How Chula Vista Unknowingly Opened the Door to a CEQA Review

Susan Heavilin
4 days ago
4 min read

Updated: 3 days ago

Chula Vista in their ignorance of the law, opened a nice big juicy can of worms for themselves. Or worst yet, maybe Pandora's Box.

By the time Director of Parks & Recreation Frank Carson made his presentation about the Rohr Park Master Plan, the project was in its final stages. The equestrians were late in coming to the table because the City of Chula Vista had deceptively hidden it all from the people to whom it mattered most.

To add to that trickery, Mr. Carson had assured me during discussion at the September 2 Sweetwater Community Planning Group (SCPG) meeting that the arena was not to be touched, it would stay in place. Three weeks later a new Master Plan was released and the arena was gone!

When I confronted Mr. Carson on that fact, he said he had never said such a thing. I told him I had him on tape and he got very uncomfortable, still denying the fact. At this month's SCPG meeting, I asked the room if they had heard Mr. Carson tell me that the arena would remain on the Master Plan and the entire room said yes. All I can tell you is that Mr. Carson's pants are on fire.

I went back and watched the video of the October 17, 2023 CV City Council meeting so I could share the part of the City discussion with the Sunnyside Saddle Club. After an hour of hunting, I realized that it had been put on the Consent Calendar meaning all consent items were approved in one fell swoop vote.

I have seen the evidence that Judy Tieber's name was included on the email conversations with the City of Chula Vista. To make matters worse for herself, she entered a comment on the record that she "strongly supported" the agreement between the Saddle Club and the City of Chula Vista. Ms. Tieber was president of the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association at that time and a board member on the SCPG. She never forewarned the community of any of these back room shenanigans, violating her obligation to be a representative for the Bonita-Sunnyside collective.

Had we had known, we could have requested the item be pulled off the Consent Calendar and entered into a discussion. Had the Saddle Club not locked the horse community out of the arena for 19 months, the City could not have used the minimal use agreement.

The summary information is not correct. The City of Chula Vista made no attempt to get in contact with the greater horse community of Bonita-Sunnyside and confirm that the "facts" were true.

In the Summary: (In part) ". . . Although Sunnyside Saddle Club has maintained exclusive use of the facility, . . . they had for a long period of time left the gates to the primary equestrian arena unlocked. As a result, many residents of the Bonita community had brought their horses to the facility when Sunnyside Saddle Club was not using it, believing the primary equestrian arena was a publicly accessible asset. In recent years, Sunnyside Saddle Club has made considerable investments in the facility that warrant locking the gates to prevent damage to the primary equestrian arena’s footing."

We know the Club has not had "exclusive use" and we know this facility was used by the public openly for equestrian activities. Too many of us know the History. But they keep repeating it, and you know what they say about that.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW "The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Class 1 (Existing Facilities), because the proposed project consists of leasing an existing facility and would not result in a significant effect on the environment, create a cumulative impact, damage a scenic highway, or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Thus, no further environmental review is required. "

The City affirmed that this project was categorically exempt under CEQA §15301 as ‘existing facilities.’ Yet the City simultaneously eliminated public access and materially changed the recreational purpose and user population of the facility by permitting exclusive private control and police-enforced exclusion. This is not an existing-use project — it is the elimination of a longstanding recreational amenity without environmental review.

Because conversion of a protected park facility requires a replacement facility of equal nature and location, this action necessarily triggers full CEQA review. The exemption is invalid.

Under CEQA, the removal or material interference with access to an existing public recreational amenity constitutes a “project” requiring environmental review and public notice before any change is implemented. Because Respondents eliminated public use of the arena for more than nineteen (19) months and propose to permanently remove the facility without providing a like-for-like alternative, the City’s actions violate the Public Park Preservation Act (PRC §§5400–5409) and trigger mandatory CEQA review.

This does three things:

Reclassifies the City’s actions as a CEQA-regulated project
Establishes that removal already occurred via exclusion
Forces the replacement facility requirement legally

The City made the following mistakes:

False exemption under §15301
Change of use and user population
Procedural misconduct by Development Services / Public Works
Concealed implementation
Illegal piecemealing

By Chula Vista eliminating us from the conversation, we have become the conversation. That’s where names are named and Staff Report 23-0162 is cited."

I imagine that the Chula Vista City Council is in deep doo-doo and may need to borrow our muck boots.

Investigative source: Stacy Jett

Return to Main Page