Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Properties or Areas › What year was the road Camino del Sur built?
- This topic has 370 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 7 months ago by
Eugene.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 21, 2011 at 11:01 PM #689614April 22, 2011 at 2:18 AM #688457
Eugene
Participant[quote]It is an anomaly that 4S is surrounded by the City on all sides (yes, even the parkland around the lake), save a small opening on the northwest side.
I don’t have a more current version of the TG and if I did, it wouldn’t help. I have no interest in prognostication. It is inconceivable to me that the City would give up the right to annexation of 4S PRIOR to or DURING the formation of the CFD’s. [/quote]
4S is outside the “sphere of influence” of City of San Diego, which means that the county agency (LAFCO), which oversees such boundary changes, has no plan or expectation for 4S to become part of the city. Furthermore, City of San Diego can’t annex 4S, unless it goes through LAFCO to amend its “sphere of influence” first.
Contrast this with, say, Bonita: Bonita is not a real city, but an unincorporated community within the sphere of influence of the City of Chula Vista, which can be annexed to Chula Vista completely or in part, as long as it’s approved by the residents and the city government.
April 22, 2011 at 2:18 AM #688518Participant[quote]It is an anomaly that 4S is surrounded by the City on all sides (yes, even the parkland around the lake), save a small opening on the northwest side.
I don’t have a more current version of the TG and if I did, it wouldn’t help. I have no interest in prognostication. It is inconceivable to me that the City would give up the right to annexation of 4S PRIOR to or DURING the formation of the CFD’s. [/quote]
4S is outside the “sphere of influence” of City of San Diego, which means that the county agency (LAFCO), which oversees such boundary changes, has no plan or expectation for 4S to become part of the city. Furthermore, City of San Diego can’t annex 4S, unless it goes through LAFCO to amend its “sphere of influence” first.
Contrast this with, say, Bonita: Bonita is not a real city, but an unincorporated community within the sphere of influence of the City of Chula Vista, which can be annexed to Chula Vista completely or in part, as long as it’s approved by the residents and the city government.
April 22, 2011 at 2:18 AM #689135Participant[quote]It is an anomaly that 4S is surrounded by the City on all sides (yes, even the parkland around the lake), save a small opening on the northwest side.
I don’t have a more current version of the TG and if I did, it wouldn’t help. I have no interest in prognostication. It is inconceivable to me that the City would give up the right to annexation of 4S PRIOR to or DURING the formation of the CFD’s. [/quote]
4S is outside the “sphere of influence” of City of San Diego, which means that the county agency (LAFCO), which oversees such boundary changes, has no plan or expectation for 4S to become part of the city. Furthermore, City of San Diego can’t annex 4S, unless it goes through LAFCO to amend its “sphere of influence” first.
Contrast this with, say, Bonita: Bonita is not a real city, but an unincorporated community within the sphere of influence of the City of Chula Vista, which can be annexed to Chula Vista completely or in part, as long as it’s approved by the residents and the city government.
April 22, 2011 at 2:18 AM #689276Participant[quote]It is an anomaly that 4S is surrounded by the City on all sides (yes, even the parkland around the lake), save a small opening on the northwest side.
I don’t have a more current version of the TG and if I did, it wouldn’t help. I have no interest in prognostication. It is inconceivable to me that the City would give up the right to annexation of 4S PRIOR to or DURING the formation of the CFD’s. [/quote]
4S is outside the “sphere of influence” of City of San Diego, which means that the county agency (LAFCO), which oversees such boundary changes, has no plan or expectation for 4S to become part of the city. Furthermore, City of San Diego can’t annex 4S, unless it goes through LAFCO to amend its “sphere of influence” first.
Contrast this with, say, Bonita: Bonita is not a real city, but an unincorporated community within the sphere of influence of the City of Chula Vista, which can be annexed to Chula Vista completely or in part, as long as it’s approved by the residents and the city government.
April 22, 2011 at 2:18 AM #689629Participant[quote]It is an anomaly that 4S is surrounded by the City on all sides (yes, even the parkland around the lake), save a small opening on the northwest side.
I don’t have a more current version of the TG and if I did, it wouldn’t help. I have no interest in prognostication. It is inconceivable to me that the City would give up the right to annexation of 4S PRIOR to or DURING the formation of the CFD’s. [/quote]
4S is outside the “sphere of influence” of City of San Diego, which means that the county agency (LAFCO), which oversees such boundary changes, has no plan or expectation for 4S to become part of the city. Furthermore, City of San Diego can’t annex 4S, unless it goes through LAFCO to amend its “sphere of influence” first.
Contrast this with, say, Bonita: Bonita is not a real city, but an unincorporated community within the sphere of influence of the City of Chula Vista, which can be annexed to Chula Vista completely or in part, as long as it’s approved by the residents and the city government.
April 22, 2011 at 2:18 PM #688608bearishgurl
Participant[quote=Eugene]4S is outside the “sphere of influence” of City of San Diego, which means that the county agency (LAFCO), which oversees such boundary changes, has no plan or expectation for 4S to become part of the city. Furthermore, City of San Diego can’t annex 4S, unless it goes through LAFCO to amend its “sphere of influence” first.
Contrast this with, say, Bonita: Bonita is not a real city, but an unincorporated community within the sphere of influence of the City of Chula Vista, which can be annexed to Chula Vista completely or in part, as long as it’s approved by the residents and the city government.[/quote]
Thank you, Eugene. I am familiar with LAFCO and their function. Do you have any idea why SD had 4S on their “general plan” in 2000 and/or how 4S ultimately ended up outside the City’s “sphere of influence?”
See: http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/pdf/generalplan/lu3planarea.pdf
As to Bonita, nearly 1/2 of it is already incorporated into the City of Chula Vista. You may already be aware that the Sheriff’s Dept and CVPD, as well as the Hwy Patrol (for SR-75 running thru there) have all cooperated with each other for many years and now have a joint substation there. The City maintains its own streets and sidewalks, as well as it’s golf course. In recent years, the county signed a long-term lease on city land situated adjacent to their public golf course and built a new county libary/museum on it. For the most part, the county areas do not have sidewalks OR as many street lights as the “City” portion does. In addition, the county sections have “rural” mailboxes facing the street and also flood control channels in lieu of storm drains in some areas.
The individual landowners are taxed accordingly and the voting precincts are divided accordingly.
However, ALL of it shares the “County” zip of 91902 (formerly 92002) and no CFD’s lie within it.
April 22, 2011 at 2:18 PM #688670Participant[quote=Eugene]4S is outside the “sphere of influence” of City of San Diego, which means that the county agency (LAFCO), which oversees such boundary changes, has no plan or expectation for 4S to become part of the city. Furthermore, City of San Diego can’t annex 4S, unless it goes through LAFCO to amend its “sphere of influence” first.
Contrast this with, say, Bonita: Bonita is not a real city, but an unincorporated community within the sphere of influence of the City of Chula Vista, which can be annexed to Chula Vista completely or in part, as long as it’s approved by the residents and the city government.[/quote]
Thank you, Eugene. I am familiar with LAFCO and their function. Do you have any idea why SD had 4S on their “general plan” in 2000 and/or how 4S ultimately ended up outside the City’s “sphere of influence?”
See: http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/pdf/generalplan/lu3planarea.pdf
As to Bonita, nearly 1/2 of it is already incorporated into the City of Chula Vista. You may already be aware that the Sheriff’s Dept and CVPD, as well as the Hwy Patrol (for SR-75 running thru there) have all cooperated with each other for many years and now have a joint substation there. The City maintains its own streets and sidewalks, as well as it’s golf course. In recent years, the county signed a long-term lease on city land situated adjacent to their public golf course and built a new county libary/museum on it. For the most part, the county areas do not have sidewalks OR as many street lights as the “City” portion does. In addition, the county sections have “rural” mailboxes facing the street and also flood control channels in lieu of storm drains in some areas.
The individual landowners are taxed accordingly and the voting precincts are divided accordingly.
However, ALL of it shares the “County” zip of 91902 (formerly 92002) and no CFD’s lie within it.
April 22, 2011 at 2:18 PM #689287Participant[quote=Eugene]4S is outside the “sphere of influence” of City of San Diego, which means that the county agency (LAFCO), which oversees such boundary changes, has no plan or expectation for 4S to become part of the city. Furthermore, City of San Diego can’t annex 4S, unless it goes through LAFCO to amend its “sphere of influence” first.
Contrast this with, say, Bonita: Bonita is not a real city, but an unincorporated community within the sphere of influence of the City of Chula Vista, which can be annexed to Chula Vista completely or in part, as long as it’s approved by the residents and the city government.[/quote]
Thank you, Eugene. I am familiar with LAFCO and their function. Do you have any idea why SD had 4S on their “general plan” in 2000 and/or how 4S ultimately ended up outside the City’s “sphere of influence?”
See: http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/pdf/generalplan/lu3planarea.pdf
As to Bonita, nearly 1/2 of it is already incorporated into the City of Chula Vista. You may already be aware that the Sheriff’s Dept and CVPD, as well as the Hwy Patrol (for SR-75 running thru there) have all cooperated with each other for many years and now have a joint substation there. The City maintains its own streets and sidewalks, as well as it’s golf course. In recent years, the county signed a long-term lease on city land situated adjacent to their public golf course and built a new county libary/museum on it. For the most part, the county areas do not have sidewalks OR as many street lights as the “City” portion does. In addition, the county sections have “rural” mailboxes facing the street and also flood control channels in lieu of storm drains in some areas.
The individual landowners are taxed accordingly and the voting precincts are divided accordingly.
However, ALL of it shares the “County” zip of 91902 (formerly 92002) and no CFD’s lie within it.
April 22, 2011 at 2:18 PM #689430Participant[quote=Eugene]4S is outside the “sphere of influence” of City of San Diego, which means that the county agency (LAFCO), which oversees such boundary changes, has no plan or expectation for 4S to become part of the city. Furthermore, City of San Diego can’t annex 4S, unless it goes through LAFCO to amend its “sphere of influence” first.
Contrast this with, say, Bonita: Bonita is not a real city, but an unincorporated community within the sphere of influence of the City of Chula Vista, which can be annexed to Chula Vista completely or in part, as long as it’s approved by the residents and the city government.[/quote]
Thank you, Eugene. I am familiar with LAFCO and their function. Do you have any idea why SD had 4S on their “general plan” in 2000 and/or how 4S ultimately ended up outside the City’s “sphere of influence?”
See: http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/pdf/generalplan/lu3planarea.pdf
As to Bonita, nearly 1/2 of it is already incorporated into the City of Chula Vista. You may already be aware that the Sheriff’s Dept and CVPD, as well as the Hwy Patrol (for SR-75 running thru there) have all cooperated with each other for many years and now have a joint substation there. The City maintains its own streets and sidewalks, as well as it’s golf course. In recent years, the county signed a long-term lease on city land situated adjacent to their public golf course and built a new county libary/museum on it. For the most part, the county areas do not have sidewalks OR as many street lights as the “City” portion does. In addition, the county sections have “rural” mailboxes facing the street and also flood control channels in lieu of storm drains in some areas.
The individual landowners are taxed accordingly and the voting precincts are divided accordingly.
However, ALL of it shares the “County” zip of 91902 (formerly 92002) and no CFD’s lie within it.
April 22, 2011 at 2:18 PM #689781Participant[quote=Eugene]4S is outside the “sphere of influence” of City of San Diego, which means that the county agency (LAFCO), which oversees such boundary changes, has no plan or expectation for 4S to become part of the city. Furthermore, City of San Diego can’t annex 4S, unless it goes through LAFCO to amend its “sphere of influence” first.
Contrast this with, say, Bonita: Bonita is not a real city, but an unincorporated community within the sphere of influence of the City of Chula Vista, which can be annexed to Chula Vista completely or in part, as long as it’s approved by the residents and the city government.[/quote]
Thank you, Eugene. I am familiar with LAFCO and their function. Do you have any idea why SD had 4S on their “general plan” in 2000 and/or how 4S ultimately ended up outside the City’s “sphere of influence?”
See: http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/pdf/generalplan/lu3planarea.pdf
As to Bonita, nearly 1/2 of it is already incorporated into the City of Chula Vista. You may already be aware that the Sheriff’s Dept and CVPD, as well as the Hwy Patrol (for SR-75 running thru there) have all cooperated with each other for many years and now have a joint substation there. The City maintains its own streets and sidewalks, as well as it’s golf course. In recent years, the county signed a long-term lease on city land situated adjacent to their public golf course and built a new county libary/museum on it. For the most part, the county areas do not have sidewalks OR as many street lights as the “City” portion does. In addition, the county sections have “rural” mailboxes facing the street and also flood control channels in lieu of storm drains in some areas.
The individual landowners are taxed accordingly and the voting precincts are divided accordingly.
However, ALL of it shares the “County” zip of 91902 (formerly 92002) and no CFD’s lie within it.
April 22, 2011 at 4:53 PM #688647Participant[quote]Do you have any idea why SD had 4S on their “general plan” in 2000 and/or how 4S ultimately ended up outside the City’s “sphere of influence?”[/quote]
I don’t know the details, but I found one pdf in the net that claims that 4S was within the city SOI, but its developers successfully went through the LAFCO process to take it out. When, why, or how that happened, I can’t say, but there’s a list of all proposals on the LAFCO web site going back to 2000, and it’s not there. So it had to have happened before 2000. It stays on the general plan with the reasoning that maybe the residents will want back and then San Diego will annex. To quote:
“4S Ranch and East Otay Mesa (EOM) are identified as prospective annexations areas since they would create logical and contiguous extensions of the City given their relative location and reliance on City infrastructure for access to nearby freeways and facilities, and would provide for opportunities for cost-efficient delivery of urban services. The City does not have specific plans to annex these areas at this time. However, property owners within these areas have the ability to initiate such a process.”
April 22, 2011 at 4:53 PM #688711Participant[quote]Do you have any idea why SD had 4S on their “general plan” in 2000 and/or how 4S ultimately ended up outside the City’s “sphere of influence?”[/quote]
I don’t know the details, but I found one pdf in the net that claims that 4S was within the city SOI, but its developers successfully went through the LAFCO process to take it out. When, why, or how that happened, I can’t say, but there’s a list of all proposals on the LAFCO web site going back to 2000, and it’s not there. So it had to have happened before 2000. It stays on the general plan with the reasoning that maybe the residents will want back and then San Diego will annex. To quote:
“4S Ranch and East Otay Mesa (EOM) are identified as prospective annexations areas since they would create logical and contiguous extensions of the City given their relative location and reliance on City infrastructure for access to nearby freeways and facilities, and would provide for opportunities for cost-efficient delivery of urban services. The City does not have specific plans to annex these areas at this time. However, property owners within these areas have the ability to initiate such a process.”
April 22, 2011 at 4:53 PM #689329Participant[quote]Do you have any idea why SD had 4S on their “general plan” in 2000 and/or how 4S ultimately ended up outside the City’s “sphere of influence?”[/quote]
I don’t know the details, but I found one pdf in the net that claims that 4S was within the city SOI, but its developers successfully went through the LAFCO process to take it out. When, why, or how that happened, I can’t say, but there’s a list of all proposals on the LAFCO web site going back to 2000, and it’s not there. So it had to have happened before 2000. It stays on the general plan with the reasoning that maybe the residents will want back and then San Diego will annex. To quote:
“4S Ranch and East Otay Mesa (EOM) are identified as prospective annexations areas since they would create logical and contiguous extensions of the City given their relative location and reliance on City infrastructure for access to nearby freeways and facilities, and would provide for opportunities for cost-efficient delivery of urban services. The City does not have specific plans to annex these areas at this time. However, property owners within these areas have the ability to initiate such a process.”
April 22, 2011 at 4:53 PM #689470Participant[quote]Do you have any idea why SD had 4S on their “general plan” in 2000 and/or how 4S ultimately ended up outside the City’s “sphere of influence?”[/quote]
I don’t know the details, but I found one pdf in the net that claims that 4S was within the city SOI, but its developers successfully went through the LAFCO process to take it out. When, why, or how that happened, I can’t say, but there’s a list of all proposals on the LAFCO web site going back to 2000, and it’s not there. So it had to have happened before 2000. It stays on the general plan with the reasoning that maybe the residents will want back and then San Diego will annex. To quote:
“4S Ranch and East Otay Mesa (EOM) are identified as prospective annexations areas since they would create logical and contiguous extensions of the City given their relative location and reliance on City infrastructure for access to nearby freeways and facilities, and would provide for opportunities for cost-efficient delivery of urban services. The City does not have specific plans to annex these areas at this time. However, property owners within these areas have the ability to initiate such a process.”
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Properties or Areas’ is closed to new topics and replies.