, an intersection with a private street on one approach and two
approaches owlled bv the City will be potentiallv eligible for a credit not to exceed two-thirds of the
cost of the signals.
The CitY will not provide reimbursements for any costs mcurred bv a developer for a signal not
required bv the Citv nor meeting traftic signal wa!Tan!s.
-1-1-11- The City may advance funds to the Traffic Signal Fund or provide funds for traffic signal installation
which funds shall be subject to reimbursement in the same manner as provided herein for a developer.
+AmÆ-J
vEH1CUL^ R TRIP GENER^TION T^BLE (ONE "'.-^.Y TRIPS)
LAND USE C^TEGORY TRIP GENER A nON FACTOR (PER D^ Y)
Residential '
Sin;;J. famil; detached 12
Þhlti famil;' g
Hobil. Reme 6
,f 17
__'_m..___- --- ---
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION BY PRIVATE POLICY EFFECTIVE
DEVELOPERS IN THE FINANCING NUMBER DATE PAGE
AND/OR INSTALLATION OF
TRAFFIC SIGNALS 478-01 40F 5
I ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. I DATED: I
- -
Comm~rcial
H9tel 1 g tri"s "" ree»1
Hotel 1 Q tri"s "@r r9Øffi
*H9c,,'tal 12 tri"s "er bgà er
17 trips "er 1 ,Ogg sq. ft.
gf strllGhJre
NlII'sin¡; Heme 3 trips per beà
Ge~eral 9ffice bllilàiR;; 11 tri"s "er I.ggg sq. ft.
gf !ga"able area
HgàiGal/eeHtalblli]eiR;; 75 trips per] .ggg
$>hopping GeHter
te 19,999 sq- ft. 115 tri"s per 3,000 sq. ft.
oflgasable area
59,ggO to 99.999 sq. ft. gg tri"s "er 1.000 sq. ft.
ef leasable area
] OO,gOO te ] 99,999 sq. ft. 6Q tri"s "er 1.000 sq. ft.
gf leasable area
"Og,QOO t9 199,999 ,"1. n. 50 tri"s "er 1,000 sq. ft.
gfl€asab]e area
500,Og9 to 999,999 sq. n- 35 trì"s per 1.000 sq. ft.
gf leasable area
o'"er I,Qg9,gQ9 sq- n- 30 trips "er 1.900 sq. ft.
gf leasable area
IJaH]~ ] 75 tr'"s per 1 ,000 sq. n.
of leasable area
Sa'-iRgs & Loan 75 tri"s per ] ,0000 sq. ft.
DifCGHHt flore liS tri"s per ],000 sq. ft.
gfleasablg area
I 0'" tllrn9"er 9r "[HII me31" \:'pe restauraBt 55 trips "gr 1.000 sq. ft.
of leacable area
Hi;;h rum oyer or "coffee chop" 165 trips pgr l,gOO sq. n.
oflea"a"le area
Dri"e in restaurant 550 trips per] ,000 sq. ft.
of gross flogr area
Ser'i.e station 750 tri"s per àa;'
Supem13rket 125 tri"s per 1 ,000 sq. ft.
of gress fle9r area
CeR"eHienc€ Harht (I (j Hr.) 320 trips per 1,000 sq. ft.
, ef greEs floer area
Con'"enicnce Harht (21 hr.) 575 trips per 1,000 sq. ft.
of gross Doer area
Industrial
*Ine],!str;a! 5 trips per 1,000 sq. ft.
ffþ
---- - -------- ------- ----- -------
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION BY PRIVATE POLICY EFFECTIVE
DEVELOPERS IN THE FINANCING NUMBER DATE PAGE
AND/OR INSTALLATION OF 478-01
TRAFFIC SIGNALS 5 OF 5
I ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. I DATED: I
af gress fleer area
OR
6(J trips per aGr. of
grass site area
*General LigHt It"IHstrial 5 trips P@!' [,OOg s~. ft.
af grass fleer area
OR
5g trips per aGre of
grass SIte area
*Inàustrial Park g trips per 1,(Jgg s~. ft.
ar grass site area
OR
7g trips per acre of
af gross bite area
*Hanutàcturing 1 trips per I,(JOO 8'1. ft.
of graGS flaar area
OR
55 trips per acm
af gmss site area
* "'arehaHsing 5 trips per 1,00g sq. ft.
of gross flaar ar.a
OR
6(J trips per aGre
af grass site area
*NOTE: "'here allemati"e geReratiaR factors af€ pro"iàeà, that "'hiGh results in tho higher total "ehicle trip
generatian shall be us_à iR camputing the traffic sigRal fee.
~,The abQvc clc~,n~j;':13.00 per average weekly daily trip be adjusted, starting on October], 2002.
andon eac,h October 1st thereafter. based on the one year change (!i'om July to July) in the 20 City
C,:onstruet1()l1 Cost Index as published monthly in the Engineering News Record. For reference
JJ.lIrposes, the Jllly2001. 20..DlY.c;onstruction Cost Index is 6404.03. Adjustments to the Traffic
Signal Participation Fee based upon the 20 City Constrllction Cost Index shaLLbe autolmltic and,sh:ill
11°1 require further ao[lon of [tic City COUl.J.CÍl
HV'ouneil PoEey Updates\478.0¡"dEnc. Teame signal Installation by p,lvate develope",.doe
P-/1
_. ".,'- ,-....-.... .--.-.-.-.....-.-
-,
An ACHMEN1
(NOT SO} ~i~~TJ( '( f
r "fF GUIDE OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES ~(-.on:R."Œ.'TS
. THE SAN DIEGD REGION '" ES,,~, ""'800
S,m °"00. "","mo "'"'
JULY"'. """"""..;" """'-<"',
'0""""""'" "," """",," ._~" .""" "',,"m,," "'"""""""0 -.,,_w., ""'00' oom._."""",,," """" "'" ._',moO"",," """','" ""'.0, ,"'." ',0>""
:;,:: :,:;:';~:~.:~:'::. :::'~,;~:~:;;,:'~:~,;:,::'~::::, '::;::,;;';"::7'~::; :::7;::;;;::":,:: ~:o;;::::.;:::; ::::;:,~:;, m::'.::~.". ",""~"'" "',,",,' ","" "" 'M ""
CAND us< "'.. CA"G"'" ""'MA"" _KDAY "HOC'-' HOGH"'T P~K HOUR' '0'.' ON,DUT "';" "'OP "'NOTH
,~,~""""""",,.....vr ""PG'N'~nDN~"'D"V<WAYI _.-u,~~ ,-"'-~,,.~ 'M~'
AG"CU'TU"'O~"S"",-. 18°"2] U..,," W.8
......"'-.. ,,8m] m
Comm.",.' "1"".WO/""",."/WOO,,h"'", "., "","
COO".",.""" 8/""21"',""1""."",."'" ""3' '""'"
""'oo~ >00/,","
AuroMDBO""
co~::::.:.:". '001",. 800/",,- " 1'5' " ","
So"'~ >00/-", no"" " "" " ","
C~',~--_._.- ....-..--- -_...ln5W] 2.8
woOleo"" MOO "°/-"". ,".'.o,,~~" " "" " ""
w'"!',"" M'" 8 ",W"" m/-""""'.o,..,~" " "" " ","
O""S,~~S"""'O",," "O/-"""~""""~."O/""',,""" "" " 'S"
S,'" [0";,, """" so/WOO ,,"-. 3O0/""'0/"~"""'" .. " p" " "61
A~",.."C"", 2O/W00" h.AOOI"'",O/"~,~""'" " "" '" "61
.... 'Off> '"", "nooo" "- " """
D."".'. "I"~'~ ","" " '"" "" 1S,5I
""S.." 251"OO,,".30"'~'œ"""'" IS'I '" "'51
~M,",RY 51"'"
~URCHI,'5,"",,",;--------.._---_.... ""25]]] 'MOO" "-..301'..-"""";.",,, " "" " "51 "
""OO"""""""..m",,
CDMM"CUUJB"'~"
,.", """,", >8",,", C""" "MOO" "-.' '001"'" " po, " "51
,M..,.." 00...". m",.."
000.000" h wI",""" 3>
moo" "..'"
"",">8,","'""",,-------------IS"']]] 50/"°0,,"-"00/"'" ""', ""'51 "
"~OO ,..", 300.000.00.000
ç':;:m~;';;;':;:¡,,:'c:':,';'-"::~'- ...lmW] "/WOO,,"-'OOI....'" " ".' '" 1S5I "
,,~30 ...". "0.00~300.000" "-.
wM~",'m"..".."oo,,",.
"""""",]",~""",","",,
"""'00"""'""" ""'" """00" " ""01""" ., '"" "" 1S5I
"",....>0"",1",....
'OO.OOO,,"-.wM~"""~"
80..""".....",...""8'._,..,,
8'""",...".,]
C,mm"..", >8",..----..---.--------. . """,]
S~""""""/S"',C,mm""" 40/>000""-"°"",' " '"" " "51 "
".crm"",S"""". SO/"OO",,-" '0% 1S'5I
,..."o~", 'O/WOO" ".. " 103, " "'51
5.~,~,." "OMOO" "-'00".",'" " "," '0% IS",
0..".." """00""... " IS" "" "'51
C""""œM,,'" ,","""" 500MOO"h" " 1S5I " ",51
C""~"..'~M",,, ","","' "OMOO" h" " """ " "51
C,"'""", M"""-I..,,"'" ,.m", "O/WOO" h, OS".."",. ,.,,'", "...--- " ",,51 " 1S5I
0"""",", OOMOO" ".000/"'.'"" ".3, "1S.5I
0"".""",. OOMOO""-.'OO/""",, "" " '$cO¡
,.'""" 'm" '1>000" h.. W".".-- " "" " ",O¡
'.m", "", 3OIWOO" "-.. """,." " IS" " IS"
",m"m",_m""'...,"m. "1>000" h -- " IS" " IS"
"""""1"'" "". "/Woo,, h- ""....-- " IS" " IS"
,..,,",.~" 001>000". h.. 901"'," " IS'" '0% IS'O¡
M"" "" C,mm..".. 1-/>0"=""0/""'",,", G;~~::,:: :::-;gg~,';',::::;~::,::'~~~~)'"") :~ :~;: ,~~ ::::
mUCAnON
""'-""'IA_.,,]..._-- .-1""'" '5/"."",WO....' W' "2, " "'" ,.,
,OO,.. C'""" " """..-- ........-.-..-.."2"1 )6/"""""1>000""-.80},,,.' "."" """1 90
H"","","....--......-..---- -..175"", '8/""""'31>O00".h.$O/....-- ""',3' '2%>0" "
M""'I'OO""""'-------....------..-....."'25"] "1"""""1>00°"."-00/""" 3" "" ""," 50
'"~"'""'-_'__""_---_.._--_.._-_..."72>W] 1.U"""".1A/WOO"n..60/...." '" IS', "137> "
o"em_...----_.. ---.-..-----..---1"""'] '1'"'<O.80I>OOO"n" '" "," '" IS" 2'
RNAHCO-AO.'--...... ""--""----",,--- .1350223] "
"""W,"'oo",,] "0/'000"."-.1000/..,,"'.. "," ",.."
~M,"~T"".", 200/>000"."-."00/00<,'" "'] W' ",O¡
0"""""" '"" "'"'" ,,"~,,'I""" " "" ". ",O¡
So""" 8 Co", "1>000 '" "- '001""" " "
O,"~"...", '"" W,"$O ,"~,,'I""," "'"
HDSOOTA...... . 173.252] '.2
C"".., "IBo'.20/WOO" "-.."0/",,' """ '0%13'1
C'"""'~",I"""" 3/--- " IS., " lA",
'-"osm....
",""oV8""'""""'_m"'..,oo~...---" ""'" "I>OOO"n'OO/..,,"- '" "2' '" "," 6.0
""";e,,, "'""mm",." mooo".h.801""-- '" "" '" ","
""'""""""'M"."""'-----------I",,3] 1O/>OOO"n12O/..'" '" "2) '" "'" ",
M"""",,.o'I""mB<, '/1000" "-. $0/".." '" "" '0% ","
w."".."", 5/1O00'qn.."I.."" ""'," "'lA'"
""". mooo,,".O.'I",."'O/'..,' "",," "","
"""'"""""'O""oom"" 8/1O00"n80/",,' '" [0" '" ""
- -- - - >0"01 ¿:~~O
"'"6o"G""o5C","'"C""""C"""""'~","'oo.0..".."e.",'",.o""..,".,q..<m~""6",,""'M.~ "mooC",.."",o",",
o"""",oo.,~"s.'D.oo.s.""""'S""',"S,".""8'..",..""""Coo"","S,"0",,
"'"oe""",o.. "'""" C.","'", "'",om,", """"000"'" Coo"" w".. '"""" , , O."om,", " """'" S.C """= 'oC 0""", ," ","""""" ""om"
------ ---_-_--_0....._......-
~ ,
~ND US< ....., CA"GD~" <ST>-~ WEEKDAY ~H'e'" H'GHaT""" HaUff. ,..., 'N,a,,", ..",1 no" "'NGT>\
""""""""""","",~YT """GONo.."aH""'D~VEWAV) ~._.~~ --~~,.~ ,-,
Uff~..._- .,«~'" "/WOO"",,,",oo<," "P" """'," "
}~,:;;.;;;;;;;;;;;.;;;;;;;;;;;......"---_..__...__..",,,"'] 'D'o~'","-'OO".' " "" " "'I "
1" ,,~,.~ ,~~ '00"00' " "," " ""1
',,~H",' "o~'.~'oo~'OO'oo.'" "" ""..
"""mHm" "ooo.,""~m" " ".. " ""
M'UT___~.._..... -]""'" "/m""..'o,.""'~"O""'" """ W'"" "2
ameo .
"",","0~'"'0",~.__..--.._...- - pm', ,0¡,ooa""."OO,,.,. ,.. "" '" "," "
"","",WO.OOO"",
"",IH"""'-IComm..o"'O"'~"__,,, -is'",,,, "1'000""."°°',,,,' '" "" ,.. "," '°0
,m"""""O.Ooo,, ".""O",,,
O",o"""'~""'OOOOO"", "1'000"."_"°0/'°"" "."" ""',"
""",.""..O"°, "¡,o00,, "-"O"O,,' '" "" '" "," "
C"~"..H.."",,... .noao.,"-"O/'..' '" "" '" {I,9]
'~.."m""~'" """"...-.----------_._"O"'" 'D'WD'" ".. " "" '" ,nl "
',,'Off,~
c"",.I/W"""D"N 901'000,,"" ""
Comm..", ,"",.o"'..,m." o,,",_., '00/'°00" "- "OO"O," " "" " ","
Comm..",'.'m." ,.., ".., '°01'000,,"-.'°0°'00" " "," ,.. ","
M..,O'o,u",o.., "'001"°0,,-,,1/""" ""'I ""',"
o.""_,~M",,,,",o'" "0¡,o00" ".."O,."." " "" ,.. ","
M~,~'"""..,-.....".......--.- . ["'OlD] '°1'000,,".'°0/00<" " ",21 '" ""I "
'ARKS_. --[oe" " .." ,.,
C""'~'o....., 'O",,,'
'..10","'_10"" '°'00"
.",M"""OOO/Co"wl",o""-,, """""""~"'""on,...] 6/>""""""
"""'~"...'OOO"",' """."'"omo..,"
Am..,_' ~"'m,' 'O,,... "°/'. " '..mm.. ..",.. .. ""
S,"Oo"Loo "'1000'
S..wo,"O '°'000'
",DR""'""
,..".°","",",-""", --,""'" 600/'000","o"',~.6"o..' 6.'
",".u""",'w""1 SO/tOOO"."""""'I"'"
'ow"",c"", 'O/tOOO"."-'OO'"".30/""'" """ ""',6)
~:~~~':~: i;:;~'~~;;o. '00'°00"'" :~ is''] :: ""
0",.., "'"""'" to".,. tDI,," ",' " p" " ,",9]
M..IM' O/""'UOI",,'" " "" " ""J
M"""",_lm"""""o"",o""~O,."n"',~,,,,o] '°/'" ""
,,~-"""..,' ",' '01'°00" "- 'OOMo. '°/"",' .. "" " ""
T,"",Coo~ ""°".30'""," .. '" '","
Soo~F..,...
O,"Do" S"Omm 60,..".0.""'"
""00' A"" '°".0.0"..,,'
ff'œ"~ 0°'..".06,..,'
T"'..'"'m,",>",w/m""'~I--..--- """'] '°1'000""."1",,360/000""" "'% .. "," 6.'
l"n=..-.__--.... -.............................."""" '.9
",. Urn," "',,,' "10_11..,..", .. "" ,.. p",
""..".,.,OU/..,,]
,..", "m'" 00","'0 'OlD-""" ..," .. "" ,.. p~1
"""'0'" OU/..",
ConDom"",m 'low""", 'M" " ",6) ,.. ""]
""",m""',m",,."OU/'."
At>o=,.. 'low,""" 'M" " "," " p",
",,",m""',m","""mo,,"," "OU/,",,]
M,"...~ "00"'" Ion"'". m",.tom",]
"""',"'OU/,o,,' 6/OW""""" """ """
M::;~oOH~::;:'" ",..,,"', 'M " "" " ","
F.m," '/0..""",",00/'°'" """ ""'"
AD"," D,,', "Ow,""" 'M ""..' " "" ,.. ","
"""OW.. Comm",,", "0..11"', om'" .. "'" " ""
C.."",....",.o,"", 2/0_"1","",," " "01 .. ",9]
"""AU..",,___..... .. """" ,.,
D.."" "O/IDOO" ,,- ".." '°01..,,'" " "," .. 1'",
,"<OW". "'" tom.,.. "'0/1000" n. ".." "°0100"" " '"'" .. ""
'"IF"OIw/O'.o"ro,,", "'0/1000" ff. "",."°001",,'" " ,",9] " '","
',n '0001-0," ""H'roOO" tOO/tOOO""." ""'" ",",9]
O"""".."P'~oml ""'°00""-"1"'" " "'I """
'tRANS"""'ATIaH
,..0"" "/100O",,"
TmoU..m'..' "/100O". ".. tJ.., '°/""" " "'" .. ,","
W.w,""""',"' T,~",,' DOl"""'. "".."
T""""""'"""""""I"""'ol '°°"""-"""""""00,",""""'" """, ""',"
""."","" G~~::,:;:~~';;~~',';',::;~;ó)'" '" "" '" ""
. ",.",""" So"o.,"n«_,,=
.. o""'o""~=""~"",'-",~n"m'""'""""o","""'""'n.."'",-",",,,,,",,"""""""""",,^"'AO.'AnM"n~~."oom.""'-'"
. """"'O"~"""'O""""""",'om"",","""oI',".,",oI""..""""'...",..~",..o""O"""'".""""oI.O"""H""""""'"
""~~g~';â~;~f~of~~:';::::;:~':i;'~::;:. ",m", M"",""'~'" o-n,"" 00.""'" "". "~,,oo > , .,"
: ;::::::~::::::"::~t:'~;::'~i:::'::i}'~::::::::::':~;';:.'::';:"~"-"""""'""'-"."'"
. ."'.,~~..""'"" ,_.""~,,,.,W ,-",""OC.,.""".,oc,....,OC-O_"",,"",,
. 'o....""^,~",""".~"",.."~<t.,,,]..,o,"',,,""""""""'""""""""." "';""""""O"O~"""'""""O"""'"-,"'O",,,,"._,'"
CD~'§t~~"'m" ¡E
.1ê~;~~~C~."""'0"'" ¡æ
A>t~.::~""," ::
'T~::'::,o"".,..,;: ç )j
...,,~.~ .....,
ATTACHMEN1~ :~i~
(7' ~
pac~(bay i f Q~1 )OUl
H () M E 5 \~ REGHVm
e¿.ó'è" "1'{'>: .
<¿>9~g¡: tiZ"'" :/
October 9, 2001
Cliff Swanson
Deputy Public .works Director / City Engineer
City ofChula Vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Comments on revised Traffic Signal Participation Fee
Dear Cliff:
Pacific Bay regrets that we were unable to have a representative at the informational
meeting regarding the update of the Traffic Signal Participation Fee. We have reviewed
the proposal, and would like to use this letter as an opportunity to provide our input and
ask questions regarding the proposal. Our specific issues are outlined below:
Proportion of Upgrades Allocated to New Development. The report assumes that
fifty percent (50%) of the cost of citywide traffic signal upgrades result fÌom new
development. This number seems to have been arbitrarily chosen. What
percentage of citywide signal upgrades occurring in eastern portions of the city
where traffic volumes are increasing directly as a result of new development?
What percentage are occurring where traffic volumes are increasing due to other
factors, or where no traffic volume increases are seen at all? We believe that
more analysis needs to be provided on this issue.
Methodology for Determining Ratio of Trips to Signals. We are concerned that
¡he lIlethodology for detennining the ratio of !lips tv signals is fundamentally
flawed. The existing portion of the city has a grid street system that by design
creates more signalized intersections than the hierarchical
"Collector/Major/Arterial" system that is being used in the development of the
Eastern Territories. Intuitively, one would estimate that more trips per signal are
generated by the larger intersections in the newly developable areas.
Accordingly, by using the existing ratio, the analysis significantly overstates the
number of new signals that will be needed over the life of the fee.
Cost Assumptions for New Signals. The assumed cost of $205,000 per signal
appears to be inflated. There is no justification for the five percent (5%) price
differential and the (5%) contingency. This appears to be a "double-hit" of
padding on a price that is pretty well defined. (Our recent experience has shown
2JtI(I ¡"",clIR"",1 ",¡"'21IQ!!."!.,I¡,,,, C,I'!I'!14
1(>IQ)h,h.41(1(I'I",(I,I'))("h.4][1h
C --1 )
-..-.-..-.-.-..---...
Letter to Cliff Swanson
OCtober 9, 2001
Page20f2
that signals without the video detection system on major intersections are less
than $] 25,000). We also believe the twelve percent (12%) inspection and
administration fee seems high.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposal. We
look forward to working with you to address the above concerns, and move toward
adoption of a revised fee structure.
Please contact,me if! can provide further clarification or input.
Regards,
~
Dave Gatzke
PACIFIC BAY HOMES
cc: Jerry Livingston, BIA
Liz Jackson
Mike Bryan
File: Traffic Signals
£-0{3
;.1:nACHMENT ...R
INSTITUTE
OF
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
TRANSPO R T A TI 0 N
AND
TRAFFI C EN G INEERIN G
HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
Wolfgang S. Hamburger
Editor
Louis E. Keefer and William R. McGrath
Associate Editors
PRENTICE-HALL, INc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
- '__M -- .. ---.. --_._- .--.--.-.-------
..
-------
24
-------
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
LEONARD RACH, DirectOr of Traffic
Metropolitan Toronto, Road, and Traffic Department
Toron/o, Canada
Maintaining efficient transportation systems has become a " 000
key goal for government-based transportation agencies in :::
this era of serious energy shoI1ages, rising costs, and com- '000
peting sources for public funds, The emphasis has shifted
to optimizing traffic movement on the surface street network
rather than the more costly programs associated with pro-
viding more freeways, In cities. traffic control signals may
have the greatest influence on the presence or absence of
traffic congestion as evidenced by the number of signalized
inten;ections related to urban area population in various
world countries illustratcd in Figure 24.1.
The literature' defines a traffic control signal as any
power-operated traffic control device. whether manually,
electrically, or mechanically operated, by which traffic is Ô
alternately directed to stop and pennitted to proceed, AI- :¡
though there are references to regularly maintained tower ;;5"
lights 2600 years ago, the world's first traffic signal using :2.
colored lights was installed in mid-December 1868, at the ~
intersection of George and Bridge Streets in London, Eng- 5
land.' Over the years traffic control signal development
paralleled the development and use of the automobile, bor-
rowing from railway signaling practice with regard to color.
meaning, and application of signal indications.
With the advent of computer technology and solid-state 00
electronics. existing traffic signal equipment now has suf" "
ficient flexibilIty to pennit the implementation of virtually " ~ ~"w " 0< "'" , .." '" "",moo
any conceivable control strategy'"This chapter addresses the TRAFFIC SIGNALS [HUNDREDSI
functIOn and applicatIon of trafnc control SIgnals as they
apply 10 surface street systems, Figure 24.1. Relaliooship of urban area papulatioo and signalized
imen;ections in Ihe United Stales. Canada, and England, SOURCE:
From data pmvided by Ihe National Safety Council (U,S.). by Ihe
Depanment of Roads and Traffic, Municipality of Mettopalitan
Tommo (Canada). and by Ihe Transpan and Road Research Lab-
----;"P<,um'" T"'fi, Sigoal Controllm," Teo",live Revis'" S",..Wd, ITE T~h. onllOry (U.K.).
oi~1 Coun,iI Comminoe 4C-S, hajJi, Eng., 47, 40-48 (Feb. 19771.
'G M. S'-"'O'5. Prin'ip~ Wri"", hajJi, Dn'im His,",i,"! Aspw" Thmoj
W"hingloo, DC !o,lirule of T"'fi, Eogi=~, 1971
737
E-o<5'
-- u_----------- _._-
RESOLUTION NO. 2001- -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
TO EFFECT CHANGES IN THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL
PARTICIPATION FEE FROM THE EXISTING ADOPTED FEE
OF $13.00 TO $23.00 PER AVERAGE DAILY VEHICLE TRIP,
AND ADOPTING A REVISED COUNCIL POLICY NO. 478-01
THAT REFLECTS THE FEE CHANGE EFFECTIVE UPON
ADOPTION
WHEREAS, on August 8, 1978, the City Council, by Resolution No. 13857, adopted a
policy regulating participation by private developers of residential, commercial and industrial
uses in the financing and/or installing of traffic signals on public streets within the City of Chula
Vista in order to insure there was an equitable and proportionate contribution to be borne by all
traffic-generating private developments to satisfy the projected traffic signal needs of the City;
and
WHEREAS, currently, private developers pay for their share of financing traffic
signals in the form of a $13.00 traffic signal charge per each additional trip their developments
generate; and
WHEREAS, the increases in signal equipment and traffic signal installation costs
triggered the need to update the traffic signal participation fee from $13.00 to $23.00 per average
daily vehicle trip in order to provide and future signals and perform necessary signal upgrades;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofChula
Vista does hereby amend the Master Fee Schedule to effect changes in the Traffic Signal
Participation Fee from the existing adopted fee of $13.00 to $23.00 per average daily vehicle
trip, and adopting a revised Council Policy No. 478-01 that reflects the fee change effective upon
adoption as set forth in Attachment 7, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if
set forth in full.
Presented by Approved as to form by
CL.,~~
John P. Lippitt John M. Kaheny
Director of Public Works City Attorney
.r'attD,""ey\"",,\MFS t,.,f1k ,¡goal
Ç'o1b
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 11/13/01
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCM-OI-14, PCM-00-17, PCC-01-86;
Request to adopt an Addendum to FEIR 95-01, amend the Otay
Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan, modifY the Otay
Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations, consider a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a reduction of Parking Standards
for Affordable and Senior Housing in Village One, and rename a
portion of Pas eo Ranchero to Heritage Road through Otay Ranch.
Applicant - The Otay Ranch Company
Resolution ofthe City Council of the City ofChula Vista approving an
amendment to the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One
Plan, and rename a portion of Pas eo Ranchero to Heritage Road.
Ordinance of the City Council of the City ofChula Vista approving an
amendment to the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One
Planned Community District Regulations allowing "for-profit" day
care facilities in Community Purpose Facility Zoning Districts as
authorized in the Planned Community Zone.
Resolution of the City Council of the City ofChula Vista granting a
Conditional Use Permit for reduced parking standards for affordable
and senior housing in Neighborhoods R-47 and C-I in the Village One
core and adopt the Addendum to FEIR 95-01
SUBMITTED BY: DIrector of p~and Buildin~
REVIEWED BY: CIty Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X)
The Otay Ranch Company has applied to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One
Plan to reallocate 97 unused dwelling units authorized by the Otay Ranch General Development Plan
(GDP) for the Village One Core Mixed-Use Project and modifY the SPA One Planned Community
(PC) District Regulations to allow "for-profit" day care centers. The applicant also requests
consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a reduction in parking standards for senior and
affordable housing in the mixed-use project, as well as a request to rename Paseo Ranchero to
Heritage Road south of Telegraph Canyon Road.
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and has made the following
determination regarding the environmental status of each of the following components of the Project:
. Reallocation of97 unused dwelling units was addressed in FElR's 95-01 and 97-03; and,
_.... ._...__.~.. .._~. . -- ---- --
Page 2, Item L
Meeting Date 11/13/01
. Renaming of Pas eo Ranchero to Heritage Road and the amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA
One to permit "for-profit" day care centers do not result in a physical change to the
environmental and are therefore covered by "the general rule that CEQA applies only to
projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment." (CEQA
Guidelines Section] 5061 (b)(3», and are therefore exempt from CEQA; and,
. The Conditional Use Permit for a reduction in parking standards for affordable and senior
housing units would result in only minor technical changes or additions to the adopted SPA
One project; therefore, an addendum to SPA One Plan FEIR 95-01 has been prepared in
accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt:
. A Resolution amending the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, allocating 97 unused dwelling units
to Neighborhood R-47 and C-l in the Village One core and renaming a portion of Pas eo
Ranchero to Heritage Road south of Telegraph Canyon Road through Otay Ranch to the
City's southern municipal boundary; and,
. An Ordinance to modify the SPA One Planned Community (PC) District Regulations, to
permit "for-profit" day care facilities as a permitted use in Community Purpose Facilities
Zoning Districts in the SPA One Planned Community District Regulations; and,
. A Resolution granting a Conditional Use Permit allowing a reduced parking standard for
senior and affordable housing in Neighborhoods R-47 and C-I in the Village One Core
Mixed-Use development and adopting the Addendum to FEIR 95-0l.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission met on October 30,2001 to consider the Project (after the preparation of
the City Council Agenda Statement). Staff will therefore report verbally on the Planning
Commissions discussions and recommendations at the City Council public hearing.
9'-02..
------
Page 3, Itemí
Meeting Date II/B/OI
DISCUSSION:
When the City Council and Board of Supervisors jointly approved the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan/Subregional Plan for the 23,OOO-acre Otay Ranch in October of 1993, the GDP
authorized 1,757 single-family units and 1,566 multi-family units for a total of 3,323 dwelling
units in Village One. The SPA One Plan (originally approved in June of1996) utilized 2,880 of the
authorized 3,323 Village One units, including allocating all of the 1,566 multi-family units to the
Village One core allowed by the GDP. This number of multi-family units was based on the Medium
High designation in the GDP designation of 18 dwelling units per acre. The original SPA One Plan,
however, utilized only 1,314 of the approved 1,757 single-family GDP units for Village One.
Following the original approval of the SPA One Plan, the Otay Ranch Company processed the
first tentative map for their ownership in Villages One and Five in 1997. The first tentative map
for their ownership in Village One utilized only 2,583 of the 2,880 units adopted by the SPA One
Plan. The GDP and SPA One Plan were amended again in 1998 and 1999, respectively, to add
Village One West to the SPA One area and redesign the Phase Seven (Project) area of Village One
involving the core area south of East Palomar Street. The GDP amendment allowed flexibility in
the number of multi-family units in the Village One core, provided that sufficient multi-family
densities were approved to support the light rail transit line on East Palomar Street.
The 1999 SPA One Plan amendment, which reduced the total unit count in Village One fÌom 3,323 to
3,066, reflects the Otay Ranch GDP amendments adopted by the City Council in 1998. The Otay
Ranch Company also processed a revised tentative map for Phase Seven in Village One in 1999 to
redesign the Village One core and implement a "Main Street" theme with mixed-use development. At
the time, the developer had not utilized all of the units authorized by the SPA One Plan or the Otay
Ranch GDP. The SPA One Plan currently allocates 2,968 units, leaving 98 units available for use in
Village One.
A mixed-use project was approved by the Design Review Committee (DRC) on January 22,2001 for
the Village One core. The Project implements the original "Main Street" concept and utilizes
commercial, office and residential uses along East Palomar Street frontage in the core. In May of
2001, the City Council approved an affordable housing plan consisting of 271 units on this site
consistent with the Applicant's obligation to provide affordable housing in their SPA One ownership.
The plan calls for 91 seniors units on the second and third floors of the mixed-use development. The
Project is proposed to be a true mixed-use development with two to three stories of residential units
located above the ground floor commercial uses. The plan also includes a 180-unit family apartment
development in Neighborhood R-47,just to the south of the mixed-use development Thepurposeof
this application is to amend the SPA One Plan to reflect the affordable/seniors housing plan and
design approvals
7-3
_. - "---'-'--------"'-"--
Page 4, Itemí
Meeting Date 11113/01
1. Site Characteristics
The mixed-use project is located in the heart of the Village One Core bounded by Santa Rita on the
west and the Sharp Rees Stealy Medical Clinic on the east. The proposed development makes up the
balance of the "Main Street District" (mixed-use area) of the Village One Core on the south side of
East Palomar Street adjacent to Heritage Park. The site is currently vacant and has been rough
graded. The Heritage Park site across East Palomar Street to the north is currently under
construction.
The balance of Village One to the south, west and north is currently under development with the
construction of single-family residences, multi-family development and parkland, community purpose
tàcilities, an elementary school and other mixed uses. Access to both Paseo Ranchero and La Media
Road are provided from East Palomar Street. The proposed future extension of the light rail transit
system will eventually travel through the Village One core in the center median of East Palomar
Street.
Paseo Ranchero is a 6-lane Prime Arterial south of Telegraph Canyon Road in the City's General
Plan. This road serves as a major north-south corridor for the west portion of the Otay Valley Parcel
of the Otay Ranch. A small portion of the road has been constructed from Telegraph Canyon Road
south to Olympic Parkway, concurrent with the construction of SPA One. Future extensions ofthis
road will be constructed with the development of Villages Two and Three in Otay Ranch.
2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
General Plan
The City's General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP designated the land within the Otay Valley Parcel for
urban villages that are transit-oriented and pedestrian fÌiendly. Otay Ranch villages are intended to
contain higher residential densities and a variety of mixed-uses in the "Village Cores", surrounded by
single-family homes in the secondary residential areas outside of the village cores. The General Plan
designates residential land uses in Village One as Low-Medium Village (LMV) at 3-6 dwelling units
per acre and Medium at 6-1] dwelling units per acre. In addition, there is a Village Core (VC) land
use, as well as land uses for parks and recreation and an elementary school, all consistent with the
land use designations for the Otay Ranch GDP.
Zoning
The Otay Ranch is zoned Planned Community (PC) as are the other master planned communities
such as Sunbow and EastLake. Land development regulations are contained in the PC District
Regulations within each master planned community SPA Plan along with a zoning boundary map
designating a zone for each neighborhood. Village One is designed as an "urban village"
1-1
-- ----.----.-
Page 5, Itemí
Meeting Date 11/13/01
(containing mixed-use multi-family housing in a village core). The SPA One Plan Zoning Districts
Map for Village One are:
. Single-Family Three (SF3)
. Single-Family Four (SF4)
. Residential Multi-Family One (RMl)
. Residential Multi-Family Two (RM2)
. Commercial (C-I)
. Community Purpose Facility (CPF)
. Open Space/Parks (OS/P-I)
Neighborhood R-47 is zoned RM2, and Neighborhood C-I is zoned Commercial.
Land Use
Most of Village One is built-out (under the current SPA Plan), except for the mixed-use project and
some portions of Phase Seven south of the Project. Most of the multi-family developments
surrounding the mixed-use site are under construction. Heritage Park (P-I) to the north ofthe site is
also under construction. The balance of the mixed-use "Main Street District" is approved for a
variety of first-floor commercial and office uses, second- and third-story multi-family, a community
purpose facility and a multi-family neighborhood on the south side of the site.
The land uses envisioned for the Village One Core, including the commercial/retail component, the
day care facility and the multi-family/senior residential neighborhood developments. The Project will
be based on the design goals of the SPA One Village Design Plan and Village One Master Precise
Plan. The adopted Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and Planned Community District Regulations specify
uses permitted in the various zoning districts of SPA One. The subject development affects three
zoning districts in the Village One Core. Although these districts are separated for purposes of the
land uses, the precise plan design contemplated the "mixed-use" design, which allows for flexibility of
location ofland uses. The three land use districts are as follows:
. C-I - Commercial (Commercial, Office, Retail, Mixed-Use Seniors Residential)
. CPF-l - Community Purpose Facility (Day Care Facility)
. RM2 - Residential Multi-Family Two (Affordable Housing Apartments)
Each proposed use in the commercial office, and retail component are subject to the Permitted Use
Matrix, described in the SPA One Planned Community District Regulations.
9-5
Page 6, Itemí
Meeting Date 11/13/01
Proposed Plan
1. Proposed Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment
The proposed amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan includes the following
. A re-allocation of 97 unused dwelling units authorized by the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan (GDP) for the Village One Core Mixed-Use Project,
. Modification of the SPA One PC District Regulations to allow "for-profit" day care
centers as a permitted land use in the Community Purpose Facility Zone in SP A One,
pursuant to the permitted uses authorized by the Planned Community Zone, Chapter
19.48 in the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
. A request to rename a portion of Paseo Ranchero (commencing south of Telegraph
Canyon Road) to Heritage Road.
The application also includes consideration ofa Conditional Use Permit to allow a reduced off-street
parking standard for affordable and senior housing, as authorized in the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan,
Section IU-l
The request to re-allocate 97 units in Village One implements the affordable/senior housing plan
approved by Council earlier this year. In May of 200 I, the City Council conditionally approved an
affordable/senior housing plan as part of a mixed-use development consisting of271 units on this site.
This approval allowed the Applicant to apply for State financial assistance for the affordable/senior
housing development. The approval of the affordable housing development was also consistent with
the Applicant's obligation to deliver affordable housing units in their SPA One ownership in a timely
manner. In order to apply for State funding and meet the State's deadline for an affordable housing
project, the Applicant submitted and obtained conditional approval of a site development plan for this
site in January of200 I by the City's Design Review Committee (DRC). The Applicant is required to
amend the SPA One Plan to allocate the available GDP units left in Village One to Neighborhood R-
47 and the C-l Mixed Use site. The SPA One Plan amendment is required prior to the issuance of
building permits (planned for this December) for this site.
A total of 3,066 units are authorized for Village One in the amended GDP. The SPA One Plan
allocates 2,968 units, leaving 98 units available in Village One. Consistent with the requirements of
the GDP, the SPA One Plan may not exceed the maximum number ofGDP units. In the SPA One
Plan, Neighborhood R-47 currently allows 174 units on its site development. This proposal in the
affordable housing multi-family development includes 180 units for that site. The amendment will
allocate six unused units to that site. This proposal includes utilizing 91 of the unused units to the C-
I Mixed Use Site. The total number of units proposed for both neighborhoods requires the allocation
of97 unused units. A breakdown of the unused units, as well as the units already designated for the
two subject neighborhoods is summarized as follows:
1-h
Page 7, Item~
Meeting Date 11/13/01
Existing SPA Unused SPA Units Proposed SPA Amendment Units
Units
Approved
Neighborhood 174 6 Units Allocated 180 Multi-Family Units
R-47 Multi-Family
Units
Neighborhood C-I N/A 91 Units Allocated 91 Multi-Family Units (Seniors)
Total Units 174 Units 97 Units 271 Units
The re-allocation of units to Neighborhood R-47 multi-family site and C-l mixed-use site for senior
housing will bring the total unit count in Village One to 3,065 still under the overall GDP multi-family
allocation of3,066 for Village One.
2. SPA One Planned Communitv District Regulations
Pursuant to the SPA One Plan, Table III-6 - Permitted Use Matrix Village Core District, the
Community Purpose Facility (CPF) District permits day nurseries, daycare schools and nursery
schools that are "non-profit" entities. The development application currently proposes a "for-profit"
daycare facility for the 1.5-acre CPF-J site.
In March of 2001, the Council approved an amendment to the CPF Ordinance in the PC Zone
(Chapter 19.48.025 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code) to, among other things, permit "for-profit"
day care facilities with specific findings. As a result, the SPA One Plan PC District Regulations
require amendments to make them consistent with the CPF Ordinance and to reflect the use offor-
profit day care facilities in the CPF Zone pursuant to the development application.
3. Conditional Use Permit
Pursuant to Parking Standards for Affordable and Age Restricted Housing SPA One Plan PC District
Regulations Part III Section 1I.3(j), approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required by the City
Council to allow for a reduction in parking standards for the affordable housing and senior residential
units. It should be noted that in the future, Administrative Conditional Use Permits will also be
required for the development of the day care facility and the convenience market (with gasoline
station) located at the northwest corner of the Project.
This site proposes a total of 271 residential units to fulfill the developer's obligation for affordable
housing. Neighborhood R-47, located at the rear of the site, proposes 180 multi-family residential
units containing a mixture of one, two, three and four bedroom units.
a. Circulation and Parking
71-7
- ,--,---_. ---' ,-.' ----
Page 8, Item~
Meeting Date 11/13/01
Vehicular access to the site will be mainly served by driveway access .off of Santa Rita and Santa
Andrea (both Promenade Streets). The entire project is served by an interior vehicular parking lot
and circulation plan consistent with the policies of the SPA One Village Design Plan and Village One
Core Master Precise Plan. Driveway access off of Santa Rita will be directly located across from
access to Neighborhood R-19 and will provide interior access to any use on the site. This parking
area will serve as primary parking for vehicles, motorcycles and electric carts. This driveway is
intended for slow vehicle traffic and has not been designed as a "through" street. This driveway
further connects to the access point on Santa Andrea on the Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Clinic site to
the east. The development also includes a secondary exit point onto East Palomar Street adjacent to
the proposed convenience market. This point of access would serve for a right turn entry and exit
only. The "Main Street" theme alsc> provides existing diagonal parking fÌonting along East Palomar
Street.
Service areas for the commercial portion of the mixed-use site are provided at the rear of the
buildings. There are 23 individual rear entries to each of the ground floor uses in this mixed-use area,
this provides for convenient entry for shoppers and service deliveries. All of the service deliveries will
be from the rear building areas including vehicle deliveries and waste management collection. Several
locations of enhanced pavement treatments have been proposed to assist with low vehicle speeds,
connect pedestrian walkways and increase the awareness of pedestrian activity throughout the
development.
A total of 50 I parking spaces have been provided for the project. The parking requirement for the
Project is 613 spaces pursuant to the SPA One PC District Regulations Requirements described in
the SPA One PC District Regulations, Section II.3(J) - "Parking Standards for Affordable and Age-
Restricted Housing", indicate that the parking standards may be reduced from those identified in the
RM2 Districts for projects restricted to Affordable Housing and Senior Citizen housing The reduced
parking standards are subject to the discretion of the City Council through the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit application. A parking study was prepared as required as part of the CUP
application. This parking study, which demonstrated that adequate parking has been provided for the
Project, was approved with conditions by both the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and
Building,
r-f
Page 9, Itemí
Meeting Date 11/13/01
The City's Community Development Department has gathered additional supporting data and
completed an analysis of reduced parking standards for Affordable and Senior Housing projects
throughout the City of Chula Vista as well as other cities across San Diego County The findings
from Community Development are that reduced parking is appropriate for these individual residential
uses (see Attachment #3). These reduced parking standards have been successfully utilized in other
senior and affordable housing projects in the City. As a result of the Community Development
Department's findings and the parking standards described in the SPA One Plan, staff proposed
reduced parking standards for the R-47 affordable housing site. This would include 180 units at a flat
rate of 1.5 spaces per unit. The senior housing site in the Mixed Use C-1 site, which includes 91
units, used a ratio of 0.75 spaces per unit.
Parking standards for other land uses in the project were subject to the requirements of the SPA One,
PC District Regulations, Section VII - Off-Street Parking. Parking requirements for commercial and
office uses and day nurseries, daycare schools/nursery schools were also determined. For the
commercial and office use parking standards, staff used, as a base, the parking standards from the
Off-Street Parking and Loading section of the Zoning Ordinance. According to the zoning code,
business and professional offices require one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area,
commercial retail stores require one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. Staff proposes to
use a flat rate of one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area for both the office and retail
components. Based on the requirements of the off-street parking table, parking has been provided
at the following rate:
Site/Use Area Units SPA One Proposed Total Total
(Sq. Parking Parking Standard Spaces Spaces
Ft.) Standard Required Provided
Commercial/ 20,780 N/A W/ Site Plan 1 spacc/250 Sq. Ft. 96 83
Retail
Office 8,934 N/A W/ Site P1ao I spacc/250 Sq. Fl. 27 36
Day Care 9,876 N/A I space/staff I space/staff mcmber 24 24
Facility member (23- (23-25 members)
25 members) +
+ I space/l0 children if
I space/l 0 adequate drop-off 18 18
childrcn if facilities
adcquate (184 children
drop-off maximum)
facilities
(184 max.
childrcn
R-47 Affordable N/A 180 15 space/l 1.5 spaces/unit 338 271
Housing bcd
2 space/2 bed
2.25 spacc/
3 bed+
C-l/Mixed Use N/A 91 L5 space/l 0.75 spaces/unit 110 69
Senior Housin!! bed
ý-9
- .-----..--.---------------
Page ]0, ItemÍ-
Meeting Date ] 1/13/01
2 space/2 bed
2.25 space/
3 bed+
TOTAL N/A 271 N/A 613 501
9 -/ô
_. --..-..----.
Page II, ItemL
Meeting Date 11/13/01
On-street parking is also provided for the mixed-used core. On-street parking includes 21 diagonal
spaces provided on East Palomar Street for shoppers. The allowance of on-street parking for this use
is authorized by the SPA One PC District Regulations. In addition to vehicle parking, the SPA One
Plan requires parking dedicated to motorcycles and electric carts. This site also requires "priority"
parking stalls for electric carts and low-speed vehicles. The required space size for electric carts and
low-speed vehicles is 4 feet by 8 feet, and the space must be clearly marked. Staff has determined
that parking spaces for electric cart and low-speed vehicles shall be provided at a rate of one space
per 100. The proposal has included areas for dedicated electric cart parking. Service delivery
vehicles will have to utilize available parking stalls as necessary. It is anticipated that larger service
delivery vehicles will not be used for any of the retail tenants.
4. Rename Paseo Ranchero to Heritage Road
The Applicant has submitted a request to rename a portion of Pas eo Ranchero, a north-south 6-lane
Prime Arterial through Otay Ranch to "Heritage Road" The name change is requested to commence
south of Telegraph Canyon Road to the City's jurisdictional boundary, connecting with the existing
Heritage Road in the City of San Diego. In the City's General Plan, Paseo Ranchero is planned to
connect to the existing alignment of Heritage Road in the City of San Diego at the boundary between
the two municipal jurisdictions The Applicant believes that the name "Paseo Ranchero" is more
attributable to the influence of the Rancho Del Rey planned community, which in their view carries a
Spanish design theme throughout that development including street names, monumentation and
architecture. Otay Ranch Company believes that the name "Paseo Ranchero" is appropriate for
Rancho Del Rey, located to the north ofOtay Ranch.
The Applicant, who owns a significant portion ofland in Otay Ranch on and adjacent to the approved
Paseo Ranchero alignment in Villages One and Two, has planned its ownership in Otay Ranch around
a "California Heritage" design theme. SPA One has implemented this theme through its
monumentation, landscape and architecture. According to the Applicant, the size ofOtay Ranch and
the importance of Pas eo Ranchero as an integral roadway in the planned community, make the road
an extremely important marketing tool. Otay Ranch Company also believes that the name Paseo
Ranchero is inappropriate for Otay Ranch, and conflicts with other street names in Otay Ranch.
Currently, only a small section of Paseo Ranchero that is affected by the name change has been
constructed. The section of the road from Telegraph Canyon to Olympic Parkway is now open to
vehicular traffic. The only address on the road is Otay Ranch Company's Information Center. This is
the only address that will change. Otay Ranch is the only property along the entire segment of road
that will be affected. It is important to move forward with the name change at this time, before other
villages in Otay Ranch are built.
9-1/
Page 12, ItemL
Meeting Date 11/13/01
5. Analvsis
The proposed amendments to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and the Conditional Use Permit
application all implement the approved SPA One Land Use Plan and are consistent with prior
approvals. The allocation of the 97 units to Neighborhoods R-47 and C-l are consistent with the City ~-
Council's previous conditional approval for the 27 I-unit affordable and senior housing development
for the Village One Core. All of these multi-family units in the Project are within a 'I4-mile radius of
the future trolley station in the core on East Palomar Street.
The Conditional Use Permit application for reduced parking standards for affordable and senior ..-
housing in the Village One Core is consistent with the requirements of the SPA One Plan. Other
developments in the City, as well as throughout the County, have utilized reduced parking standards
as an incentive to provide affordable/senior housing developments. Many services and transit
opportunities are readily available for these developments. The supplemental parking study and
analysis from Community Development have demonstrated that other developments with reduced
standards have been successfuL In addition, a condition of approval will include a shared parking
agreement with the Sharp Rees Stealy Medical Clinic, located directly to the east of the Project.
The modiíìcation to the PC District Regulations to permit "for-profit" day care facilities as a primary
use, implements the recently amended CPF Ordinance in the Planned Community Zone, Chapter
19.40 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
At this time, only a portion of Pas eo Ranchero has been constructed to date. This section ofthe road
between Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway was built concurrent with the Village One
development. The future extension of the road will be built with Villages Two and Three. Pursuant
to Section 12.44 ofChula Vista Municipal Code, the street name change for Paseo Ranchero will not
cause confusion or uncertainty to police, fire or emergency vehicles by virtue of similarity of spelling
or sound of said street names, and to act in changing such names so as to eliminate such confusion
and uncertainty.
The Planned Community (PC) zone requires each community, or in this case a village, to provide land
for Community Purpose Facilities (CPF). The ordinance requires 1.39 acres for CPF land for every
1,000 residents of the village. Since all of Village One is basically developed and the Otay Ranch
Company amendment will add residents to the village, additional CPF land (0.4 acres) will need to be
provided elsewhere within their ownership in the Otay Ranch.
In the interest of stimulating the construction of housing for low and moderate income families, the
Parkland and Public Facilities Chapter (17.10) of the Municipal Code permits the waiving of all or a
portion of park improvement obligation for affordable housing projects. In order to assist in reducing
development costs for the construction of residential units for the Project, the City Council and
Redevelopment Agency adopted a joint Resolution (2001-165) that identifies the reduced park
obligation for the Project. Pursuant to Resolution 2001-165, the applicant is required to dedicate an
additional 1.8 acres ofland for a future community park site within a service radius of the project as
1-/~ - .
-=
Page 13, Item~
Meeting Date 11/13/01
defined in the Otay Ranch GDP.
6. Conclusion
Staff believes that the amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, Conditional Use Permit
application for reduced parking and the request to rename Paseo Ranchero are all consistent with the
policies and requirements described in the approved Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and the Otay Ranch
GDP. Staff recommends approval of the amendments subject to the SPA One Conditions of
Approval (see Council Resolution No. , Exhibit 'B')
FISCAL [MPACT:
The cost associated with processing the project is covered by the applicant's deposit account
Attachments
I Village One Locator Map
2 Pasco Ranchero Locator Map
3. Community Development Department - Reduced Parking Analysis
4 Proposed Otay Ranch Village One Land Use Plan
5 Planning Commission Resolution (pCM 01-17)
6 Planning Commission Resolution (PCC 01-86)
7 Disclosure Statement
9-/3
- ---- --------------
¡¿rJ/~><'Iz~~' <\//j, \ . 4mo+ M" M'~
' / " ¡I~'; ~ " y /\-0;"'\ \ \ /
'¡/'~" ". ..Ä\'c~'
)¡f¡..ii/',,'Y'")c ~¡\!'\ / .
T "';, Î---~,!~ 7 F ~ ,7. "¡' ,;;." \" , "~\, .. :;j7
/ 1/ ¡~'~~'7,L ~"" ì ,^'" ~ V("C'-~Î/\ \ /ù'"
.Llij'i¡!-"..,'~',," ^',' ").,,\\ .:;;
I r oJ,cLf L='f~/~~§ Çš , \"<" \)MQNARé;/:fEÔ' (~'r/
-'J '1'-.../ /""',r'~j 1:1 :Y~ ' ,-'f?, ~'r/
~) L--"i~.,! r...7~ """,' / "'~/
1 ~¡":I " ,J ~ '
L (='" "', ¡-.., ,"r , ~ , ' \
7!1'>j'r' !"-'!=-~'r- ~'LÆ i Ì/rìi I / \ \
I U! I,Ìfr-"t--i ',r----,- ~~ ! HERITAGE, ,," ~,\
~r~4 i",,/"¡ l,t ",NTA,YNËZ J I PARK-'/; \
~_,1==i f~] E3 ~__4\V I I, \' ~\ \//
j ",t~t'i=j i,l PROJECT I I / L~, -'=~-:>
r'L-ej i::-,L~1 i-J LOCATIO~<:)-//
r/t: \/J-jj- - ~ ", ,,' i 1..-// W'RS'
\ (-::: ~ l~~/ (-/ \ /// f, ""LO
J c/---: '\1 \'IV\' \ //' -
~"\ \\ \ '.1/ Ü,-l-/ ß
i',' -\ \ \-Y- ~~ / f:
I x- ,,)/ " // :;<
/>- /' / / ;;
/ ./'
;,//
\
\
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT OTAY PROJECT LP PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: ' SPA AMENDMENT
PROJECT S, OF E PALOMAR ST between Request: Otay Ranch SPA One Village One Core; Allocate 97 MF
ADDRESS: Santa Rita SL & Santa Andrea SL affordable units, amend the PC District Regulations to allow for profrt
child care facilities, proposal to reduce parKing requirement from 640
SCALE: I FILE NUMBER to 501 to serve mixed use, senior & affordable mu~i-family & CPF uses,
NORTH No Scale DRC-O1-23 Related Case: PCM-97-11, PCM-O1-14
h:\home\planning\carlos\locators\drc0123,cdr 10,18,01
9-/Y
- ,---..------..-- ,--- --_.._-
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR Ä~~¿I~~1T: THE OTAY RANCH COMPANY PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ø SPA AMENDMENT
PROJECT Paseo Ranchero from Telegraph
ADDRESS: Canyon Road to Heritage Road. Request: Proposed street name change from Paseo Ranchero to
Heritage Road commencing at Telegraph Canyon Road
SCALE: I FILE NUMBER: and terminating at the City's southern boundary along
NORTH No Scale PCM-OO-17 Heritage Road.
h:lhomelplanninglcarlosllocatorsIPCMO017.cdr 10/18/01
Parking Requirements by Jurisdiction
(as of May 2000) ,,@¡JJ!:JJ/tCftM.Ë:JúT3
. !.1fjlL~f¡!,(ìjj¡.r:.
.!!; - !l£.W!I..
1 Bdrm 1.5 spaces per unit A reduchon in parking ralio Is allowed as an
2+ Bdrms 2 spaces per un" additional Incentive to develop lower Income
Guest 05 spaces per unit for up to or senior housing at the discretion of the
Cadsbad 10 units Planning Commission.
0.25 spaces per unit for each
unit in excess of 10 units
t+ Bd""s 2 spaces per unit 1 space per Mixed commercial and senior or
Coronado Guest No requirement (inclusive) unit affordable housing
0.5 space Mo.ed commercial and SRO or
per un" boarding house
t Bd"" 1.5 spaces per unit None specified
Chula Vista 2+ Bd""s 2 spaces per unit
Guest No requirement (Inclusive)
1 Bd"" 1 spaces per unit None specified
2-3 Bd""s 2 spaces per unit
Del Mar 4+ Bd""s 3 spaces per umt
Guest No requirement (Inclusive)
1 Bdrm 2 spaces per unit 1 space per Senior or disabled housing with
2+ Bd""s 2.25 spaces per unit unit approval ot specific plan
EI Cajon Guest 10% of required spaces
30% Affordable (Income restricted)
reduction in housing
parking
Studio 1.5 spaces per unit 1 space per Mixed commercial and
Encinltas 1-2 Bd""s 2 spaces per unit unit affordable housing
3+ Bd""s 25 spaces per unit
Guest No requirement (Inclusive)
1+ Bd""s 2 spaces per unit 1.5 space Mixed commercial and
Imperial Beach Guest No requirement (Inclusive) per unit resldenlial
La Mesa t+ Bd""s 2 spaces per unit Reduclions may be considered with the
Guest 04 spaces per unit approval of a specific plan
t+ Bd""s 225 spaces per unit 1 space per Senior housing
Lemon Grove unit
Guest No requi,ement (Inclusive)
1 Bdrm 13 spaces per umt None specified
2+ Bd""s 1.5 spaces per unit
Guest 0.5 spaces per unit for 20
National City units or less
0.25 spaces per unit for each
unit in excess of 20 units
1 Bd"" 1.5 spaces per un" None specified
2+ Bd""s 2 spaces per un"
Oceanside Guest 1 spaces per unit for 4-10
units
20% of total number of units
for 10+ units
1 Bdrm 15 spaces per unit A reduclion in parking ratio may be allowed
2 Bd""s 225 spaces per unit as an Incentive to develop affordable, lower
Poway 3+ Bdrms 275 spaces per unit income housing at the discrelion of the
Guest No requirement (Inclusive) Planning Commission.
Studio «401 sq ft) 1 space per unit 0.70 Affordable housing @ 65% or
spaces per less of AMI
unit
Studio (>400 sq ft) 1.25 space per unit 2+ Dus owned andlor managed by the SO
San Diego 1 Bd"" 125 space per unit 1 Bd"" 1 space per unit
2 Bd""s 1 5 spaces per unit 2 Bdrms 1.2 spaces per unit
3+ Bdrms 175 spaces per unit 3+ Bd""s 14 spaces per unit
Guest (2+ dus) 30% of total number of units Guest Reduced if located near public
transportalion
9-/¿'
--------------..--------.-----
~ ~
~ -~5 ~ ~
~ ~Ê~ v * ~o~
~ üi~~ i" ~ 2"-
~ ~~~ üi üi E~£
~ °N~ å å ~~~
ê ~~~íI '"~ '" ~,,~
; ~i~~ ~i ~~ ~~~
~ ~:2~~: ~~ ~~~
~ æ~~Ê ~~ g: æt:~
ß ~~~~ g~ ~~ ~8~~
~~o. ~~ o~ "0""
"-o.cn", «a. 1-0. "-~o.>
~.
"
~
.¡¡;
~\~
~;~
.1:>
E
~
z
u **************************************
I 1~~~ß~~~II~~~I~~'i'~~~II~~~~~R~~g~~5~~
J' ~
0 :J
.¡¡- 'i.
~ _~~mmN"~o"'o~mWO""'~N~~~w_o_m~~mON"'o~"'m"'"
m """",,~~~~-N--NNN"'NNNNN"""N~"'~~N"""""""""""""
~
0;
~
0
:J:
gÆ!
"'~
5i'J
~,g w <D ~ 0 '"
È« ~ '" ~ 0"
() ~
õ'~ h~ h "I "I I
5~ <>~n H U ~~ U
~ ~~~! ~~ ~~ q ~~
~ ~... ~ ~
"-
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5 it ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~
gggggggg~~gggggg~~ggggggoooogggggggg
" ww~~ÑÑ~,,<D<D~~ÑÑ~~W<D~~ÑÑ~~~~OOW<D~~ÑÑ~"
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~ggii~~iiggii~~iiggiiiggg~~iiggii
I-I-SS~~SSI-I-SS~~SSI-I-SS~~sss~cncnI-I-SS~~SS~
~
'<
~ ~
ii;," ,g 0 <;"' e
go ~ ~ ~:t IJ
< =."' :::> 0",:::> ~"':::> ~"':::>"':::> ,¡¡
/; 5ËN~ ~Ëo~ ø~<D~ ~~~~~~~~ ~
~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ g~~~~~~g ~
~" ~ ~- ~ ~N ~ ~"~~N ~
<'5 ~ .3 ~ ~ ~¡
~ i ~
I- "-<
~g
"""
> >
«0(
9-/7
... ,...
\ p" qq-?~ Vilb <;prpm «;llnhnw) p"~P ,
South: PQ PC CV Medical Center Parldng
(across Medical
Center Court).
East: PQ PC ilia Veterans Home
West: RLM PC RS SFD's
(across Medical
Center Drive).
* Not<:: The property is designated on the General Plan Land Use Diagram as "PQ" (Public Quasi-Public):" ho,*ever,
this designation has been determineD to be a graphic error on the Diagram. The correct land use designation is "RM"
(Residential MeDium: 6-11 DulAc). Prior to the comprehensive update of the City's General Plan in 1989, the land
use designation was Residential (4-12 DulAc). Subsequent to the amended General Plan on February 20, 199O, !be
Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area Plan was approved with the site designated for multiple family units, consistent
with the correct General Plan land use designation. This designation wi]] be graphica]]y corrected upon the next
prinring of the General Plan Land Use Diagram.
3. Project Description
The applicant is proposing an affordable senior housing project with a total of 132 apartment units
(112 one-bedroom and 20 two-bedroom), common recreation facilities and amenities; ample open
space and parking for 146 vehicles (132 designated and 14 guest parking spaces). The proposal
also involves certain deviations from the Sunbow II Planned Community Regulations and Chula
Vista Municipal Code property development standards and density bonus increase. The following
paragraphs describe io more detail the proposed property development standards deviations and
density bonus increase requested:
Parking:
Section 19.62.050 of the Municipal Code and the Sunbow II Planned Community District
Regulations require 1.5 spaces for each one-bedroom, and 2 spaces for each two-bedroom units.
However, for senior housing projects, the City Council may consider and approve exceptions for
certain development standards, including off-street parking. The applicant is requesting a
reduction io parking requirements from one space for each one-bedroom and 2 spaces for each
two bedroom to one space per one or two-bedroom units and 14 guest parking spaces. Fourteen
percent of the total number of parking spaces provided is proposed to be compact size (71/2 X
15).
The following table i]]ustrates the proposed and required parking in more detail:
9-/f
_. . --._-- . -------~-
Jo. """ ""
~
/
I p" qq-7~ Vilh <;prPTI" «;I1TIhnw) p"~P 4
( Required Parking:
112 one bedroom units (1.5/unit) 168
20 two bedroom units (2/unit) 40
Guest parking Inel
Total = 208
Parking Provided
Residential units ( one per unit) 132
Guest parking -H
Total = 146 (-62 parking spaces)
Open Space
The Chula Vista Municipal Code requires 400 square feet of open space per dwelling unit
for multi- family projects. The open space may be provided in common usable open space
areas, private patios, balconies, or common recreational facilities. While the Municipal
Code, Chapter 19.28, does not specifically require the provision of private patios for
individual units, the adopted City Design Manual, Multi-family Design Guidelioes Section,
calls for 60 sq. ft. of private open space for one-bedroom and all units above the flIst
floor, and 80 sq. ft. for two- bedroom, ground floor units.
To satisfY the open space requirements described above, the proposed project features
45,941 sq. ft. (350 sq. ft. per unit) of common usable open space, including a recreational
building, shuffle board, outdoor cooking and passive open space. No private patios are
proposed for individual dwelling units. Based on the amenities provided, the applicant is
requesting a reduction in open space from 400 to 350 sq. ft- per dwelling unit.
Density Bonus
The applicant is requesting a 69% density bonus to increase the project density from 78
to 132 (54 additional units) affordable senior housing units. The 132 units will be
restricted for occupancy by low income seniors, with 80% of the units for low income
seniors at 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) and 20% units for very low
income seniors at 50 percent of the AMI. The rents for one-bedroom units will range from
$444 to $539/month and for two-bedroom units from $530 to $644/month. The restricted
rents are determined by HUD for the current fiscal year. Rent restrictions will be
maintained for a period of no less than 52 years, which exceeds the 30-year term
required by State law, and will bind all subsequent owners, so that the commitment
remains io force regardless of ownership.
9~/1
--"""'--'--""'" - "---"'-----
... ""
prr qq-?, Villo <;pr"no «;11nl1oW) Po.:'" ,
4. Analysis
Land Use Compatibility
As noted above, the site is surrounded by streets on three sides and by the Veterans Home
project, which is presently under construction. The site will be served by public transportation
along Medical Center Drive and is witlùn walking distance from the Chula Vista Medical Center,
future commercial center and parks withio the Sunbow II Planned Community. Thus, io staff's
opinion, the site is appropriate for senior housing and highly compatible with the surrounding land
uses.
Parking
With regard to the proposed reduction io the number of parking spaces to one space per unit plus
16 guest parking spaces, staff contacted several jurisdiction io the San Diego County and
concluded that the one space per unit parking ratio is widely used by other jurisdictions for senior
citizen projects. Based on tlùs, and the fact that public transportation, as well as a neighborhood
commercial center, park and the Chula Vista Medical Center will be available to serve the project
residents, staff supports the reductìon in parking spaces as requested by the applicant.
At the Design Review Committee meeting of January 25, 1999, the Committee discussed the
project and recommended a further reduction io parking space requirements io order to allow
pedestrian linkages between Village I and II and to the community garden io the center of the
project. Staff supports a further reduction as necessary to accomplish such linkages as long as it
does not result io a further reduction io amount of tenant parking spaces available.
Open Space
Although the open space provided amounts to about 350 sq. ft. per dwelling unit, which is 50 sq,
ft. less per dwelling unit, the senior citizen apartment complex has been designed with central
open space facilities and amenities to enhance the recreational and social interaction opportunities
typically associated with senior apartment projects. The applicant bas indicated that seniors can
create their own private patios within the oversized second story corridors and ground floor
wal1.'Way by placing their chairs and tables along the edges of these corridors. Based on tlùs, and
the fact that the apartment complex will offer a unique senior citizen apartment living style, staff
endorses the reduction in common usable open space as requested by the applicant.
9-0{0
- ------- --- ------
, ( '~~--. ~
.)
PAGE 5, ITEM NO.: .3
MEETING DATE: 06/13/00
Family housing for lower income households is a high priority need identified in the City's Housing Element
of the General Plan. This project supports the City's Housing Element, which calls for the provision of
adequate rental housing opportunities for low ond very law-income households.
The project complies with a top priority set out in the City's Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community
Development. This priority is to implement the City's Affordable Housing Program so that more newly
constructed rental and for sale units are made available to low and maderote income households, with
priority given to very low and low-income families.
This project exceeds the requirements of State law to provide 20 percent of the total units for law-income
households. The proposed proiect also exceeds the required 30 years of affardability. In order for the
applicant to provide such affardability for the 55.year term, the requested density bonus and reductions or
modifications to standards are required.
Lastly, the applicant will be required to enter into a Housing Cooperotion Agreement thot will specify the
offordobility ond occupancy restrictions in compliance with the requirements of State Law. The Housing
Caoperotion Agreement will be recorded against the property and its restrictive covenants will run with the
land. The Agreement orticulates the rent restrictions, income qualification of residents, the 55-year term of
affardability, and mechanisms for monitoring compliance. It is anticipated that the Agreement will be
brought forward for Council's consideration at such time the Council considers final action on the finoncial
assistance (no later than September 2000).
2. Alternative to Density Bonus and Other Additional Incentives
As set forth in Colifornia Government Code Section 65915 (b), os an alternative to granting a density
bonus or a density bonus and an additionol incentive, the City may provide ather incentives of equivalent
financial value based upon the land cost per dwelling unit, including direct financial assistance. Although
staff has not calculated the land cost per dwelling, should the Agency approve financial assistance at the
proposed level, it is likely that the Agency will provide adequate financial assistance to significantly
contribute to the economic feasibility of the project. Should the City not provide a density bonus and the
requested reductions in parking, the project size would be reduced and consequently, project funding from
the other sources may be reduced or jeopardized.
3. Parking
The Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space for every 200 square foot of retail
commercial floor space and two parking spaces per residential unit. Based upon these standards, the
commercial use is required to provide 75 parking spaces, while the residential component of the proiect
must provide 212 parking spaces. As summarized in the table below, the project is providing 73 parking
spaces for the commercial use and 180 residentiol pocking spoces.
PARKING REQUIRED PROPOSED
DESCRIPTION: STANDARD PARKING PARKING DIFFERENCE
15,000 square feet retail: 1:200 75 73 -2
106 units: 2 per unit 212 180 -32
Compact parking: 1 every 10 18 23 5
J-S"
9-~/
"--~--~---'-'-
,. ".. ,
PAGE 6, ITEM NO.: .3
MEETING DATE: 06/13/00
Of the 180 residential parking standards, 85 are in garages and 95 are uncovered surfoce parking
spaces, of which 72 are standard parking spaces (9' x 19') ond 23 are campact (7' x 15'). ,
Currently, the proposal is short two spaces for the commercial use and thirty-two spaces for the residential
units. Additionally, the proposed plans show that twenty-three of the residential parking spaces are shown
os compoct spaces, while only eighteen spaces are allowed as campact in compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance. There may be further reductions in the number of parking spaces provided due to the City's
requirement to provide additional trash enclosures throughout the site and in order to provide additionol
landscope buffers/relief.
As indicated above, other City requirements (trash enclosures, landscaping buffers, etc.) moy further reduce
the number of residential parking spaces being provided. Pursuant to State Density Bonus law, the
applicant is requesting a reduction in the required number of parking spaces for both the commerciol and
residentiol uses and an increase in the number of compact spaces. Staff is recommending that the
number of parking spoces per residential unit will not be reduced to less than 1.5 spaces per unit. As
currently proposed, residential parking is provided at 1.7 spaces per unit.
The requested reduction in parking standards from two spaces per dwelling unit to no less than 1.5 spaces
per dwelling unit is substantiated by the reduced need for parking within mixed use developments and
affordable housing for low and moderate-income households. To evaluate the appropriateness of the
request to reduce the parking requirements, staff conducted three surveys.
Staff surveyed twelve other cities within San Diego County to compare parking standards for multifamily
residential developments and allowed reductions in such standards (see Attachment 3). Staff conducted a
field survey of four existing affordable housing developments to determine the utilization of an-site parking
(Attachment 4). lastly, staff solicited comments from the mangers of these affordable housing
developments for their opinions regarding the adequacy of the available on-site parking (Attachment 4).
In comparing the parking requirements of Chula Vista, Chula Vista's appear to fall somewhat in the
middle. Six jurisdictions provide reduced parking standards for mixed-use developments, affordable
housing, and senior housing and other cities indicated they have the flexibility to consider lower parking
ratios. Reduced standards range from 1 space per dwelling unit to 1.5 spaces per unit.
Existing mixed use and affordable housing developments completed by the applicant's architect further
supports the reduction in the required parking spaces per unit. The architect designed similar projects with
a parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per unit. According to the architect, such parking is adequate to meet the
parking needs of the residents.
Siaff has made direct observations during various hours of the day of on site parking ovailoble ot Cordovo
Village, Park Villoge Aportments, Trolley Terrace T ownhames, Dorothy Street Manor, and Kingswood
Manor. Of the five developments, four were developed wilh the required porking spaces ond one (Park
Village) was developed with reduced parking. Parking was primarily observed when residents would most
likely be home. During the field observations, of those developments built at or in excess of the required
two spaces per dwelling unit, the average percent of spaces actually utilized was 54 percent. For Park
Village, which was built with 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit, parking was much more utilized with an
average of 79 percent of the spaces actually utilized. Attachment 4 also includes comments from the
manogers of these apartment communities on the usage of their parking areas.
.3- "
9 - ..<.J...,
- ..--..-.-----.
I .
PAGE 7, ITEM NO.: .3
MEETING DATE: 06/13/00
Staff supports the proposed reduction of the residential parking requirements from 2.0 to no less than 1.5
parking spaces per unit and an increase af compact spaces fram 18 to 23 spaces. All units are to be
occupied by low and moderate-income hausehalds. It is highly anticipated that same tenants are persons
or families that do nat drive. Staff's survey of allawed parking reductions by other jurisdictions for mixed
use developments and affordable housing developments and the architect's personal experience with such
developments support a reduction in required parking to 1.5 parking spaces per unit. Field observations of
existing affordable housing developments within Chula Vista reveal that ansite parking is currently
underutilized. Based upan the current use of the parking facilities at these developments, it is envisioned
that the majarity of these households will not have two or more vehicles. The site is located along Broad;vay
and Main with direct access to public transportation, lessening the need to own a vehicle.
Should the City require compliance with the parking standards of two parking spaces for each unit and no
more than one compact parking space for each ten spaces, the project would not be feasible. The
praperty's size would not be able to accommodate more than the 106 residential units and 180 parking
spoces, the recreation building, and 15,000 square foot of retail commercial and the 73 parking spaces.
While the parking requirements could be met off. site, there is no parking available within close proximity of
this project. The reduction of the parking requirements and increase in allowed compact spaces is required
to facilitate the construction of the praposed project.
4. Open Space
Section 19.28.090 of the Municipal Code requires a minimum af 400 sq. feet of open space per 2-
bedroom dwelling unit, 480 square feet for the 3-bedroom unit, and 560 square feet for the 4-bedraom
unit. The open space may be provided in the form of common usable o¡:.en space areas, private patios,
balconies, or common recreational facilities.
According to the open space exhibit provided by the architect, the praject will provide a total of 50,347
square feet of open space (includes balcony and patio areas) or approximately 474 square feet per unit.
Based upan the applicant's apen space calculations, the propased plan appears to pravide the required
open space. However, same of the open space areas included within the applicant's calculations da not
meet the criteria for usable open space and therefore, should not be counted towards the total open space
requirements.
The only large, meaningful public open space provided is the courtyard area and the recreation center
area across a main driveway. Each of the housing units contains a balcony or a patio area averaging 60
square feet which constitutes private usable open space. Pursuant to State Density Bonus law, the applicant
is requesting modifications to the open space requirements to accommodate the project.
5. Front Setback/Landscaping Buffer
The front building setback is 25 feet along Main and Broadway (front and exterior side yards) per the CCP
zone requirements. In addition, a 15-foot landscape buffer is required per the Montgomery Specific Plan.
The applicant is requesting a reduction from a 15-foot landscope buffer along Main and Broadway to 10
feet.
The frant setback/landscape buffer and entire landscape concept plan will be addressed through the
conditions of approval. The landscape buffer along Main Street and Broadway will be reduced fram 15-ft.
to 10-ft upon meeting the condition to provide illustrative sections showing that a landscape berm will be
utilized to screen the undesirable view of the front-loaded commercial parking spaces along Moin Street
.3-7
9-,):)
",.... "'~ou'Y
October 21. I993
Page:;
It should be noted that the project not only meets its usable open space requirement,
but provides active recreational facilities for its residents: two tot lots, a daycare facility
and playground, a community and recreation center.
e. The project proposes a 16' (long) x 4' (high) monument sign at the entranceway to the
project along Jamacha Road, the location of which is noted on the plot plan. A
conceptual Project Monument Sign Exhibit is enclosed for your review.
f f. The proposal for joint-use parking with the neighboring La Presa Community Churct
has been deleted from the project. A tabulation of parking is included on the eaclose<
revised plot plan for the project. Calculations based on Section 6758 of The Zonin¡
Ordinance(parking requirements for multi-family residential dwellings) indicate tha
221 parking spaces would be réquired for the project. The project proposes 197 parkin¡
spaces onsite (iocludiog <ix handicapped spaces); the project is 24 spaces short of the
required parking and requests relief from that standard. Modification to the standar<
parking requirement may be granted pursuant to Section 6782 of The Zonin¡
Ordinance, which allows parking in accordance with the terms of a use permit for the
development. Additionally, Land Use Residential Policy 11 of the Spring Valle]
Community Plan states that the Department of Planning and Land Use shall study and
recommend appropriate off-street parking requirements for multi-family developments.
The enclosed studies indicate that affordable housing developments, such as the
project, utilize less parking than standard parking requirements dictate. One of the
enclosed studies was performed by the Los Angeles Housing Department in 1993. The
Department conducted a telephone survey of nOn-profit housing developers to gather
information on 22 fully occupied, developments within that City. Their findings
indicate that there is an average of 0.93 parking spaces utilitized per dwelling unit. To
substantiate that information, site visits were made, including visits to most of the
developments that were part of the phone survey. Site visits were made between 5:30
a..m. and 9:00 a.m. On weekends to ensure that the greaterst number of cars would be
in the parking areas. That survey found that no location had full parking lots; most lots
were only one-quarter to one-half full.
Attachment 3 to that study outlines the results of several independent surveys, which
include the following: I )The Housing Division of the Department of Community and
EconoInic Development of Santa Monica conducted an affordable housing parking
sUIVey in 1989 and concluded that these properties showed an average of 0.49 cars per
household; 2) Following a parking survey, the City of Santa Monica passed an
ordinance in 1998 which reduced parking requirements for affordable housing projects
to one parking space per studio and one bedroom units, and 1.5 spaces per two- or
more- bedroom units; 3) In 1989, the City of San Diego revised its multifamily parking
standards, bascd on a survcy of public housing conducted in 1987. The survey found
that the overall parking occupancy rate for these developments was 1.18 cars per
dwelling unit (1.11 cars for two-bedroom units, and 1.26 cars for three-bedroom units).
As a result, the City of San Diego reduced its parking requirement for market rate units
"""'PO.',"^T ,n"""""",."", '" "eo
9-~f _...._---- .-"--"----.---."-'
Kcv;n \Iallol)'
Oètober21,1998
Page 4
to one space per studio unit, 1.25 spaces per one-bedroom unit, 1.5 spaced per two-
bedroom units, and 1.75 spaces per three-bedroom and larger units. Parking
requirements for low income develoments were further reduced; 4) The City of
Oakland's reduced parking requirements for market rate multifamily units range from
one space per dwelling unit to 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
The other enclosed study is an analysis performed by the City of Escondido Housing
Manager in 1997 of parking requirements for affordable and senior housing
developments. That analysis verified the adequacy of reduced parking within
affordable housing developments. Some of the developments reviewed received
approvals for reduced parking requirements through the City's Planned Unit
Development process, prior to adoption of reduced parking standards. However, the
reductions that were approved were deterrnioed to be similar to those provided by the
now-adopted ordinance. Based on field investigations, Housiog staff found that
parking lots for these developments often were only partially utilized. Further
reductions to parking requirements were analyzed; interviews with several property
managers for affordable housing developments indicated that the parking ratio could
be reduced to 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit. Staff concluded that existing ratios were
adequate with no further reductions at the time of the report, however, they
recommended that the issue of further reductions be revisited at a later date. Table
One of that study outlines the parking requirements of the eighteen cities within San
Diego County; all but five of those cities offer some relief from standard parking
requirements as an incentive for affordable housing projects.
The San Martin de Porres project proposes an overall parking ratio of 1.7 spaces per
dwelliog unit, which is 89% of the required parking standard. Based on the enclosed
studies, this ratio would provide adequate parking for the project. To provide an
additional 24 spaces to accommodate standard req1Jirements rather than meet actual
parking needs would compromise the afford ability of the project; either units would be
lost or project amenities such as the daycare center or playground/tot lots would be
deleted. We ask that reduced parking be granted to the project as part of its Major Use
Permit.
g. Proposed lighting for the project is shown on the enclosed revised Landscape Omcept
Plan.
.,
~ h. Utilities will be installed underground, including provisions for cable television. The
¡¡ provision of a Master Antenna Television system for this project would be cost
~ Prohibitive.
~
: L (1) Elevations of all views have been prepared and are enclosed for your review.
~
f (2) A project development summary has been included on the enclosed revised plot
plan-
">G"'<>'J'O"^"O"",-,WIN\",,,- '" ""O
9-~5
~~ ~",'C""""""",~oo",~ww"""oo ",Woo""""" '" ArrA-C.1-f-Me;AJT i-
ì!5 Mw~vvmvvvMv~WOO~~~ ooæ"g~~' :: ~ Æ :z ~
;;a. ~
g'. v :9 Q :
.iE æ:;;~ò\~r::;;;w;'~~:ri~:¡:g:;,:;; y, ii5:b~3g:2gga; a; 00 .c I/ ~
>-~" ~ -- - --v-"'~--v :;} ~::>
æ ~
E s::
E . «I
~ I ~;~;~~~~;~~~;~~~; ~ ;~;:ci:ci~;}~:;; ~ ~ ~:ri~óóól~ ~~I;j ~;EI~I~ g ã:
II) E .. ~ u. - s::
=> :J¡ b~¡¡¡ 0.:3- ~{¡ - 0
'C-g.~~u.~~u.~~~~~~~~~~~¡;~~~~~~~;;;~U w ",OJ""",,;;; ~~:;¡g,"æ:õ';; g Q
¡ijO,!'¡"""""""""""""""""""""""""'S"""""""¡¡-E¡;91."1."1."1."1."I."õ:3:}o-5d"J:c -50)
..J ~ -g -g <3 iJ [fJ :g:g '" '" ';: '" «I
CD '" '" , c: '" '" '" -
88 "'~ g~", §;
CD ~æ ~"'Mv~w"oom"::~~";::~~ ;'~~~~N~ ~ ~ "'MV~N;¡:~ ~ ¡¡.
g'~':¡d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:o ;Ld..d..d..d..;LPsPs;};i3ð 5;);
!; ~
§
-"
~G\ [~-:.L
~W ~H
¡~
b ð g
a
~
k
:::
¡¡¡
E
§,-c
= '"
« 'õ
>- <D
¡! in
'tJ "ê ~ s!-¡¡
~ ~ : 11i! ¡¡¡ 'i Ii ¡
-I ~~Æõ ;.'.J ~.l'~
¡~~ ~. ¡h
9 - mU;'
- -------- ~------
fr TT A-cH M E9J ( 5'
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-01-14
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO FEIR 95-01, APPROVE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE OT A Y RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING
AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN, ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO MODIFY
THE OT A Y RANCH SPA ONE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
REGULATIONS WITHIN VILLAGE ONE TO ALLOW 'FOR-
PROFIT' DAY CARE FACILITIES AND RENAME A PORTION OF
P ASEO RANCHERO TO HERITAGE ROAD.
WHEREAS, the properties which are the subject matter of this resolution is identified as
Exhibit "A" and "8" attached to City Council Resolution No. - and described on Chula Vista
Tract 96-04 and 96-04A, and are commonly known as Village One Core and Paseo Ranchero
("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, an application (PCM 01-14) to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) One Plan for Village One was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building
Department on February 9, 2001 by Otay Project, LLC, The Otay Ranch Company ("Applicant");
and,
WHEREAS, an application (PCM 00-17) to rename a portion of Pas eo Ranchero to Heritage
Road through the Otay Ranch was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building
Department on October 9, 2000 by Otay Project, LLC, The Otay Ranch Company ("Applicant");
and,
WHEREAS, the application(s) request to amend the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan including
modifYing the SPA One Planned Community District Regulations and Village One Land Use to
reflect the reallocation of97 unused dwelling units to Neighborhoods R-47 and C-I and permit "for-
profit" day care facilities in SPA One; and, rename a portion of Paseo Ranchero to Heritage Road
from Telegraph Canyon Road to the City's municipal bòundary through Otay Ranch ("Project");
and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional
Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996
by Resolution No. 18286, wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA
One Plan, relied in part on the original Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 95-01, SCII #94101046 ("EIR 95-01") and the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan
Final Environmentallmpaet Report No. 97-03, SClI #97091079 ("EIR 97-03"); and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and has
determined that: the re-allocation of97 unused dwelling units was addressed in FEIR's 95-01 and
97-03; the renaming of Paseo Ranchero to Heritage Road and the amendment to the Otay Ranch
SPA One Planned Community District Regulations to permit "for-profit" day care centers do not
rcsult in a physical change to the environment and are therefore covered by "the general rule that
9'- --< 7
- --.-- ._- ---.---.----.-. ----.
CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment. n (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b )(3», and are therefore exempt fÌom CEQA; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Project
and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
6:00 p.m. October 30, 2001, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, from the facts presented to the
Planning Commission, the Commission has determined that the approval ofthe Project is consistent
with the City ofChula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Otay Ranch
SPA One Plan, and all other applicable Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general
welfare and good planning practice support the approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends
that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the amendment to the Otay Ranch
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan and renaming a portion of Paseo Ranchero to Heritage
Road in accordance with the findings in said resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends
that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution adopting an ordinance approving an amendment
to the Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations, to permit "for-profit" day
care facilities in the SPA One Community Purpose Facilities Zone; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends
the City Council adopts the attached resolution adopting an Addendum to FEIR 95-01 and granting a
Conditional Use Permit for reduced parking standards on affordable and senior housing in the
Village One Core.
And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City
Council.
9-~f3
. --.-.. ---. ..-.-.-...- ._--- ---.-
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 30'h day of October, 2001 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Kevin O'Neill, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
! 1"1
9-:'<9
- ~~- ~ ---~----~-------
4rrÆU+-MfZ¡\)i (p
RESOLUTION NO. PCC-01-86
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REDUCED PARKING
STANDARDS ON AFFORDABLE AND SENIOR HOUSING IN THE
VILLAGE ONE CORE AND ADOPTING THE ADDENDUM TO FEIR
95-01.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as
Exhibit "A" attached to City Council Resolution No. - and described on Chula Vista Tract 96-
04A, and is commonly known as the Village One Core area ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, a duly verified application (PCC-01-14) for a Conditional Use Permit
("Project") to permit a reduced off-street parking standard for affordable and senior housing in the
Otay Ranch Village One core mixed-use development was filed with the City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department on June ]2, 2001 by Otay Project, LLC, The Otay Ranch
Company ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan, Planned Community
District Regulation permits reduced off-street parking standards for affordable and senior housing
pursuant to SPA One Plan, Section II.3-J; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional
Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996
by Resolution No. 18286, wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA
One Plan, relied in part on the original Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 95-01, SCH #94101046 ("EIR 95-01"); and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and has
determined that only minor teehnical changes or additions are necessary and none ofthe conditions
requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, as identified in Sections 15162 and
15]63 exist; therefore, an Addendum to SPA One Plan FEIR 95-01was prepared in accordance with
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 and adopted pursuant to Resolution No. ; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Project
and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was. given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
6:00 p.m. October 30,2001, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed.
7-30
- _H- ------
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
does hereby recommend that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit PCC-01-86 in
accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions and findings contained in the attached
draft City Council Resolution No.
ý- .3/
-~~-----
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 30th day of October, 2001 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Kevin O'Neill, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
9-3)
- ---- -----------
~ A-7IÆcttMEAJT 7
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Coundl Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters wrnch will require discretionary action. by the Council
PlaI1IÚng Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or fmanciai
interests, payments, or campaign conrributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following infonnadon
must be disclosed:
L List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the applicatio~ or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
Otav Project L.P.
2. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or parmersrnp, list the names of all individuals with
a $1000 investment in the business (corporation/partnersrnp) entit)'.
Jim Baldwin
AI Baldwin
3. If any person'" identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or trust, !ist the names of any person
serving as dircctor of the non-profit organizatíon or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of Ibe trust.
4. Please identifY every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have
assigned to represent you before Ibe Cit)' in this maner?
Jim BaJdwin K"'T)t- aden
Al Baldwin Ranie Hnntpr
Kim Kilkenny Chuck Cater
5. Has ;U;y person" associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official"" of the City of ChuJa
Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes~ N°-4'-
ý-J3
- .----" -.._----
-, 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
Chilla Vista City Council? No ~ Y es ~ If yes, which Council member?
7. Have you or any member of your governing board (i.e. Corporate Board of DirectorsJExecutives, non-profit Board
of Directors made contributions totaling more than $1,000 over the p~ 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 anofficiald -c¡f the City of Chula Vista in
the past tWelve (12) months? (TIùs includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.)
Yes - No.JL..
If Yes, which official". and what was the hature ofitem provided?
Date: 2/;'5"~1 C~ -
Signa of Contractor/Applicant
~j4t2(,~ i?~dL- ---
Print or type name of.Contractor/ApplicanL- ...
. Person is derIDed as: MY individual, firm, co-partncn;hip. joint ventUre, association, social club, frarcmal orga:òization,
corpo.raIion. estate. trost, xeceiver, synwcate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other po1itical subdivision, -ar
any other group or combination acÙDg as a unit.
.. Official includes. but is Dol-limited to; Mayor. Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board, commission,
or committee of the City, employee, or sW'f members.
H;\HOMElENGINEERIADMIN\CONTRACT\STL25200.23 (Boil" Min)
ý-3£f
---- --- ------------- ---
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE
PLAN, AND RENAME A PORTION OF PASEO
RANCHERO TO HERITAGE ROAD.
WHEREAS, the properties which are the subject matter of this resolution are
identified as Exhibit "A" and "B" attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 96-
04 and 96-04A, and are commonly known as Village One Core and Paseo Ranchero
("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, an application (PCM 01-14) to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) One Plan for Village One was filed with the City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department on February 9, 2001 by Otay Project, LLC, The Otay
Ranch Company ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, an application (PCM 00-17) to rename a portion of Paseo Ranchero
to Heritage Road through the Otay Ranch was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning
and Building Department on October 9, 2000 by Otay Project, LLC, The Otay Ranch
Company ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the application(s) request to amend the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan
including modifying the SPA One Planned Community District Regulations, and Village
One Land Use Plan to reflect the reallocation of 97 unused dwelling units to
Neighborhoods R-47 and C-l and rename a portion of Paseo Ranchero to Heritage Road
from Telegraph Canyon Road to the City's municipal boundary through Otay Ranch
("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 12.44 of Chula Vista Municipal Code, the street
name change for Paseo Ranchero will not cause confusion or uncertainty to police, fire or
emergency vehicles by virtue of similarity of spelling or sound of said street names, and
to act in changing such names so as to eliminate such confusion and uncertainty; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a
Sectional Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City
Council on June 4, 1996 by Resolution No. 18286, wherein the City Council, in the
environmental evaluation of said SPA One Plan, relied in part on the original Otay Ranch
SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 95-01, SCH #94101046 ("EIR 95-
01") and the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 97-03, SCH #97091079 ("EIR 97-03"); and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the
Project and has determined that: the re-allocation of 97 unused dwelling units was
addressed in FEIR's 95-01 and 97-03; the renaming of Pas eo Ranchero to Heritage Road
and the amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One to permit for profit day care centers do
not result in a physical change to the environmental and are therefore covered by "the
general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a
1.3
----- ....----_.____n_-_-
significant effect on the environment." (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3», and are
therefore exempt from CEQA; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on
said Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property
owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior
to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
6:00 p.m. November 7, 2001, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the City Council
of the City ofChula Vista on said Project; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at
their public hearing held on November 7, 2001, and the minutes and resolutions
resulting thereITom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers,
shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
11. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the
Second-Tier Final EIR 95-01 and Final ErR 97-03, would have no new effects
that were not examined in said Final EIR [Guideline 15168 (c)(2)].
III. ACTION
The City Council hereby approves the amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One,
including allocating 97 unused dwelling units to Neighborhoods R-47 and C-I in
Village One and the renaming of a portion of Paseo Ranchero to Heritage Road
from Telegraph Canyon Road to the City's municipal boundary through Otay
Ranch based upon findings contained herein and is consistent with the City of
Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and all
other applicable Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare
and good planning and zoning practice support their approval and
implementation.
IV. SPA PLAN FINDINGS
A. THE OTAY RANCH SPA ONE PLAN AMENDMENTS ARE IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL
9-3(;
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL
PLAN.
The Otay Ranch SPA One Plan amendment to allocate 97 unused dwelling
units to Neighborhoods R-47 and C-I in Village One and the renaming of
a portion of Paseo Ranchero to Heritage Road ITom Telegraph Canyon
Road to the City's municipal boW1dary through Otay Ranch reflects the
land uses, circulation system, open space and recreational uses, and public
facility uses consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan
and Chula Vista General Plan.
B. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE OT A Y RANCH SPA ONE
PLAN WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING
AREA.
The Otay Ranch SPA One Plan amendment to allocate 97 unused dwelling
units to Neighborhoods R-47 and C-l in Village One and the renaming of
a portion of Paseo Ranchero to Heritage Road from Telegraph Canyon
Road to the City's municipal boundary through Otay Ranch contains
provisions and requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of
the project through the implementation of threshold requirements
identified in the SPA One Plan and SPA One Public Facilities Finance
Plan
C. THE PROPOSED OT A Y RANCH SPA ONE PLAN AMENDMENT
WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE,
RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The land uses within Otay Ranch SPA One are designed with an open
space buffer adjacent to other existing projects, and future developments
off-site and within the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan area. The Project will
provide a variety of housing types compatible with existing adjacent land
uses, as required by the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. A
comprehensive street network serves the Project and provides for access to
off-site adjacent properties. The proposed SPA Plan amendment follows
all existing environmental protection guidelines and will avoid
unacceptable off-site impacts through the provision of mitigation measures
specified in the Otay Ranch SPA One Final Second-Tier Environmental
Impact Report (Final EIR 95-01 and 97-03).
D. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH
USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN
AREA, LOCA nON, AND OVERALL DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS ARE SUCH AS TO CREATE A RESEARCH OR
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY
AND STABILITY; AND, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THIS TITLE.
737
- '_U'-'-"U'-' -------
The Project does not involve areas planned for industrial or research uses.
E. IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTIONAL, RECREATIONAL, AND OTHER
SIMILAR NONRESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT
WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION AND OVER-ALL
PLANNING TO THE PURPOSE PROPOSED, AND THAT
SURROUNDING AREAS ARE PROTECTED FROM ANY ADVERSE
EFFECTS FROM SUCH DEVELOPMENT.
The Otay Ranch SPA One Plan does not involve these Institutional,
Recreational or similar uses.
F. THE STREET AND THOROUGHFARES PROPOSED ARE SUITABLE
AND ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE ANTI CIP A TED TRAFFIC
THEREON.
The circulation system depicted in the SPA Plan is consistent with the
Circulation system identified on the City's General Plan and Otay Ranch
General Development Plan and contains adequate internal circulation
consistent with the policies of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan
and the City's General Plan. The renaming of a portion of Paseo Ranchero
to Heritage Road from Telegraph Canyon Road to the City's municipal
boundary through Otay Ranch Road does not affect the adopted road
alignment for this road. Improvements to the road in the SPA One area
have been constructed per the timing and threshold requirements outlined
in the SPA One Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan.
G. ANY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE
JUSTIFIED ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATION (S) PROPOSED
AND WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES OF
THE TYPES NEEDED AT SUCH PROPOSED LOCATION (S).
The location of proposed commercial development area in the Village One
core area of SPA One is consistent with the requirements of the SPA One
Plan. These commercial uses reflect the Chula Vista General Plan and
Otay Ranch General Development Plan and will provide needed
commercial services to future residents in the area as well as visitors.
H. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE
PLANNED AND ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL
COMPATIBILITY WITH SAID DEVELOPMENT.
The SPA One plan is consistent with the approved plans and regulations
applicable to surrounding areas and therefore, said development can be
planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with said
development. The proposed amendments to the SPA One Plan is
consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Chula
Vista General Plan, as amended.
9-3Ç
- ---..----- --
V. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The City Council hereby approves the Project subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit "C", attached hereto and incorporated in the Project.
VII. REGULATIONS FOR STREET NAME ADOPTION OR CHANGE
Pursuant to Section 12.44 of Chula Vista Municipal Code, the street name change
for Paseo Ranchero will not cause confusion or uncertainty to police, fire or
emergency vehicles by virtue of similarity of spelling or sound of said street
names, and to act in changing such names so as to eliminate such confusion and
uncertainty.
VIII. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right
to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, revoke or further
condition issuance of all future building permits issued under the authority of
approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their
compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation.
IX. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is
dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition
herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions, or
conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,
illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically
revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert Leiter John M. Kaheny
Planning and Building Director City Attorney
- - ..------- ------
/ >--~" j--', /~ /y~~ ~ //--.Jl \
1--1 / ,. /'" ') " V " '
¡ ¡",,' i '-!-. /\,---f " \
, ,J / '\ \ ' I , \
) ,,' j I ':::-l, !? ~ -- \." ).-\-\--';. \
~-,!I-,--"" ~ V" 1'1"
7~"",,,' f",'----, -~,,/"""",/,/~ 7'~i "" \\,\,~\ \ Q
¡d¡ "--_IF_"--,!--'J' \\ '<-'
; Ii II' ,h,.),'~ 7,1" :--'--'--;--1:::)'----' /\'\--/\ \ ù'"
LU / ¡ ¡ìt-: "-/--, 'y \ \ \ .:;;;
'.',jl/"J"¡'d ,!,!-',-~-,,/---:;, ,/ , íttfj, ",I \ " j.Mõ~""-Ctì:EôR~"'r1
" f f'---,¡ !-~"---J / ~------ c:,'r/
c~ (1--'--/ t -----¡ , ~ ~ '"
i " ~> I"'" "
l"ITT/!"rr~'?",~,-,,~,,"~lh-r-r7 ¡ / HERITAGE " "",,\, \
'--I--i-1Ji ¡ '-/'- '7 !'--J ~- SANrA I --' \
"--I" ;' ¡---I--_I /-,1 ~ YNEZAV / PARK , --- \ \
r---i-.~:J ~ i--! ~-~ I \" \ -
r--,I,I'~,,'!----f 1[" \, ,..)-,,//
'¡--------I-¡-",' , ~/
J,", --¡--,ILE-7,-,'t,' .L~',! PROJECT \ l, ( ~" //----- ,
ii---.J j---, 1 '\)~) /-----------
'----L---J -I ---; f--\ LOCITIO~' \~,J .----,,-// /--,--~
\/"O\-"A \-""=-:,,[,~,j--\/-"--I,, II ", ,\ 1..--'------- ..~Rsí ---/// \~~
,--- --\\/~ ---CI ,- ¡>f>.,-O"" , ,-'
'I '\ / .J \.ç:~~'- ¡ \ _// \0 I"
,) \:é~J..---n "í I' l---/-// , Þ '\~
~~ '\ 1 ' \ L" -, ,}1 .-==-=\'" 1>
"',' \---,',\).9-_=/// , ,,' /, ,,---,~~-=--~ \u> f'A, )ij;\ /~
,~ ).--- / , /-:>/ \~ #// l '!'. r
;;- _/ //-:.~-</\ \~ '-,Î
\. //' "/;,,,--:::Ç.---\ I--:-¡ ¡ ~ \ \ --
/ ~Å' /1 r,' /\/\, f"" Î, \,. j\.---'--'
,/"~ ,-'Ì ,e--' ,A/ \ '" ;\' I - '------~
.//./ /',' :/")' / \. ' '\ ' _-------:,~, ~
L , - /' ~ ---,' ,
/~ ' 1>.~~"'-,/\ \. ~,/Î-Îí'\ ùJ.,
, 0 '1'..-\ , --:::;::"-c",I,,1
,;-' .'P,\;' 'b// \. ,/<:::::'\\\\'\J-.,,--,-,,~ \
, <;> / ~. ,<""!,"I' "J'-'-"/ CA ;c\í
\"@i',, ",\.,Ý""" ~,~"""./'"",\.7,~","";",/,,,,/'kv'Çþ}j""",.""""""'.'.,'.,"',,', , \""",\f::',r",""",;\,\".',',',',."'.',.',\.',/",',,".',,~,,";\f¡.,I',I-"\\,R"',".,',6,§,.ì,'(",'.",'.'.',s,t,'.'",":ì,',,',',",3..,",~,/?"""'~'\--~~" 1(":::<
y -- \/.\;--.\ \= ~ '" f' 1'\ \ f~) '(\L\~':;~'~ê:\ e:\~::\ \::;:\\:: j
~, "(/ ,\ \. /C\ \/~ ' ! ! [J \\-t- /,,;;«-o\-\ ',-\,---; l/lt>, ~-\\
/- \ \/'í, \ \\-=\ (~'jÝì-rÌ'~'~î';--,j\~,í I~t/I\~-\ ~~-\\;-.--\ '{-1\;:.\
'~'\, V':',' ),/,"\\/~\ / /f1/;~, ' ~,H/",.L'","',\",',--l\,',\,,~,',,~,\,';,\ ""',",',','~ '-,l,,-:-,',\,\:==J,'.',., \,::,'...'.,",',',\-',',/",',','" \C,'¡~_':::::-\-
\;/~, 'C/\/-\ \,' ¿}z:.'-Z.,/ i / / i II ì \r--\~~\);t:--\t::\ "r\\-:\ '~
\;,--".\ I'~<>"/ / /firìì~J,RA'"~,:,ST,.C""L""ì/,,,.,,"""""""'.",\,/'",ø,,"", ,'\/ ,',--,f"",I-\:,-,-j"",-",\.:,\,::,::,.."~,,",\, \\;\..}-- /
/11. ,'<f/fìfll'~- --r.-"""í:"--\v --
\;~\ " ì}7I / ì r:"i,L"~~~l,'"DI"i""",,,',",',++,,\'n,~ \:\\~/ 4 //
/ Q~"I!""'í"\'I'JI---,J/ ~
f'~' '---!. f¡'U'\\\'-----f"---- /
\ \ Ilf/ ìÌ"~-~C¡,l '--~_Ll-'~_,\-C\ c,'<//
,/'-.r,i¡,'¡--"- ,-i"" /'/
\ \v:2J1j¿' 'I. í !",r-,/;{1./ ;'/";,/'/,,,,'-T, 1,," ~',¡",\ ,\ 1',"'-;'-\/) ,// ,j.f",/
\, // j!. ~!-LL/ ÎTTt+'¡! ~~lrl\' -- /-,,~//)/ \
\ "" \,// C"lf-j..l/"i'>",',7,'---,'-L,',,',1 U, I-i,"'_--,--,-"--,, /' ,/.. '-----
\ I \"4 !//"ìr¡!::~':--,z-~r //'/ /,/ /---7~""",
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT OTAY PROJECT LP, PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: ' SPA AMENDMENT
PROJECT Request: Otay Ranch SPA One Village One Gore; Allocate 97 MF
ADDRESS; S, OF E PALOMAR ST. between affordable unfts, amend the PG District Regulations to allow lor profrt
Santa R,ta SL & Santa.Andrea SL child care facilities, proposal to reduce parking requirement from 640
I' to 501 to serve mixed Use, senior & affordable mu~i,lamily & GPF uses,
SCALE: FILE NUMBER,
NORTH No Scale DRC-01-23 Related Gase: PGM-97-11, PGM,O1-14
h:\home\plannlng\carlos\locators\drc0123,cdr 10,18,01
- --,,---,------- -,,----'-'..-,-
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR ~~~cI~~k THE OTAY RANCH COMPANY PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ø SPA AMENDMENT
PROJECT Paseo Ranchero from Telegraph
ADDRESS: Canyon Road to Heritage Road. Request: Proposed street name change from Paseo Ranchero to
Heritage Road commencing at Telegraph Canyon Road
SCALE: I FILE NUMBER: and terminating at the City's southern boundary along
NORTH No Scale PCM-OO-17 Heritage Road.
h:\home\planning\carlos\locators\PCMO017.cdr 10/18101
. _.. --......--.-...-.-..-.--..--
Exhibit "c"
Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless otherwise specified or required by law: (a) the conditions and Code requirements set forth
below shall be completed prior to the issuance of building permits, or, as determined by the Director
of Planning and Building and the City Engineer (b) unless otherwise specified, "dedicate" means
grant the appropriate easement, rather than fee title. Where an easement is required the Applicant
shall be required to provide subordination of any prior lien and easement holders in order to ensure
that the City has a first priority interest and rights in such land unless otherwise excused by the City.
Where fee title is granted or dedicated to the City, said fee title shall be free and clear of all
encumbrances, unless otherwise excused by the City.
Should conflicting wording or standards occur between these conditions of approval, any conflict
shall be resolved by the City Manager or designee.
GENERAL/PRELIMINARY
I. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to any
or all of the Property. For purposes of this document the term "Developer" shall also mean
"Applicant".
2. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements and guidelines of the City ofChula Vista
General Plan; the City's Growth Management Ordinance; Otay Ranch General Development
Plan, Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, Phase 1 and Phase 2; Ranch Wide Affordable
Housing Plan; Overall Design Plan; Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan
and supporting documents including: SPA One Public Facilities Finance Plan; SPA One
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan; SPA One Affordable Housing Plan and the
N on- Renewable Energy Conservation Plan as amended from time to time, unless specifically
modified by the appropriate department head, with the approval of the City Manager. These
plans may be subject to minor modifications by the appropriate department head, with the
approval of the City Manager, however, any material modifications shall be subject to
approval by the City Council.
3. If any ofthe terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they are,
by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to
be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modifY all approvals herein granted including issuance of building permits, deny,
or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from the approvals herein
granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or
seek damages for their violation. The Applicant shall be notified 10 days in advance prior to
1
any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given the opportunity to
remedy any deficiencies identified by the City.
4. Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any
and all claims, liabilities and costs, including attorney's fees, arising fÌom challenges to the
Environmental Impact Report and subsequent environmental review for the Project and any
or all entitlements and approvals issued by the City in connection with the Project.
5. The Project shall comply with all applicable SPA One conditions of approval, as may be
amended from time to time.
6. Any and all agreements that the Applicant is required to enter in hereunder, shall be in a form
approved by the City Attorney.
7. The terms, conditions and time limits associated with the Project shall be consistent with the
Development Agreement approved by Ordinance No. 2679 by the City Council on July 16,
1996 ("Development Agreement") and as amended on October 22, 1996.
8. Applicant shall submit to the City for approval by the City Engineer, the full traffic signal
plans for the following intersections in Otay Ranch, Village One:
a. East Palomar Street and Santa Rita Street
b. East Palomar Street and Santa Helena Street
Prior to the issuance ofthe first building permit in the Project, the Applicant shall enter into
an agreement with the City to secure the installation of traffic signals and at the above
intersections, which shall be installed upon the request of the Director of Public Works.
9. Applicant shall pay any and all costs identified by the Department of Public Works for
changing the name of Pas eo Ranchero to Heritage Road.
10. Prior to the issuance of of building permits for final occupancy for the Multi-Family
component of the Project, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer with PMB Chula Vista, LLC, or their successor or assigns, to allow for
Project to use available parking spaces in the adjacent parking lot of the Sharp Rees-Stealy
Medical Clinic located at 1400 East Palomar Street, Chula Vista, California.
H:\PLANNINGlOtay - Ranch\Otay _Ranch - CompanylSP A_One _V I_Core - ORC _Amend - Conditions. doc
10/26/01 11:52 AM
2
9-Y3
...... - .......-. .._.... .._.._.__.._-_.~-
ORDINANCE NO. -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY
RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLANNED
COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS ALLOWING "FOR-
PROFIT" DAY CARE FACILITIES IN COMMUNITY PURPOSE
FACILITY ZONING DISTRICTS AS AUTHORIZED IN THE
PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE.
WHEREAS, the properties which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 96-04A, and is commonly known as
Village One Core ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, an application (PCM 0] -14) to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) One Planned Community District Regulations was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning
and Building Department on February 9, 200] by Otay Project, LLC, The Otay Ranch Company
("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan, Planned Community
District Regulations ("Project") are intended to ensure that the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan is
prepared in accordance with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), to implement the
City of Chula Vista General Plan for eastern Chula Vista, to promote the orderly planning and long
term phased development of the Otay Ranch GDP and to establish conditions which will enable the
amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan area to exist in harmony within the community; and,
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations are
established pursuant to Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, specifically Chapter] 9.48 (PC)
Planned Community Zone, and are applicable to the Otay Ranch SPA One Land Use Plan of the
Otay Ranch SPA One Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations establishes
zoning regulations for Community Purpose Facility Zoning Districts located in the Otay Ranch SPA
One; and,
WHEREAS, the application(s) request to amend the Otay Ranch SPA One Planned
Community District Regulations, to permit "for-profit" day care facilities in Community Purpose
Facilities Zoning Districts in SPA One; and,
WHEREAS, On March 27, 200], the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2830 amending
Chapters 19.04, Definitions, and 19.48, Planned Community Zone of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code permitting "For-Profit" day care facilities as a primary use in Community Purpose Facilities
zoning districts subject to findings outlined in Chapter] 9.48.025, Section "F"; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional
- .- .-------.--.----.,--...--.
Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996
by Resolution No. 18286, wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA
One Plan, relied in part on the original Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 95-01, SCH #94101046 ("EIR 95-01") and the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report No. 97-03, SCH #97091079 ("ErR 97-03"); and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and has
determined that the amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One to permit for profit day care centers do
not result in a physical change to the environmental and are therefore covered by "the general rule
that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment." (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b )(3)), and are therefore exempt from CEQA; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay
Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan (PCM -01-14) and notice of said hearing, together
with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its
mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten
days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, a duly noticed hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
6:00 p.m. November 7, 2001, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City
ofChula Vista on the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan amendment and adopting the ordinance to approve
the modification to the SPA One Planned Community District Regulations; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public
hearing held on November 7, 2001, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are
hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any
documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the entire record of the
proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the Second-Tier
Final EIR 95-01 and FEIR 97-03, would have no new effects that were not examined in said
Final ErR (Guideline 15168 (c)(2)).
9-~5
.--. --...---.,-. ----
III. ACTION
The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance to the Otay Ranch SPA One Planned
Community District Regulations, to permit "for-profit" day care facilities in Community
Purpose Facilities Zoning Districts in SPA One finding that they are consistent with the City
of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Otay Ranch SPA
One Plan, and all other applicable Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general
welfare and good planning and zoning practice support their approval and implementation.
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 Leiter John M. Kaheny
Planning and Building Director City Attorney
H ,IPLANNINGIOtay - RanehlOtay - Raneh - Companyl VI- SP A_One _Amend _VI Core - CC - ORD.dne
:; - 7"6
.---.---..----.--. -'---'---'
HERITAGE
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PROJEOT DESCRIPTION:
LOCATOR PROJECT 0TAY PROJECT, LP.
^P~L,O^.~: SPA AMENDMENT
Request: Otay Ranch SPA One Village One Core; Allocate 97 MF
PROJECT S. OF E. PALOMAR ST. between affordable units, amend the PC Distdct Regulations to allow for
~,DDRESS: Santa Rita St. & Santa Andrea St. child care facilities, proposal to reduce parking requirement fTom 640
to 501 to seive mixed use, senior & affordable multi-family & CPF uses.
SCALE: FILE NUMBER;
NORTH No Scale DRC-01-23 Related Case: PCM-97-11, PCM-01-14 ·
h:\home\planning\carlos\locators\drc0123.cdr 10.18.01
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
REDUCED PARKING STANDARDS FOR AFFORDABLE AND
SENIOR HOUSING IN NEIGHBORHOODS R-47 AND C-l IN THE
VILLAGE ONE CORE AND ADOPT THE ADDENDUM TO FEIR
95-01.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is
identified as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 96-04A,
and is commonly known as the Village One core area ("Property"); and.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application (PCC 01-14) for a Conditional Use
Permit ("Project") to permit a reduced off-street parking standard for affordable and
senior housing in Neighborhoods R-47 and C-l in the Otay Ranch Village One core
mixed-use development was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building
Department on June 12, 2001 by Otay Project, LLC, The Otay Ranch Company
("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan, Planned
Community District Regulation permits reduced off-street parking standards for
affordable and senior housing subject to the grant of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant
to SPA One Plan, Section II.3-J; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a
Sectional Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City
Council on June 4, 1996 by Resolution No. 18286, wherein the City Council, in the
environmental evaluation of said SPA One Plan, relied in part on the original Otay
Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 95-01, SCH #94101046
("ErR 95-01 "); and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the
Project and has determined that only minor technical changes or additions are necessary
and none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, as
identified in Sections 15162 and 15163 exist; therefore, an Addendum to SPA One Plan
FEIR 95-0lwas prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 and
adopted pursuant hereto, and identified as Exhibit "ß" to this Resolution; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said
Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication
in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners
within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the
hearing; and
- a ..-.-...-..-"--. --- ,,- ------
WHEREAS, a duly noticed hearing was held at the time and place as advertised,
namely 6:00 p.m. November 7, 2001, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue,
before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed.
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista on said Project; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearing held on November 7, 2001, and the minutes and resolutions resulting
therefÌom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents,
along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the entire
record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the Second-
Tier Final EIR 95-01, would have no new effects that were not examined in said Final
EIR [Guideline 15168 (c)(2)], and therefore, has prepared an Addendum to that document
identified as Exhibit "B" to this Resolution.
III. ACTION
The City Council hereby adopts the Addendum to FEIR 95-01 and grants the Conditional
Use Permit to allow for a reduced parking standard for affordable and seniors housing in
Neighborhoods R-47 and C-1 in the Otay Ranch Village One core based upon findings
contained herein and is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan, and all other applicable Plans, and that the public
necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning and zoning practice support
their approval and implementation.
IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required by
the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of conditional use permits, as
hereinbelow set forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the
stated finding to be made. The City Council findings of fact are as follows:
9 -;:¡ c¡
..- ...-...---...--.--.
1. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the
neighborhood or the community.
The proposed reduced parking standard for affordable and senior housing in
Neighborhoods R-47 and C-I provides a necessary and desirable service that will
contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or community in that
reduced parking standards serve as an incentive to promote development of
affordable and seniors housing projects.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity.
A total of 501 parking spaces have been provided for the project. The parking
requirement for the Project is 613 spaces pursuant to the SPA One PC District
Regulations. The reduced parking rate this location has been analyzed and
compared with other affordable and senior development with reduced parking
standards proximity to mass transit opportunities and subject to a parking
study. The off-street parking facilities in the mixed use development will be
subject to meeting all health, safety and general welfare standards and
regulations set forth by the City of Chula Vista in that the off-street parking
areas must comply with the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code and
all other applicable codes prior to occupancy.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the code for such use.
The Project requires compliance with all conditions, codes and regulations, as
applicable, prior to any occupancy of the Project's off-street parking facilities.
4. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect
the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government
agency.
This use is in compliance with the Chula Vista General Plan land use
designation, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and the Otay Ranch
SPA One Plan regulations. The granting of the Conditional Use Permit will
be in compliance with the provisions of the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan if the
conditions identified in Section V of this Resolution are implemented.
9-
- - _M---_- ---_____--n_-
V. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The City Council hereby approves the Project subject to the conditions set forth
below:
1. Prior to the issuance of final occupancy for the Multi-Family component of
the Project, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer with PMB Chula Vista, LLC, or their successor or assigns,
to allow for Project to use available parking spaces in the adjacent parking lot
of the Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Clinic located at 1400 East Palomar Street,
Chula Vista, California.
2. The Project is subject to all conditions of approval identified in DRC-01-23
approved by the City' Design Review Committee on January 22, 200 I.
3. This Conditional Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized
within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section
19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any conditions of
approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional
conditions or revocation.
VI. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right
to revoke or modifY all approvals herein granted, deny, revoke or further
condition issuance of all future building permits issued under the authority of
approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their
compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation.
VII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is
dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition
herein stated; and that in the event that anyone 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.
9 - :;;-/
VIII. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the
lines provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and
applicant have each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained
herein. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Clerk
of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and/or
applicant, and a signed, stamped copy of this recorded document within ten days
of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the property owners/applicant's
desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits
and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Said document
will also be on file in the City Clerk's Office and known as document No. -'
Signature of Property Owner Date
Signature of Representative of Date
Property Owner
IX. ADDITIONAL TERM OF GRANT
This permit shall expire ten (10) years after the date of its approval by the City
Council. After the first five- (5) years, the Zoning Administrator shall review this
Conditional Use Permit for compliance with the conditions of approval, and shall
determine, in consultation with the applicant whether the Conditional Use Permit
shall be extended for an additional five- (5) years, At any time prior to the ten
(10) year expiration date, the applicant may apply for an extension,
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert Leiter John M. Kaheny
Planning and Building Director City Attorney
II WLANNINGlOtay - Ranch\OtaL Ranch - Company\-$ - SP A_One _CUP ]a<king- CC - Resa.doc
_.__.._-
i,/I' '> !,.~' I'.......... /' /,(~ ~ /~. / .' ,/"-<, \
" ,.'1/, /"< / "
7"",.,."""".z.'.',',/,""",/I"",ff-..........~",,',l,,'Y,(~ ~ ~"<" \,/\~// "",.(.,'","",\
"N"";"!! ,y//\\\\',
J"I""" ~.. y <~\",,_..,'
.J..,I;.. '/"',','v / ~,\",'-r"
"",,",1"","",',,/,,','/,'1'...'1 ~\\\'\"":,,!,\,\ /
' ,,",~ t ""'/"'" í ,I ,':' ì "'~/ ,", .... < " , \.- ',,- '\. \. <P
i,,'! 1'¡',)..'/ ¡""',Z','.J ~/ V (' ...--(, , /v4Y
i:I¡li','ì"l"~,I""""I' ";",\\ /,.:5
",',J,','.1" 'LJJ,'",¡"~,..',"""j,....",,;,,,/.,,':;, ',,/",l$..j..,,~ " Af¡/V';:\\)"¡¡ON~'<::ÎjEÔ'¡" r;:--i-';/
J) ¡..,:t::,//",<'.j ""';")/(:2' "-. \ ,y /' ,,' ....".....~;:/
i l.~¿,~ / ,......:.1...; i """,,-=1 ( , / ~ "
,¡ ,'Co"" ~~ ~....~ f'r>, ' '= ,...i I '"
{'" '" i ~">. ~,i fi i i "ì;--.. } \ \
¡ OJ TH..--'~J,~~"-¡ ,T.:',7~-:~ I ¡ (1 I HERITAGE ~ \
¡.::. ~ 1.... I, i.... i ~NrA~ 1 PARK...-/ " \
I-t'J f""I..! /~ ", ""'-,_...~II! ( " " '\ //
J.'.:~,!~~Jt~I,~lL-~ PROJECT! I /\~""" ' ~~.::==¿j ',/
I'--ê~, t~.._~ "1 \ \ ) .......-.......1// '
,,--;"-1 ,-I', t-I lOCArIO~' ' I /' ,.....-"
\.. J--..\ ' ',/ "
r/I,\/\ \:J-,',',j...,\::,\ , ,,' \ \...//'/----- Nlf',p.S'
,....--- /c \-.- \..~" ,- i " ,,/ c f'f',LO
~ \ - ~ \..==' '- / , ,/' ~
, L/,~\,"YÎ-ç, \ '\;!,í\ \ /" ,/
~-'Î I 'J---l-.l,Y .D,~'
'" \J I \,J- ,,/"
) )/ V/ _/-
/'r --- //'
//
;,/
\
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT OTAY PROJECT LP, PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT ' SPA AMENDMENT
PROJECT Request Otay Ranch SPA One Village One Core; Allocate 97 MF
ADDRESS' S, OF E¡ PALOMAR ST,' between affordable un~s, amend the PC District Regulations to allow for profrt
Santa R ta SI. & Santa Andrea SI. child care facilities, proposal to reduce parking requirement from 640
SCALE: I FilE NUMBER to 501 to serve mixed use, senior & affordable mu~l-family & CPF uses,
NORTH No Scale DRC-01-23 Related Case, PCM-97-11, PCM-01-14
h:\home\planningkarlosllocators\drc0123,cdr 10,18,01
-'----'-'- -"--,---,,,._' -,-
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR
FOR THE
OTA Y RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA ONE AND ANNEXATION
EIR-95-01
SCH #94101046
PROJECT NAME: Conditional Use Permit for Reduced Parking to Serve Senior and
Affordable Housing
PROJECT LOCATION: City of Chula Vista
PROJECT APPLICANT: The Otay Ranch Company
DATE: October 23, 2001
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Final Second-Tier EIR. Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One and Annexation, EIR 95-01,
certified in 1996 ("EIR 95-01"), contains a comprehensive disclosure and analysis of potential
environmental effects associated with the implementation of the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One
project, including Villages One and Five ofOtayRanch. In addition to EIR 95-01, The Final Second
Tier EIRfor Otay Ranch SPA One and GDP/SRP Amendments, EIR 97-03, certified in 1998 (EIR
97 -03) analyzed the addition ofland area in the western portion of SPA One, as well as amendments
and refinements to the SPA One plan. Therefore, while this Addendum is identified as an addendum
to EIR 95-01, it is also closely associated with EIR 97-03, in that EIR 97-03 analyzed many of the
same issues related to an updated SPA One plan. While EIR 97-03 provided a comprehensive
analysis of project impacts, it relied upon and referenced EIR 95-01. For that reason, the City of
Chula Vista has determined that it is more procedurally appropriate to base the Addendum on EIR
95-0 I as the primary document. However, the analysis contained in this Addendum also considers
the analysis and documentation provided in EIR 97-03.
The project Applicant for portions of Village One, the Otay Ranch Company, has submitted an
application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow reduced parking standards to serve the proposed
senior and affordable housing components of the village core. The purpose of this Addendum is to
discuss the minor changes in parking requirements for the Village One Mixed-Use area.
2.0 CEQA REQUIREMENTS
Sections 15162 through 15164 of the CEQA guidelines discuss a lead agency's responsibilities in
handling new information that was not included in a project's final environmental impact report
(EIR).
Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines provides:
(a) When an EIR has been certified... for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that
project unless the City determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the
whole record, one or more of the following:
. ---- . -..-------"'-- _."-,, ..-
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the EIR. ..due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the EIR . . . due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could
not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the
EIR was certified as complete..., shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not
discussed in the [Final] EIR;
(B) Significant effects previously examined wiJI be substantially
more severe than shown in the [Final] EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be
feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially
reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the
project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably
different from those analyzed in the [Final] EIR would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative.
In the event that one of these conditions would require preparation of a subsequent EIR, but "only
minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the [Final] EIR adequately apply to the
project in the changed situation," the City could choose instead to issue a supplement to the Final
EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15163, subd. (a).)
In the alternative, where the changes or new information will result in no new impacts, or no more
severe impacts, than any that were disclosed in the Final EIR for the Project, it is appropriate for the
City to prepare an addendum pursuant to CEQA Guideline, § 15164. That section states that an
addendum should include a "brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR
pursuant to § 15162," and that the explanation needs to be supported by substantial evidence.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15164, subd. (e).) The addendum need not be circulated for public review, but
may simply be attached to the Final EIR. (Ibid.; CEQA Guideline, § 15164, subd. (c).)
Likewise, under CEQA Guideline Section 15088.5, where the Final EIR has not yet been certified,
recirculation for public review is not required un]ess "significant new information" is added to the
document (CEQA Guideline, § 15088.5, subds. [a], [b ).
City ofChula Vista 2 Addendum to Final ElR
SPA One Village One Amendment 10/25/01
9-S5
-...--.--------. ------
"Significant new information" requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing
that:
(I) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new
mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless
mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others
previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the
project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that
meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
Recirculation is not required when new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or
makes insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR. (CEQA Guideline, 15088.5, subd. (b).)
Thus, in the following inquiry the City considers under the standards articulated above whether each
of these three changed circumstances reveal or create previously-undisclosed significant
environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously disclosed impacts.
(CEQA Guidelines, §§15162, 15163, 15164, subd. (a); 15088.5, subds. [a], [b]). As the discussion
demonstrates, it is appropriate for the City to prepare this Addendum to the Final Second- Tier E1R,
Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One and Annexation, E1R 95-01, pursuant to CEQA Guideline,
§ 15164.
3.0 PROJECT SETTING
The proposed project is located in the northern portion of the Otay Valley Parcel within the
boundaries ofOtayRanch SPA One, Village One. The project is located east on-805 in the City of
Chula Vista. More specifically, the area proposed for reduced parking standards is within the village
core of Village One, located in the central portion of the village, at the southeast comer of East
Palomar Street and Santa Rita Street.
Existing roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project include Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay
Lakes Road, East Palomar Street, and Paseo Ranchero. Telegraph Canyon Road fonns the northern
boundary of the Village One area. La Media Road forms the eastern boundary of Village One. The
future extension of Olympic Parkway forms the southern boundary of Village One and Paseo
Ranchero forms the western boundary. East Palomar Street bisects the Village One area, connecting
Paseo Rachero with La Media Road. East-west access to the project is provided along Telegraph
Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road. Interstate 805 is a north-south freeway located to the west of the
project area, which originates in south county and tenninates at its connection with the 1-5 freeway in
City ofChula Vista 3 Addendum to Final EIR
SPA One Village One Amendment 10125/01
;7 - 5-&0
- -- _. . .--.--- --.-..-.-- ---.
Carmel Valley. Local interchanges in the project vicinity are at Olympic Parkway, Telegraph
Canyon Road, and East H Street.
The Village One project area has been mass graded in accordance with the City of Chula Vista
Grading Ordinance and development is ongoing. In addition, the required infrastructure is in place.
Due to the Village One area having been mass graded, the majority of the project mitigation
measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been
successfully implemented.
4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit that would allow for a
reduced number of parking spaces in conjunction with the development of a mixed-use project the
Village One Core area. The mixed-use project is comprised of 271 multi-family units, 29,714 square
feet of commercial/office use, and a 9,875 square-foot day care facility. The proposed parking
reduction is as follows:
Land Use City Proposed Reduced
Project Use Quantity Standard Requirement Difference
Requirement
CommerciallRetail 20,780 sJ. 96 83 -13
Office 8,934 sJ. 27 36 19
Day Care 9,875 s.f. 42 42 0
Affordable Senior
Residential 91 DU 137 69 -68
Affordable Multi-
Family Residential 180 DU 338 270 -67
TOTALS 640 501 .139
s.f. = gross square feet
DU = dwelling units
The CUP proposes to reduce the SPA One standards for parking for the commercial/retail/office
portion of the project by 4 spaces, and by 135 spaces for the Affordable Senior and Multi-family
project.
Reduction in parking requirements is considered by the City of Chula Vista on a case-by-case basis,
but is often allowed in association with affordable housing. A parking study (Technical
Memorandum: review of Site Plan and Parking Requirements for the Otay Ranch Village 1 Mixed-
Use Affordable/Senior Housing Development, URS/BRW, March 5, 2001 - "Parking Study") was
prepared in support of the CUP application. The findings of that study are referenced in the
following discussion.
City ofChula Vista 4 Addendum to Final E/R
SPA One Village One Amendment /0/25/0/
----.-.-... . -..-.....----------. -
5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The following environmental analysis provided in Section 6.0 determines that the Conditional Use
Permit for reduced parking in the Village One village core would not result in any additional
significant environmental effects beyond those previously covered under EIR 95-0 I.
6.0 ANALYSIS
Land Use, Planning and Zoning
Insufficient parking in the village core resulting from the proposed CUP would be considered a
potentially significant land use impact. Insufficient parking could result in inconveniences to
residents and potential loss of business to commercial uses. The Parking Study examined the
specific type and density of residential uses involved in the village core, as well as access to public
transit available at the site. Based on standards of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (Parking
Generation Manual), and the Cities of San Diego, Coronado, and El Cajon, all of which contain
lower parking ratios for senior and affordable housing projects, the study found that the 501 parking
spaces proposed under the CUP would be adequate to meet parking needs. Therefore, since the
Parking Study determined that adequate parking is available to meet the needs of future land uses in
the village core, issuance of the CUP would not result in any new or increased levels of significant
impacts identified to land uses. Since there would be no significant land use impacts as a result of
the CUP, its approval would not represent an inconsistency with the land use goals and policies of
the SPA Plan and GDP.
Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
View impacts of the Village One project site would not be substantially changed with the provision
of reduced parking for the village core. The proposed CUP would not result in any perceptible
difference in visual characteristics for Village One. Therefore, no new or increased levels of impact
to landform or aesthetics beyond those identified in EIR 95-01 would result from issuance of the
CUP.
Biological Resources
The proposed project site has been mass graded in accordance with the City's grading ordinance and
no vegetation remains onsite. Implementation of the reduced parking requirements under the CUP
would not have the ability to affect any biological resources in the project vicinity. The proposed
CUP will not require additional conveyance of land by the project applicant into the Otay Ranch
Resource Management Preserve (RMP). Therefore, no new or increased levels of impact to
biological resources beyond those identified in EIR 95-0 I would result from issuance of the CUP.
Cultural Resources
City of Chula Vista 5 Addendum to Final EIR
SPA One Village One Amendment 10125/01
9-
- ---------- -------
The proposed CUP will not increase the development area from that what was analyzed in the Final
EIR. All of the archaeological and historical investigations for the Pinal EIR were completed in
accordance with the guidelines of the City ofChula Vista and the County of San Diego (Guidelines
for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act 1991). All impacts to cultural
resources have been mitigated to a less than significant level, and the issuance of the proposed CUP
would not change that conclusion. Therefore, no new or increased levels of impact to cultural
resources beyond those identified in EIR 95-01 would result from issuance of the CUP.
Geology and Soils
The Pinal EIR detennined that no significant impacts associated with ground surface rupture
(faulting) or liquefaction would occur on the project site. The Pinal EIR proposes specific mitigation
measures for ground shaking, soils, and slope stability that reduce potential impacts to a less than
significant level. The applicant has complied with the mitigation measures requiring the submittal of
site specific geotechnical analysis prepared by a licensed geotechnical consultant. As the area of
potential effect for the proposed CUP will not change and with compliance with the Pinal EIR
mitigation measures, impacts to geology and soils are mitigated to a less than significant level.
Therefore, no new or increased levels of impact to geology and soils beyond those identified in EIR
95-01 would result from issuance of the CUP.
Paleontological Resources
The Final EIR determined that the project area contains areas of "High Sensitivity" and "Moderate
Sensitivity" for paleontological resources. The Final EIR indicated that development of the SPA
One project would result in massive grading over the entire project site and that significant impacts
would occur to paleontologicaJ resources in the areas comprised of "High" and "Moderate"
sensitivity. This grading activity has been compJeted and the project applicant has complied with the
MMRP mitigation requirements. Since issuance of the CUP will not change the development area of
Village One, no new or increased levels of impact to paleontological resources beyond those
identified in EIR 95-0 I would result from issuance of the CUP.
Agricultural Resources
No new impacts to agricultural resources would result from the proposed CUP, since the reduction in
parking would be entirely within deveJopment envelope addressed in the Pinal EIR. The proposed
CUP would not impact any additional areas that are currently or have historically been used for
agriculture. Therefore, no new or increased levels of impact to agricultural resources beyond those
identified in EIR 95-01 would result from issuance of the CUP.
Population and Housing
The proposed CUP would not change the overall residential unit counts or density from what was
analyzed in Pinal EIR 95-01. Therefore, no new or increased levels of impact to population and
housing beyond those identified in EIR 95-01 would result from issuance of the CUP.
City of Chula Vista 6 Addendum to Final E/R
SPA One Village One Amendment /0/2510/
-"--'-'----- ..-.
Water Resources and Water Quality
The proposed CUP would not result in any additional demand for water over what was analyzed in
. the Final EIR, since the land uses proposed under the amended plan would not change. Additionally,
the total amount of urban area would not be changed, and the amount of impervious surfaces
represented by the CUP would not substantially change from that analyzed in the Pinal EIR.
Therefore, no new or increased levels of impact to water resources and water quality beyond those
identified in EIR 95-01 would result from issuance of the CUP.
Transportation, Circulation and Access
A Technical Memorandum was prepared by URS/BRW on March 5, 2001 (Parking Study) to assess
the potentia] impact to parking that would result from the reduced parking requirements of the CUP.
The study considered the mixed use character of the project area, the proximity of the site to transit
facilities, and the fact that the project involves senior and affordable housing which is generally
considered to create less parking demand than standard multi-family residential. Reduced parking
standards for such uses are recognized by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, and by the cities of San
Diego, Coronado and El Cajon. The City of Chula Vista also considers such parking reductions on a
case-by-case basis. The study further states that a major bus stop and future trolley station will be
located adjacent to the project site. The conclusion of the study, based on these factors, was that the
50] parking spaces proposed under the CUP would be adequate to meet the needs of proposed land
uses. The reduction in parking space requirement in the Village One village core from 640 spaces to
501 spaces would not adversely impact parking conditions for the project, and therefore would not
result in any new or intensified significant impacts beyond those analyzed in EIR 95-01.
Air Quality
The area has been cleared and mass graded for the approved SPA One Plan and the proposed CUP
proposing reduced parking standards would not result in any substantial difference in air emissions
from what was assumed in the impact analysis in EIR 95-01. Therefore, no new or increased levels
of impact to air quality beyond those identified in EIR 95-0 I would result from issuance of the CUP.
Noise
The proposed reduction in parking standards for the village core that are proposed by the CUP would
not change any of the land use or traffic assumptions fromEIR 95-01. As a result, no new impacts to
noise, or intensification of any identified impacts from EIR 95-01 are anticipated to occur with the
proposed CUP.
Public Services and Utilities
The proposed CUP affects only the provision of parking and would not change the quantity or
configuration of any of the land uses approved for SPA One. Therefore, no new impacts or
City ofChula Vista 7 Addendum to Final ElR
SPA One Village One Amendment 10/25/01
;?-bD
intensified impacts to water, sewerage, schools, parks, law enforcement/fire/EMS, animal control,
civic facilities, library, or integrated waste management would result from implementation of the
CUP.
Hazards/Risk of Upset
The proposed CUP would not result in a change in the type or character of land uses that would
cause any hazards to human health or safety or to the environment. Therefore, no new or increased
levels of impact related to hazards or risks beyond those identified in EIR 95-01 would result from
issuance of the CUP.
8.0 CONCLUSION
This document has identified all changed circumstances and potentially significant new information
since certification ofEIR 95-0 I, and memorializes in detail the City's reasoned conclusion that none
of these changes create the conditions requiring the preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental
EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and based upon the above discussion, I
hereby find that approval and implementation of the CUP will result in only minor technical changes
or additions which are necessary to make the Final Second-Tier EIR 95-01 for the project adequate
under CEQA.
/?; ~ ab ¡/)vOl ~ l!þõ/o/
Marilyn. F. Ponseggi, Date
Environmental Review Coordinator
REFERENCES
Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One Plan and Annexation Final Second-Tier
Environmental Impact Report (EIR-95-01), April 1996
J,IPlanningIMARILYN\OTA YRANLWilIage One Addendnm lO-2S.doc
City ofChula Vista 8 Addendum to Final FIR
SPA One Village One Amendment /Of25101
r¡?-!;/
- _.__.~_._- --- -...------.---.
~I~
-,,-
CIlY OF
CHUlA VISTA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
November 13, 2001
TO: The Honorable Mayor ~~ Council
VIA: David D. Rowlands, City anager
FROM: John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works ~
subject: Item #4 - Report on Request for Technical Proposals (RFTP) and Price
Bids for Operation of Chula Vista Transit (CVT) and Maintenance of
CVT Bus Fleet
Based on last week's meeting, Andy Trujillo and I met with Union representatives to
address their concerns. Staff will complete the RFTP and schedule this item for a
December meeting. Therefore, it is recommended that this continued item be pulled from
tonight's agenda.
r
J:lengineerlaGENDAITransit RFTPcontd.doc
November 13, 2001
MEMO TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Anna Neilal Receptionist
SUBJECT: Cultural Arts Center
The Mayor and Council Office received calls today in support of the
establishment of the Cultural Arts Center at the Cinema Star Theatre in
Downtown Chula Vista, Listed below are the names of those who called
in their support,
1. Winona Grant- 420-1335
2. Gretchen Evans- 422-3971
3, Jacklyn Watson- 421-9446
4, Fenton & Peggy Smith- 421-7879
5, Melody Cernitz - 421-7879
Armando Buelna
From: HCMOLlNA@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 20019:37 AM
To: shorton@cLchula-vista.ca.us; pdavis@cLchula-vista.ca.us; spadilla@cLchula-vista.ca.us;
msalas@cLchula-vista.ca.us; jrindone@cLchula-vista.ca.us
Subject: (no subject)
Dear Mayor and Council members:
As a resident of Chula Vista and past member of the Cultural Arts
Commission,
I am asking you to vote in support of the Cultural Arts Center.
It is a great opportunity to give our city a much-needed arts facility
to
showcase our local talent and to make it a destination point for all
County
and Border areas because all South County has a need for a center as the
one
being proposed. I know cost is a critical issue but we must not let the
opportunity pass...there is a lot community support and I am confident
that a
successfull fundraising campaign would assist you in making it happen.
Thank you for your attention and consideration. Gracias. Hector Molina
1
there is no spellcheck on this program 11/12(01 12:15:48 Page 1 of 1
FACSIMILE COVER PAGE
Date: 11/12/01
Time: 12:15:30
Page: 1
To: Mayor and Council
Company: City of Chula Vista
Fax #: 476-5379
From: Deanna Joy Hastings
Title: educator
Company: Music Teacher
Address: 612 Carla Ave. Chula Vista¡ CALIFORNIA
Fax #: Call VOICE number and request that FAX
Voice #: same
Message:
Dear Mayor Horton and Council Members¡
A home is a wonderful place to come to, be at and live in.".but...the artists and performers
don't have that place in our city. I am urging you to make the CULTURAL ARTS CENTER
in Chula Vista a reality and make it TODAY! I!! You have no doubt seen the articles
recently in the Union Tribune and Star News about the value, importance and need of the
arts in our world...but let me remind you that no community is ever remembered by its
intentions, only It's actions that come to fruition, The Mayas¡ the Greeks, the Incas¡
and the Romans are all remembered by their ART. What will Chula Vista be remembered
by when the history books are written in the next century????
Please make this happen NOW!!!!!
Most Sincerely,
Deanna Joy Hastings
Armando Buelna
From: Shauna Stokes
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 5:05 PM
To: Dave Rowlands; Armando Buelna
Cc: David Palmer
Subject: FW: CULTURAL ARTS CENTER IN CHULA VISTA
FYI - I received this e-mail from the Friends of the Arts president.
Thought you might like to know. Shauna
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Harding [mailto:tim@assetmarketingsystems.com]
Sent: Monday, November 12. 2001 3:07 PM
To: Sstokes@ci.chula-vista.ca.us: Smurphy@suhsd.k12.ca.us:
Smurphy@connectnet.com: rbolles@sdcoe.k12.ca.us: Rbco1eman@bechtel.com:
Mga11agher@suhsd.k12.ca.us: Mbranscomb@swc.cc.ca.us: Lounels@aol.com:
libritos@earth1ink.net: Lega1s01utions4u@home.com: Kjacobs@swc.cc.ca.us:
Katg1en1@ao1.com: Joealtbaurn@ao1.com: Jnersesian@nifcu.org:
hcmolina@ao1.com: Filnice@aol.com: fentpeg@nethere.com:
Electric@pacbell.net: Doconnrns@co.san-diego.ca.us: Djh@mail.sdsu.edu:
Davila@swc.cc.ca.us: Cubacultura1@aol.com: Chuckybaby2@juno.com:
Chicksforchrist@juno.com: Ccortez@swc.cc.ca.us: blake1yj@home.com:
Aorozco@swc.cc.ca.us: Agaomes34@hotmail.com
Subject: CULTURAL ARTS CENTER IN CHULA VISTA
Dear Supporter of the Arts:
This corning November 13th, the Chula Vista City Council will be
considering the purchase of property for a Cultural Arts Center. This
session will not be open to the public, so there will be no opportunity
to speak in support of this action. It is, therefore, very important
that the Mayor and Council know the extent of community support we have
for a Cultural Arts Center before they go into this closed session.
The key issue seems to be the cost of supporting such a center in the
future. It is vital that the council know the community supports this
investment in Chula Vista - an investment with substantial returns for
our kids as well as for us all.
As President of Friends of the Arts and as a committed supporter of the
Arts in the South Bay, I urge you to express your support once again for
Cultural Arts Center in Chu1a Vista. Because there will be no
opportunity to speak before the Council on this matter, our support must
be expressed through e-mail or fax. The time is short, so please take
action today!
The fax number is (619) 476-5379.
E-mail addresses for the Mayor and City Council of Chula Vista are as
follows:
shorton@ci.chu1a-vista.ca.us
pdavis@ci.chu1a-vista.ca.us
spadilla@ci.chula-vista.ca.us
msa1as@ci.chula-vista.ca.us
jrindone@ci.chula-vista.us
Regular mail may be addressed to:
1
Mayor Horton and Council Members Davis, Padilla, Salas, and Rindone
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Your letters do not need to be long, but we need your comments so the
Mayor and Council know how strongly we feel about this matter.
Thank you for being a supporter of the Arts and for taking a few minutes
of your valuable time to write and E-mail the Mayor and Council on this
extremely important matter. Together, we have the opportunity to have a
lasting impact on the cultural development of the South Bay!
Sincerely,
Tim Harding
President
Friends of the Arts
2
Nov-I1-2001 00:37 FrCllll"ST JO~S 618 422 6846 T-328 P,OOI/OOI F-S71
..-----
November 13; 2001
The Honorable Shirley Horton and CouncirMemben Davis, Paclilla,'Rindone and Sala~
City ofChulaVista City Hall
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
"Dear Ma;or Horton ~d City Council Membors Davia, Padilla, R.ïndcne and Salas,
, I am writing this letter In support oflbe proposed CUltur~ Arts Center for Chula Visla. ¡ was
privileged to be able to participate In a feasibility stady for the proposed Center and believe it will
provide a great benefit for the people of Chu!a VISta and larger San Diego ,CoUnty Community.
,In particular, sUch i. facility would be able to showc!l5e the work of artists and emcrtamers ft-om
the south bay 'aiI:Ia, 'while, p..ovidin¡ cxcc:1¡ent educetional oppoi1:unitics for, chil~ and schools.
St. John's church hau parish day schoohvith 425 Qhildren,(prcsch~1 through,the 8'h grade). and
having a Cultural Art Center hire in Chula Vista would b. a tremeilCious l'OIIourè. for our students
andteachm,':', , ' ,,',,'
Thank you for yóur CQns!dmttlon of my letter, ¡fyou have any q~tíO!1Ì, ¡:can ber~ at the
address below,or:by:o-m&il . '-johns.org... : .. , ,', ",'
..
I
'I
-..,
,:' "
,. .. ,"
: '
,.. ,';
"
St:~ J öhJn"s
.
780 FlretAvenue " Cnula VIsta, California 91910-6012 '
. Church (618) 422-4141 .5011001422-8414" Fax 422-6946' www.salnt-johns.org
Page 1 of I
Armando Buelna
From: Filnice@aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 12, 20014:11 PM
To: shorton @ci.chula-vista.ca.us; Pdavis@ci.chula-vista.ca.us; Spadilla@cLchula-vista.ca.us;
msalas@cLchula-vista.ca.us; jrindone@cLchula-vista.ca.us
Subject: Cultural Arts Center for Chula Vista
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
The City Council has a wonderful opportunity to vote on something of benefit to the whole community of Chula
Vista. Don't pass up this chance to obtain the property on Third Avenue that can be converted into a
marvelous center for the arts, and a place that will also revitalize downtown Chula Vista.
This city really NEEDS a Cultural Arts Center. If Poway, Escondido and other smaller cities house a Cultural
Arts Center, why cannot we? A nation (a city) is remembered for its arts, not its industry or its streeis or its
people, but its arts. The creative arts programs are growing in the school districts of this community, but if the
community does not provide support for the arts, what message are we sending our young people?
Here is our opportunity to obtain a building for the promotion and use of artists so that the whole communty can
enjoy and participate in the fine arts. We strongly urge you to consider this your top-priority and make it
possible for Chula Vista to become a better place to live. If this city is to grow to be a vibrant and progressive
place to live, a city that will attract people who will contribute to our community, a Cultural Arts Center is a
necessity!
Yours sincerely,
Phil and Eunice Seltenrich
11/13/2001
NOI.)-13-2ØØl 11 ,3tj P.Øl
I~ "
I
I
. ..r I /J1.:octez.uh1a Books &. Cjalletz:1f
i
I
289 s' AvenUt, Chu!& Wistl, C4lifomiA 9\910 Tel. (ó19) 4~¡;"1283 PIIX (619) 426-O2l2 eaaJl, lat.aJnb~homt.co", www.latiJilhooks.colII
'I
Nove~er 12,2001
I
Dear ~yor Horton and Council Members,
I
I am writing in strong support of establishing a cultural center in downtown Chula Vista.
We ~a vibrant, long-standing community that has its roots on both sides of the border,
roots ~at are rich with culture and cultural heritage.
We ha~e and we are a dynamic culture. We desperately need a venue dedicated to culture
and the arts. At OuI wo!1derful, yet small, shop we have undertaken such a task. The result
has been phenomenal. For each art exhibition we have a reception coupled with a poetry
reading that draws from 80 to 180 people on that night alobe. This has been achieved
almost ¡solely by word of mouth; we have not done any advertising of any Idnd aside from
the injtations we send out. We have received quite a bit of attention from the press, with
articl in the Union-Tribune, the San Diego Reader, Enlace, Frontera de Tijuana, and
others.;The constant feeclback we receive is effusive appreciation for something that has
been sOrely lacking in our area. It is hard to believe that we are one of the only
establi$hments het'e to make a strong comn'itment to the arts of the area.
I
I .
For outselves and for OUI children, the exposure to visual, literary and performing arts has
been a rholly ennching experience. To the extent that one welcomes art into one's life
one's Jision expands. Please assert Chula Vista's commitment to that enriching
experi ¡nce by supporting a euItl.lra1 arts center here in the South Bay.
AJ; a business owrier, I understand llie community's thirst for a cultural arts center. AJ; a
parent,I 1 understand the child's need for culture and the arts. AJ; an individual, I
undC1'&~d the in4ividual's need for culture and the arts. At present, the expectation is
that Çliula Vista is not a cultl.lral focal PQint. Let's change that expectation (we at
MocteZuma Books & GaUery are doing our best, but we'd love the City to match the
cornmi\ment) and fulfill the wishes of the art lovers of South Bay. We can positively
influeI1ce the future generations of the arca. We can enjoy our culture and the arts
togeth~ as a community as see where it leads us. I suggest that it will lead US to more
creativity and thought, ifnothiog else. Perhaps it will also lead us to greater peace and
wisdom.
I
Thank you in advance for your consideration,
m~-..
TOTAL P. 01
Page 1 of 1
Armando Buelna
From: JohnMicheleD@aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 8:24 PM
To: shorton@cLchula-vista.ca.us; msalas@ci.chula-vista.ca.us; pdavis@cLchula-vista.ca.us;
jrindone@ci.chula-vista.ca.us; spadilla@cLchula-vista.ca.us
Subject: Chula Vista Cultural Arts Center
Dear Councilmember,
Our city has grown so fast, but the center of our community remains an old city council and government
building. When I visit Escondido and Oceanside city govenrments, they have so much more to offer their
residents. I am sure that you also feel inferior to them when you visit their council chambers and civic centers.
Isn't it time we put forth a state of the art facility that attracts residents and gives them something to be proud
of? 1 hope that you seriously look at including a cultural arts center in the plan. It would give the residents
pride and enjoyment.
Sincerely,
Michele Delehanty
350 Windjammer Circle
Chula Vista, CA 91910
420-3142
Michele Delehanty, consultant
San Diego Hunger Coalition
Together WE can make a Difference!
"I am just one person. I can't take on everything, but 1 can do what I can, and try to do my best. We'll rely upon
all of you to do the rest."
11/13/2001
1l/:2/2Ø01 lØ:08 1-5: 9-239-5048 SD JUNIOR THEATRE PAGE 01
San Diego Junior Theatre
C... del Prado, Balboa Park
1650 EI Prado, Suite 208
San Dieao, CA 92101-1622
Office (619) 239.1311
FAX COVER SHEET Box Office (619) 239-8355
Fax (619) 239.~048
To: -hþ,~ ~las FaxNo: .!lJj. '-/71, -5"379
From: ~ Re ~ No. of pgs: Z
Co",:",entsl T s,~ 't- ~ I~.:t ~"'~ ~ :":'; i2..;:
...:c ~Gwi -AðJN.. O"L~~ ~ ~ Of' " L.t r
lAbs. IAJlJl'rlml ~ '8;" W1ðL::J he+- ~+ ~ MadeJ
v~'ri.(J ir1 -:f¡",... I Good LweI:. -/::..rr. t. Will
.
~ ~ 4='
'2001 ~
AmeBa
~Jan.2002 Bedelia
'.,. M¡mh 2002
- 6OCØ WIt ~
E BROWN ".,
.11 . -~ TO' . ..
.......... :', Ø'I' 1.'iØ.;. 0»<:£ ON TI""
: Our 54th : \; ,. c:li1J.Þ } \\~5'.x.'AÚ~i '0.
, /.§'
: Season: '~ .--','f".
'" .,.."".~,.
.......... July 2002 Aug, 2002
AprilfMay 2002
.".'1""". .", 00 . -0.'- "°'-0""° ~" ",",IUU~, 11"1"-", ~"'- ~..",,<. u¿
~I
... "~
NoYmlber 9. 2001 IiiI1i
City of Chula Vista City Council
276 Fourth Menue
Chula Visra, CA 91910
Dear Genrlepeoplc:,
San Diego Junior Thearre is in suPPOrt of purchasing and developing Q cultutal arts center in downtOwn Chula
Visra. We think that this center would be Q vital community uset and would create a unique public space thar
would be enjoyed by Chula Vistans for de<:ades to come.
San Diego JuniOt Theatre is very interesred in ~coming a tenlUlt in the new facility. For more than 50 years JT hu
been educating. entertaining and enriching the lives of families throughout San Diego County. Over the put 5
years JT has been experiencing tremendous groWth and we have outgrown our Balboa Park facilities. With over 1.1
million in income. 13 regular employees, 15 r=hing artists and many other designen and orchestra members.]T
hu been producing sold out shows and classes. We are bursting with students and audience members and this has
led us to the conclusion that we must grow and grow wisely. Two years ago, our Board started a strategic planning
process, the result of which includes a commitment to a satellite location for r.,'o classroom spaces and a small
theatre space. Our plan calls for location of this satellite in a fast growing community like Chula Vi¡ta. We had
envisioned leasing a retail space but then learned of the plans for a cultUNI arts center in downtown Chula VISta.
San Diego Junior Theatre would be very interested in ~ing an anchor tenant in the new facility. This could include
substantial up-front money for cedevdopement costs and monthly lease payments once the facility is open. JT could
PfQvide great service to the City ofChula ViSta. Our programs. developed over decades, are of the highest quality
and at a very affordable price. Our activities promote the strengthening of families as parent participation is the
backbone of Our programs. Ail that we have learned about ~ing a successful community ptogram we wish to share
with Chula Vista.
We urge you to Jook toward the futUre. a future that includes a vital and unique downtown. San Diego Junior
Thc:aue will ~ your partner in this exciting and beneficial endeavor.
Sincerely.
~4~
Wdl Neblett
Executive Director
San Diego Junior Th_tre
C- del ""."0'8811108 P...k'1880 II "".~".ult8208".- DI..o, CA 12101.1822
Ot'f'Ioo (III) e3~1311'Box 0f 1 _"(111) 231-8311'FAX (III) 231.1048
Armando Buelna
From: Diffenderffer, Keith [keith.diffenderffer@agedwards.com]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 12:10 PM
To: 'shorton@ci.chula-vista.ca.us'
Subject: Chula Vista Cultural arts Center
I strongly believe that acquiring the property on 3rd Ave. as a site for
a
downtown arts center will be very much in the best interest of long term
redevelopment for the downtown area. If CV does not create an incentive
for
residents east of 805 to come to downtown then we risk becoming two
cities
divided by a highway.
Keith Diffenderffer
524 Riesling Terrace
Chula Vista, Ca. 91913 ( East of 805)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Notice: Since e-mail messages sent between you and A.G. Edwards & Sons,
Inc. ("AGE") and its employees are transmitted over the Internet, AGE
cannot assure that such messages are secure. You should be careful in
transmitting information to AGE that you consider confidential. If you
are uncomfortable with such risks, you may decide not to use e-mail to
communicate with AGE. Although you may be sending an e-mail message to a
specific AGE employee, other AGE employees may review such messages.
Additionally, your e-mail messages to AGE may, consistent with AGE's
regulatory requirements and retention policies, be retained. You should
also be aware that e-mail messages may be delayed or undelivered. AGE
does not accept orders to effect transactions or other similar
instructions through e-mail messages.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
1
Armando Buelna
From: Ron Bolles [directoron@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 12:11 PM
To: directoron@yahoo.com
Subject: New Wrinkle on the CV Cultural Arts Center!
Hi!
A little over 6 months ago we believed a multi-purpose
performing arts center would be built as part of the
renovaton process at Chula Vista Middle School. That
possibility is now very slight, as the Prop BB money
is not providing adequate funding to be able to
construct such a center. With the Award-Winning
School for the Creative and Performing Arts at CVMS
and CVHS bursting at its seams, it becomes even more
imperative that serious consideration be given to
creating a venue on the West side of the city as soon
as possilbe.
As you move into your final votes on this matter,
please determine in your own mind what statement the
City of Chula Vista will be making regarding the
importance of the arts in our community.
Thank You,
Ron Bolles, Facilitator
Chula Vista School for the Creative and Performing Arts
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com
1
NOJ-13-æ01 15:35 P.01
~ /f{octez.u111tì Books &. qa.Ue'lIf
289]" A.au. Chula¡V¡,ta, California 91910 Tel, (619) 426-1283 Fa> [619) U6-O212 clnliL loWnbooksVlbolllO.co1l\ www.lawnbool<s.co1l\
, i
!
I
Noven!.ber 12, 2001
I
I
Dear fYor Horton and Council Members,
1 am ~ti.ng in strong support of establishing a cultural center in downtown Chula Vista.
We arc: a vibrant,long,standiog conununity that has its roots on both sides of the border,
roots that arc rich with culture and cultural heritage.
,
,
We hare III1d we are a dynamic cultu!'c. Wc desperately need a venue dedicated to cultUre
and thl! arts. At our wonderful, yet small, shop we have undertaken such a task. The result
has be~ phenomenal. For each art exhibition we have a reception coupled with a poetry
readi~ that draws fÌom 80 to 180 people on that night alone. This has been achieved
a1mostisolely by word of mouth; we have not done any advertising of any kind aside ftom
the invJtations we:send out. We have received quite a bit ofllttention from the press, with
articlc$ in the Union-Tribune, the San Diego Reader, Enlace, Frontera de Tijuana, and
othcrs.iThe constant feedback we receive is effusive appreciation for something that has
been s~rely lacking in our area. It is bard to believe that we are one of the only
establiFents here to make a strong commitment to the arts of the area.
I '
For outseIves ancHor our children. the exposure to visual, literary and performing a."tS has
been alwholly enriching experience. To the extent that aIle welcomes art ÎIIto one's life
one's ~sion exp~r.J¡¡. Please assert Chula Vista's commitment to that enriching
experiFe by supporting a cultural arts center here in the South Bay.
,
As a bjlsiness owner, I understand the oommunity's thirst for a cultural arts center. As a
parenti I underst:aD.d the child's need for culture and the arts. As an individual, I
UIldc~ the individual's need for culture and the arts. At present, the expectation is
that Cliula Vista is not a cultural focal point. Let's change that expectation (we at
M::t:: Book¡ &. Gallery arc doing our best, but we'd love the City to match the
co t) and'fulfill thc wishes of the art lovers of South Bay. We oan positively
iní1u. the future generatioDli of the areL We can enjoy our culture and the arts
togeth~r Ii a cominunity as see where it leads us. I suggest that it willicad us to more
creativJty and tho'ilght. ifnothing elsc. Perhaps it will also lead us to greater peace and
wisdOJþ. ' ,
ThankjYou in adv~e for your consideration,
¿f~-
!
i
!
TOTAL P.61
SOME FACTS ABOUT HIV/AIDS IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
The community-based planning process in San Diego is conducted by the HIV
Prevention Community Planning Board, with the support of the County Office
of AIDS Coordination. The HIV Prevention Community Planning Board is a 25
member advisory body to the County Board of Supervisors to advise and make
recommendations pertaining to HIV and AIDS education and prevention issues.
SINCE 1981*
Women are becoming infected at increasingly higher rates. Women represent
36 cases, 66% are the result of heterosexual transmission.
People of color are becoming infected at a greater proportional rate? Of total
cases, 57% are Hispanic, and 9% are African American.
, Fourteen percent of total cases are in persons over the age of 49. Recent trends
indicate that more and more people citizens are becoming infected with HIV at
a later age.
, Youth are becoming infected at increasingly higher rates?
, In the Chula Vista there have been 325 reported cases of AIDS and 139 deaths
related to AIDS.
, In the San Diego County there are 736 reported AIDS cases this year. It is
estimated that an additional 12,000 people are HIV infected, That
further stresses the need for HIV Counseling and Testing.
Medical breakthroughs in treatment are being developed at an incredible pace.
Treatment that may be deemed effective at its inception may become obsolete
within a few years or even in a period of a few short months, That is why
education and prevention are so important.
The incidence of HIV is not reportable in the state of California. Only cases
with an AIDS diagnosis are reportable. AIDS is the most severe form of HIV
disease, It can take as long as 8 to 10 years from the time of infection to the
development of symptoms ofHIV or AIDS. So, when we look at AIDS case data, we are
most likely looking at HIV infections that occurred a decade ago.
If vou have anv Questions about the Countv's coordinated efforts to urevent the suread
ofHIV. ulease contact Richard Burhenne at (619) 296-3400 x 143. He would be more
than happy to talk to you about the services available in your community.
* San Diego County AIDS Epidemiology Data Reported through October 1, 2001