Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet 2003/08/26
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA August 26, 2003 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CrlY OF CHULA VISFA City Council City Manager Patty Davis David D. Rowlands, Jr. John McCann City Attorney Jerry R. Rindone Ann Moore Mary Salas City Clerk Stephen C. PadiHa, Mayor Susan Bigelow The City Council meets regularly on the first calendar Tuesday at 4:00 p.m. and on the second, third and fourth calendar Tuesdays at 6:00 p.m. Regular meetings may be viewed at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays on Cox Cable Channel 24 or Chula Vista Cable Channel 68 AGENDA 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. Dated~{J3 Slgned~~A..I 6:00 P.M. August 26, 2003 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Davis, McCarm, Rindone, Salas, and Mayor Padilla PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF'SILENCE SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY . OATHS OF OFFICE: · CHILD CARE COMMISSION - Susan Villareal · VETERANS ADVISORY COMMISSION - William Keith · CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION: Todd Voorhees Kerry Knowlton Gerald Larussa · YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION: Christian Longo Pablo Caballero Eddie Herrera Sabrina Martinez Christina Amoroso Isaac Rodriguez Danielle Yamsuan Martha Kende Cristobal Durazo Brittany Chatman Angel Ramos Eric Gonzalez . INTRODUCTION BY ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER PALMER OF THE LIBRARY'S TOP READERS FROM THE 2003 SUMMER READING PROGRAM: Veronica Palomino, 3'd Grade, Rosebank Elementary School Oscar Legoretta, 5th Grade, Harborside Elementary School William Moffett, 2nd Grade, Olympic View Elementary School CONSENT CALENDAR (Items I through 15) 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. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS · Request from Councilmember Salas for an excused absence from the Special Closed Session Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting held on August 19, 2003. Staffrecommendation: Council excuse the absence. 2. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 19.60 AND VARIOUS OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATiNG SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (SECOND READiNG AND ADOPTION) The proposed ordinance replaces the urgency ordinance adopted on July 8, 2003, regulating signs on private property throughout the City, consistent with current legal standards for such regulations. (Acting Director of Planning & Building) Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on second reading for adoption. 3. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COLrNCIL OF' THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS, AWARDiNG CONTRACT FOR SIDEWALK REHABILITATION AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALWORNIA (PROJECT STL-281), AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO iNCREASE VALUE OF CONTRACT TO EXPEND ALL AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR THIS PROJECT On July 23, 2003, the Director of Engineering received sealed bids for this project. The work consists of the removal and replacement of displaced curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and driveways. The work includes excavation and grading, sidewalks, driveways, curbs & gutters, pedestrian ramps, removal and disposal of existing improvements, traffic control, other miscellaneous work, and all labor, material, equipment, and transportation necessary for the project. (Director o f Engineering) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 4. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTiNG BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE STREET LIGHT iNSTALLATION ALONG BONITA ROAD BETWEEN VILLAS COURT AND OTAY LAKES ROAD AND ALONG OTAY LAKES ROAD BETWEEN BONITA ROAD AND R[DGEBACK ROAD/CANYON DRIVE (PROJECT) TF-286) At 2:00 p.m. on July 23, 2003, the Director of Engineering received sealed bids from seven electrical contractors for the street light installation project (TF 286) along Bonita Road, Villas Court to Otay Lakes Road, and along Otay Lakes Road, Bonita Road to Ridgeback Road/Canyon Drive. As part of the underground utility district program, this project will relocate 11 existing street light poles and install 16 new street light poles in order to have a more uniform street lighting pattern along the roadways. (Director of Engineering) Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution. Page 2 - Council Agenda 08/26/03 5. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDiNG THE FISCAL YEAR 2004 RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUDGET BY APPROPRIATiNG $10,807 iN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS FOR THE WlZ KIDS PROGRAM (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) The Youth Services Network, a collaborative comprised of six local agencies, including the Recreation Department, was awarded $126,500 in Community Development Block Grant funds. The Department requests an appropriation of its share of the funds, or $10,807, to its operating budget to fund the Wiz Kidz program at Otay Recreation Center and Montgomery Elementary School for this fiscal year. (Director of Recreation) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 6. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS, APPROViNG A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE TWO-PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND RBF CONSULTING FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT, AND AMENDiNG THE FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET OF THE PLANNING AND BUILDiNG DEPARTMENT BY TRANSFERRING $150,000 FROM THE PERSONNEL SERVICES TO THE SUPPLIES AND SERVICES CATEGORY AND ELIMiNATING ONE PERMANENT SPECIAL PLANNING PROJECTS MANAGER POSITION (4/5THS VOTE REQLrIILED) Under a limited contract, RBF Consulting has been assisting staff with the land use portion of the General Plan update program, including concept examples that were presented at the Town Hall meeting on June 21st. Staff is requesfing that RBF be retained under an expanded contract to provide expert support to complete the development and review of land use and transportation alternatives and policies with the Steering Committee and the community, including support for related public meetings and workshops. (Acting Director of Building & Planning) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 7. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A TWO-PARTY AGREEMENT WITH HOST VENDING, INC. TO PROVIDE VENDiNG SERVICES CITYWIDE ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS FOR AN iNITIAL FIVE-YEAR PERIOD, AND AUTHORIZiNG THE PURCHASiNG AGENT TO RENEW THE AGREEMENT FOR FIVE ADDITIONAL, ONE-YEAR OPTION PERIODS A request for proposals (RFP) for vending services was sent to 13 potential respondents in October 2002. On November 7, 2002, four responses were received. Of the 13 companies contacted, two were local vendors, but neither submitted a proposal. (Director of Finance) Staff recommendation: Council continue this item to September 16, 2003. Page 3 - Council Agenda 08/26/03 8. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA XPPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DESIGN BUILD AGREEMENT WITH ERICKSON-HALL CONSTRUCTION TO INCLUDE NECESSARY IMPROVEMENT TO THE FIRE STATION AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT As part of the Fiscal Year 2003 capital improvement budget, the Council approved construction of a 4,000 square-foot, single-bay outfit and storage facility located adjacent to Fire Station No. 2 on J Street. The project is near completion and under the allocated budget. Staff is recommending that $30,000 of the project savings be applied to the expanded scope of work to make improvements to the adjacent Fire Station. (Fire Chief) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 9. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A 35 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT ON CLUBHOUSE DRIVE BETWEEN HUNTE PARKWAY AND NORTH/SOUTH CREEKSIDE DRIVE, THEREBY AMENDING SCHEDULE X OF A REGISTER MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER Based on provisions of the California Vehicle Code and pursuant to authority under Chula Vista Mtmicipal Code Section 10.48.020, the City Engineer has determined that, in the interest of minimizing traffic hazards and for the promotion of public safety, the speed limit on Clubhouse Drive between Hunte Parkway and North/South Creekside Drive be established at 35 mph. This speed limit will be added to Schedule X of the register maintained in the Office of the City Engineer. (Director of Engineering) Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on first reading. 10. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A 45 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT ON HUNTE PARKWAY BETWEEN SOUTH GREENSVIEW DRIVE/OAK SPRINGS DRIVE AND OLYMPIC PARKWAY, THEREBY AMENDING SCHEDULE X OF A REGISTER MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER Based on provisions of the California Vehicle Code and pursuant to authority under Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.48.020, the City Engineer has determined that, in the interest of minimizing traffic hazards and for the promotion of public safety, the speed limit on Hunte Parkway between South Greensview Drive/Oak Springs Drive and Olympic Parkway be established at 45 mph. This speed limit will be added to Schedule X of the register maintained in the Office of the City Engineer. (Director of Engineering) Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on first reading. I1. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A 25 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT ON THIRD AVENUE BETWEEN G STREET AND H STREET AND AMENDING SCHEDULE X OF THE REGISTER AS MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENG1NEER Page 4 - Council Agenda 08/26/03 Based on provisions of California Vehicle Code Sections 22352, 22358 and 40802, and pursuant to authority under Chu!a Vista Municipal Code Section 10.48.020, the City Engineer has determined that the speed limit on Third Avenue between G and H Streets should be decreased fzom the existing 35 mph limit to 25 mph. (Director of Engineering) Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on first reading. 12. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN PALOMAR COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR RADIO REPEATER AND ANTENNA SITE LEASE AND RATIFYING THE ACTION BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE CURRENT LEASE DURING THE INTERIM PERIOD The proposed resolution approves a lease agreement for space on a communications tower located on Otay Mountain for Chula Vista Transit's (CVT) radio repeater and antenna. Since 1992, CVT has leased a site on Otay Mountain for its radio transmitting equipment through the Purchasing Division via the purchase order process. (Director of Engineering) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 13. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE CREATION OF THREE CLASSIFICATIONS, RECLASSIFYING VARIOUS POSITIONS 1N VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, ADJUSTING THE SALARY TABLE THEREFOR, AND CHANGING VARIOUS POSITION TITLES The Human Resources Department has reviewed several classifications based on changes in duties and responsibilities and, as a result, is recommending reclassification of several positions and creation of several new classifications. In addition, it is recommended that several position titles be changed to better reflect job content. (Director of Human Resources) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 14. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 2.05 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCLUDE NEWLY CREATED UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS AND TO DELETE UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS NO LONGER USED BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) Charter Section 500 requires that all unclassified positions not mentioned specifically in Charter Section 500 be adopted by ordinance and with a four-fifths vote of the Council. Several new unclassified positions have been created in the past. Additionally, with the addition of new positions, some of the previously existing positions have become obsolete. Consequently, Municipal Code §2.05.010 must be amended to reflect the changes to the unclassified positions. (Director of Human Resources) Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on first reading. Page 5 - Council Agenda 08/26/03 15 A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REQUESTiNG THAT THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (CALPERS) AUTHORIZE A REFERENDUM TO BE CONDUCTED AMONG ELIGIBLE FIRE SAFETY EMPLOYEES TO PROVIDE MEDICARE ONLY COVERAGE B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REQUESTiNG THAT THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (CALPERS) AUTHORIZE A REFERENDUM TO BE CONDUCTED AMONG ELIGIBLE POLICE SAFETY EMPLOYEES TO PROVIDE MEDICARE ONLY COVERAGE C. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REQUESTiNG THAT THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (CALPERS) AUTHORIZE A D1VISION OF THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM TO PROVIDE MEDICARE ONLY COVERAGE TO ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES Employees hired prior to April 1, 1986, are currently exempt from participation in Medicare. Because of this, they may end up paying higher health insurance premiums once they reach age 65 than if they had participated. Medicare Only coverage can be extended to these exempt employees through an election process governed by CalPERS. The proposed resolutions are the first step in that process. (Director of Human Resources) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. 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 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. 16. CONSIDERATION OF PCM-03-38, DRAFT GREENBELT MASTER PLAN FOR THE FORMULATION OF A 28-MILE OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS SYSTEM SURROUNDING THE CITY Page 6 - Council Agenda 08/26/03 The proposed Greenbelt Master Plan consists of a plan for the formulation of an open space and trails system encircling the city. This plan is intended to implement the Greenbelt concept identified in the adopted General Plan and join together a variety of open space programs through a 28-mile connected trail system that links existing and proposed parks, golf courses and other activity centers around the perimeter of the city. (Acting Director of Planning & Building) Staff recommendation: Council open the public hearing and continue it to the Regular Meeting of September 16, 2003. 17. CONSIDERATION OF ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY ON A PORTION OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 639-080-21 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD STREET WIDENING PROJECT (CY-102) The City is preparing to widen and improve Telegraph Canyon Road from the 1-805 northbound ramp easterly to approximately 800 feet west of Crest Drive. When completed, this project will add one westbound lane up to the northbound on-ramp to 1- 805. The widening project is necessary because traffic volumes have exceeded the existing roadway capacity and are creating excessive delays. In order to complete the project, it is necessary to acquire right-of-way and a temporary construction easement. (Director of Engineering) Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DETERMINING AND DECLARING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR ACQUIRING AND AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION AND IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OF A PORTION OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 639-080-21 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD STREET WIDENING PROJECT (CY-102) AND AUTHORIZING THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO ACQUIRE SAID PROPERTY IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW 18. CONSIDERATION OF GPA-03-03 AND PCM 03-24, APPLICATIONS FILED BY MCMILLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INVOLVING A TEN-ACRE SITE LOCATED WEST OF DUNCAN RANCH ROAD, NORTH OF PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD, WITHIN ROLLING HILLS RANCH NEIGHBORHOOD 7; AND A SIX~ ACRE SITE LOCATED SOUTH OF PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD, WEST OF DUNCAN RANCH ROAD, WITHIN ROLLING HILLS RANCH NEIGHBORHOOD 8 The applicant, McMillin Development Company, has submitted applications to amend the City's General Plan, Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan, Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area Plan, and Salt Creek Ranch planned community district regulations for two sites within the Rolling Hills Ranch master planned community. The applications request (1) conversion of 10 acres on the west side of Duncan Road from low density residential to low medium density residential in Neighborhood 7, as well as a density transfer; and (2) adjustment of land use boundaries between the parcel designated as "community park" and the immediately adjacent community purpose facility site within Neighborhood 8. (Acting Director of Planning and Building) Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing, place the following ordinance on first reading and adopt the following resolution: Page 7 - Council Agenda 08/26/03 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE SALT CREEK RANCH PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND ZONING DISTRICTS MAP RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM; SALT CREEK RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SALT CREEK RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN AND ASSOCIATED REGULATORY DOCUMENTS TO CHANGE PORTIONS OF EXISTING DESIGNATIONS FOR NEIGHBORHOODS 7 AND 8 19. CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TO DIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES INTO 43 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF DUNCAN RANCH ROAD, NORTH OF PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD The applicant, McMillin Development Company, submitted an application for a tentative subdivision map to divide a 10-acre lot into 43 single-family residential lots. The project is located on the west side of Duncan Ranch Road, north of Proctor Valley Road. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed map were previously addressed by FEIR-89-03 and FSEIR-91-03, Salt Creek Ranch, and has, therefore, prepared an Addendum to the FEIR and FSEIR in accordance with requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, state EIR guidelines and the City's environmental review procedures. (Acting Director of Planning and Building) Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 10 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF DUNCAN RANCH ROAD, NORTH OF PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD, iNTO 43 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS 20. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN INCLUDING A DENSITY BONUS TO ALLOW FOR A 14-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT IN THE R2P (RESIDENTIAL-TWO-FAMILY) ZONE AT 815 ADA STREET The applicant proposes a condominium project with certain deviations from the R-2 development standards and an increase from 12 to 14 dwelling units utilizing the provisions for a precise plan as outlined in zoning code sections 19.14.570 - 580. The Montgomery Specific Plan provides that a net density bonus of 25 percent may be given to development projects "characterized by outstanding planning or urban design," if approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Division has reviewed the proposal and found that the project is a Class 32 exemption for infill developments. (Acting Director of Planning and Building) Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public heating and place the following ordinance on first reading: Page 8 - Council Agenda 08/26/03 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING PCM-03-08 TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND APPROVING A 25 PERCENT DENSITY BONUS TO ALLOW FOR A 14-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT IN THE R2P ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 815 ADA STREET ACTION ITEMS The items listed in this section of the agenda will be considered individually by the Council, and are expected to elicit discussion and deliberation. 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. 21. CONSIDERATION OF THE CONCEPTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR F STREET FROM FOURTH AVENUE TO ITS TERMINUS AT THE BAYFRONT (Continued from the meeting of 8/19/03) The report is intended to identify the F Street corridor, from Fourth Avenue to its terminus at the Bayfront, as an area that has the potential for cohesive street improvements at an undetermined time in the future. It is expected that with Council acceptance of the preliminary conceptual plan, it will be incorporated into other, more comprehensive planning documents addressing the western portion of the City. (Director of General Services) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING STAFF'S SUBMITTAL OF A PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR F STREET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH FOURTH AVENUE TO ITS TERMINUS AT THE BAYFRONT AND DIRECTING STAFF TO INCORPORATE THE PROPOSAL IN FUTURE PLANNING DOCUMENTS FOR FINAL CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION 22. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF A REPORT REGARDING FUTURE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS SUBMITTED TO SANDAG FOR THE PROPOSED TRANSNET EXTENSION SANDAG is currently in the process of working on a ballot measure to extend the TransNet program. The program is based on a 1A-cent sales tax and funds a variety of important transportation projects throughout the region. The current program expires in 2008. As part of the process, SANDAG has requested each local agency to submit proposed projects for inclusion in the extended program. (Director of Engineering) Staff recommendation: Council accept staff's report on future transportation projects submitted to SANDAG for the proposed TransNet program extension. ITEMS PULLED FROM TI-IE CONSENT CALENDAR Page 9 - Council Agenda 08/26/03 OTHER BUSINESS 23. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS 24. MAYOR'S REPORTS 25. 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 3~ Brown Act (Government Code 5495Z 7). 26. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 Property: San Diego Gas & Electric - Gas and Electricity Franchise (pertaining to public rights-of-way throughout the City of Chula Vista City negotiators: David Rowlands, Jr., Sid Morris, Michael Meacham, Glen Googins Negotiating Parties: City of Chula Vista and San Diego Gas & Electric (various representatives) Under Negotiation: Price and terms of franchise conveyance ADJOURNMENT to the Regular Meeting of September 16, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The Regular Meeting of September 9, 2003 has been cancelled. Page 10 - Council Agenda 08/26/03 MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Susan Telle~ SUBJECT: Councilmember Salas DATE: August 19, 2003 Councilmember Salas has requested an excused absence from the Closed Session meeting and Council meeting today, August 19, 2003. ORDINANCE NO. ~}\~ ~} ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CTT~- ~'""-~® huLA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 19.60 AND VARIOUS OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICEPAL CODE REGULATING SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WHEREAS, as part of the 2002 work program for the Department of Building and Planning, staff began evaluating the Zoning Code in anticipation of a comprehensive Zoning Code update; and WHEREAS, during the Zoning Code evaluation it was determined that certain provisions of the Sign Ordinance required immediate attention to address current processing concerns and to ensure consistency with federal and state law; and WHEREAS, to assist in stafffs analysis, the City entered into a contract with Randal Morrison, a local attorney nationally recognized as an expert in sign law, to draft changes that clarify certain basic requirements of the sign code; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2003, the City Council considered and adopted an urgency ordinance that modi fled various portions of Title 19 of the CVMC relating to sign regulations to consolidate the definitions and regulations, clarify the intent and purpose of the sign regulations and modify the language appropriately; and WHEREAS, as part of their July 8,2003, action on the urgency ordinance, the City Council directed staff to prepare a regular ordinance that would be heard by the Planning Commission and presented to the City Council for consideration on August 19, 2003; and WHEREAS, On August 13, 2003, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed ordinance and recommended City Council adoption by a vote of- WHEREAS, the City Council considered and adopted an extension of the urgency ordinance on August 19, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary; and WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on August 19, 2003, to consider the ordinance and to hear public testimony with regard to same. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain: -1- SECTION I. The current C~apter 19.60 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION II. A new Chapter 19.60 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: Chapter 19.60 SIGNS Sections: 19.60.005 Title. 19.60.010 Purpose. 19.60.020 Balancing. 19.60.030 Intent. 19.60.040 Scope. 19.60.050 Standard Provisions. 19.60.060 Definitions. 19.60.100 Sign Area. 19.60.110 Sign Height. 19.60.120 Sign Illumination. 19.60.200 Support Requirements. 19.60.210 Materials. 19.60.220 Construction standards. 19.60.300 Prohibited Signs. 19.60.400 Sensitive zones - basic signage allowance. 19.60.410 R-3 zones. 19.60.430 MHP zones. 19.60.450 P-C zones. 19.60.500 Sign rules - all commercial zones. 19.60.510 Commercial - Administrative and Professional Office (C-O) zone. 19.60.520 Central Business (C-B) zone. 19.60.530 Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) zone. 19.60.540 Central Commercial (CC) zone. 19.60.550 Visitor Commercial (C-V) zone. 19.60.560. Commercial Thoroughfare (C-T) zone. 10.60.570. Industrial Research (I-R) zone. 19.60.580 Limited Industrial (I-L) zone. 10.60.590 General Industrial (I) zone. 19.60.595 Other zones. 19.60.600 Specialty signs. 19.60.700 Signs permits. -2- 19.60.800 Permit applications. 19.60.810 Processing of applications. 19.60.900 Removal of certain signs. 19.60.930 Amortization of nonconforming onsite signs. 19.60.005 Title. This Chapter shall be known as tile Sign Ordinance. 19.60.010~ Purpose. Among the purposes and interests to be served by this Chapter are the following: A. To serve, protect and enhance the public health, safety and welfare of the City and the people who live in, work, or visit it; B. To promote and accomplish the goals, policies and strategies of the general plan; C. To balance the public interests in community aesthetics against the signage needs of establishments and persons who wish to express information or a message by displaying a sign; D. To promote the free flow of traffic and protect motorists, cyclists and pedestrians from injury and property damage which could be caused, in whole or in part, by cluttered, distracting, confusing, or illegible signage; E. To prevent personal injury and property damage from signs which are improperly placed or constructed, or poorly maintained; F. To prevent the depreciation of property values which could be caused by inappropriate signage; G. To protect, preserve and enhance property values, the local economy, and the quality of life by governing the appearance of the streetscapes that affect the image of the city; H. To prevent interference with or obstruction of the proper conduct of legitimate establishments in the city which result from the erection and placement of poorly designed signs which'are unsightly, improperly located, disproportionate and disharmonious with adjacent signs or structures and therefore tend to be both economically and aesthetically undesirable; I. To authorize and direct the zoning administrator to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the city and to promote the economic well being of the community; J. To promote the use of signs which positively contribute to the aesthetics of the community, are appropriate in scale to the surrounding buildings and landscape, and to advance the city's goals of quality development; K. To provide standards regarding the non-communicative aspects of signs, which are consistent with applicable provisions of city, county, state and federal law. 19.60.020 Balancing. This Chapter states the policy decisions regarding display of signs, made by the City Council after carefy!ly balancing many competing factors and interests. This Chapter consolidates all general provlstons relating to the installation, regulation and amortization of signs on private property throughout the City of Chula Vista. -3- 19.60.030 Intent. In adopting and enfoming this Chapter, the City intends to: A. Provide flexibility and encourage variety in signage, and create an incentive to relate signage to the basic principles of good design; B. Assure that the benefits derived from the expenditure of public funds for the improvement and beautification of streets, sidewalks, public parks, public rights of way, and other public places and spaces, are protected by exercising reasonable controls over the physical characteristics and structural design of signs; C. Improve the visual environment for the citizens and residents of, and visitors to the city; D. Protect prominent viewsheds within the community; E. Provide recovery mechanisms for the costs of administering this Chapter. 19.60.040 Scope. This Chapter regulates signs, as defined in this Chapter, which are placed on private property or on property owned by public agencies other than the City of Chula Vista and over which the City has zoning authority. 19.60.050 Standard Provisions. The policies, rules and regulations stated in this section apply to all signs within the regulatory scope of this Chapter, and to all provisions of this Chapter, notwithstanding any more specific provisions to the contrary. A. Message neutrality. It is the City's policy to regulate signs in a constitutional manner, which is content neutral as to noncommercial signs and viewpoint neutral as to commercial signs. B. Regulatory interpretations. All regulatory interpretations of this Chapter are to be exercised in light of the City's message neutrality policy. Where a particular type of sign is proposed in a permit application, and the type is neither expressly allowed nor prohibited by this Chapter, or whenever a sign does not qualify as a "structure" as defined in the California Building Code, then the Director shall approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the application based on the most similar sign type that is expressly regulated by this Chapter. C. Substitution of messages. Subject to the land owner's consent, a noncommercial message of any type may be substituted for any duly permitted or allowed commercial message or any duly permitted or allowed noncommercial message, provided that the sign structure or mounting device is legal without consideration of message content. Such substitution of message may be made without any additional approval or permitting. This provision prevails over any more specific provision to the contrary within this Chapter. The purpose of this provision is to prevent any inadvertent favoring of commercial speech over noncommercial speech, or favoring of any particular noncommercial message over any other noncommercial message. This provision does not create a right to increase the total amount ofsignage on a parcel, nor does it affect the requirement that a sign structure or mounting device be properly permitted. D. Rules for non-communicative aspects of signs. All rules and regulations concerning the non- communicative aspects of signs, such as location, size, height, illumination, spacing, orientation, etc., stand enforceable independently of any permit or approval process. E. Billboard policy. The City completely prohibits the construction, erection or use of any billboards, other than those which legally exist in the City, or for which a valid permit has been issued and has not expired, as of the date on which this provision is first adopted. The City adopts this policy pursuant to California Government Code section 65850, California Business and Professions Code sections 5354(a) and 5408.3 (both effective January 1, 2003). No permit shall be issued for any billboard which violates this policy, and the City will take immediate abatement action against any billboard constructed or maintained in violation of this policy. The City Council affirmatively declares that it would have adopted this billboard policy even if it were the only provision in this Chapter. The City Council intends for this billboard policy to be severable and separately enforceable even if other provision(s) of this Chapter may be declared, by a court of competent jurisdiction, to be unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable. This provision does not prohibit agreements to relocate presently existing, legal billboards, as encouraged by California Business and Professions Code section 5412. F. Multiple use zones. In any zone where both residential and non residential uses are allowed, the signage rights and responsibilities applicable to any particular use shall be determined as follows: residential uses shall be treated as if they were located in the residential use where that type of use would be allowed as a matter of right, and nonresidential uses shall be treated as if they were located in a zone where that particular use would be allowed, either as a matter of right or subject to a conditional use permit or similar discretionary process. G. Severance. If any section, sentence, clause, phrase, word, portion or provision of this Chapter is held invalid or, unconstitutional, or unenforceable, by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect, impair, or invalidate any other section, sentence, clause, phrase, word, portion, or provision of this Chapter which can be given effect without the invalid portion. In adopting this Chapter, the City Council affirmatively declares that it would have approved and adopted the Chapter even without any portion which may be held invalid or unenfomeable. H. Land owners' consent. No sign may be displayed without the consent of the legal owner of the property on which the sign is mounted or displayed. For purposes of this policy, "owner" means the holder of the legal title to the property and all parties and persons holding a present right to' possession, control or use of the property. I. Legal nature of signage rights and duties. As to all signs attached to property, real or personal, the signage rights, duties and obligations arising from this Chapter attach to and travel with the land or other property on which a sign is mounted or displayed. This provision does not modify or affect the law of fixtures, sign-related provisions in private leases regarding signs (so long as they are not in conflict with this Chapter), or the ownership of sign structures. J. Sign programs. Sign programs, voluntarily proposed for specific developments, as well as special sign districts or special sign overlay zone, when approved by the Planning Commission or the City Council may modify the rules stated herein as to sign size, height, illumination, spacing, orientation or other non-communicative aspects of signs, but may not override or modify any of these Standard Provisions. All the provisions of this section shall automatically apply to and be deemed a part of any sign program approved after the date on which this provision is initially adopted. 19.60.060 Definitions. As used in this Chapter, the following words have the meanings given in this section. These definitions also apply to sign-related provisions of other Chapters, unless a different definition is given for that Chapter. In the case of an approved sign program, any definitions given therein shall apply within that sign program, unless such definition leads to a violation of any of the "Standard Provisions" stated in CVMC § 19.60.050; for terms used in a sign program but not defined therein, these definitions also apply.. "Abandoned sign" means any sign remaining in place or not maintained for a period of 90 days which no longer advertises or identifies an ongoing establishment, product, or service available on the premise where the display is located. "Accessory use," in the context of this Chapter, means a sign which is an accessory to, and clearly incidental to, the principal use on the same or adjoining parcel, lot, or property. In the context of commemial messages on signs, it means an onsite sign. "Air activated signs" means those signs which are inflated or inflatable, as well as those which are activated by wind or forced air or gas. "Area" when used in reference to the size of a sign, means the area of the sign face or display, expressed in square feet. "Animated sign" means any sign which is designed and constructed to call attention, or to give its message, through a sequence of progressive changes in lighting, or of parts, including flashing, rotating. or revolving signs. "Approved sign" means a sign for which a sign permit application has been received in accordance with CVMC § 19.60.700 and approved by the City. "Auxiliary sign" means any sign whose primary function is to direct, inform, instruct or warn by stating objective facts about which there can be no meaningful debate. Examples: accessible parking, all deliveries in back, hours of operation, danger high voltage, etc. "Background area" means an area in one continuous plane, and not interrupted by architectural features, lines or colors, upon which a signs copy is applied. -6- "Bmmer" means a strip of cloth, fabric, non-rigid paper, plastic or similar flexible material, on which is displayed sign copy. Banners are typically hung or suspended from fences, walls, or posts or poles. "Billboard" means a permanent structure sign, located on private property, on which is displayed offsite commercial messages, as well as any permanent structure which is a principal use (as opposed to an accessory use) of the property on which it is built, on which messages are displayed. A billboard may be freestanding or attached to other structures. "Building frontage" means the total width of the elevation of a building that fronts on a private or public right-of-way or the building elevation along which the main entrance exits. For the purposes of calculating permitted sign area, every building has only one building frontage. For comer buildings or through lots the larger width shall be used in calculating permitted sign area. If more than one establishment or occupancy is located in a single building, then such area shall be limited to that portion which is occupied by each individual establishment or occupancy. "Canopy sign" means visual display attached to the underside of a projecting canopy or marquee protruding over public or private sidewalks or rights-of-way. "Changeable copy sign" means a sign or portion thereof with characters, letters or illustrations that can be changed or rearranged without altering the face or surface of the sign. "Commercial zone" means one of the following types of zones: C-O, C-B, C-N, C-C, C-V, C-T, I-R, I- L, orI. "Commercial mascot" means humans or animals used as advertising devices for commercial establishments, typically by the holding or wearing of insignia, masks or costumes associated with the commercial establishment. Includes sign twirlers, sign clowns, etc. "Commercial sign" means any sign, wording, logo, picture, transparency, mechanical device or other representation that is intended to attract attention to a commercial or industrial business, occupancy, product, good, service or other commercial or industrial activity for a commercial or industrial purpose. "Constructionsign" means a sign' erected and mmntmned' ' within a construction project, typically used to identify those individuals or businesses directly connected with the construction project and information regarding direction, price or terms. "Development sign" means a freestanding sign listing the architect, landscape architect, engineer, plam~er, contractor, or other person or firm participating in the development, construction or financing of the project on the site on which the sign is located. "Directional sign" means a sign located adjacent to a driveway or mounted on a building designed to guide or direct pedestrian or vehicular traffic to uses on the same site. "Director" means the City of Chula Vista Director of Planning and Building or such director's designee. -7- "Directory sign" means a sign listing the name and location of the tenants, departments or establistunents of a building or shopping complex. "Electronic message board sign" means a sign. with a fixed or changing display composed of a series of lights, light emitting diodes (LED) or liquid crystal display (LCD) or functionally similar devices. "Establishment" means a legal, nonresidential use of land to conduct a commercial or noncommercial activity. By way of example and not limitation, "establishment" includes stores, offices, churches, hospitals, manufacturing facilities, etc. Does not include home based occupations or hobbies. "Erect" (verb) means to build, construct, attach, hang, place, suspend or affix to or upon any surface. "Expired sign" means a sign whose message refers to an event or a particular date, and such date or event is more than ten days in the past. "Flag" means a piece of cloth or bunting v~rying in size, color and design, used as a symbol, stan~lard, signal or emblem. "Flashing sign" means any sign that is designed and constructed to call attention, or to give its message, through a sequence of changes in color or intensity of illumination. '~Fre~Stat!ding sign" means a sign, including a billboard or pole sign, which is self-supporting in a fixed location and not attached to a building. "Frontage" shall be considered that side of a lot or property fronting on a public right-of-way or other circulation area open to the general public such as a dedicated street, exclusive of alleys. "General advertising" means the business of renting or otherwise providing display space to commercial advertisers located other than the place where the advertising will be displayed. "Governmental signs" means those signs by which a governmental entity provides notice to the public. Such signs typically indicate traffic rnles, directions and distances, and notices of public hearings, etc. '~Ground or monument sign" means a low-profile freestanding sign erected with its base on the ground. "Hand held sign" means a sign that is held by or otherwise mounted on a person or animal. "Identification sign" means a sign which serves to identify the name, address and lawful use 6fthe premises upon which the sign is located. Includes signs indicating the name of residents on residential uses. "Illegal sign" means: (a) any sign originally erected or installed without first complying with all structural, locational, design, building, and electrical regulations in effect at the time of its construction or installation; (b) any sign that is not maintained, or is not used to identify or advertise an ongoing establishment, occupancy, product, good or service available on the site of the sign for more than ninety (90) days; (c) any unsafe sign; (d) any legal nonconforming sign that has not been removed following the expiration of the 15-year amortization period provided for in this Chapter; and (e) any sign that is in violation of the provisions of this Chapter. "Informational sign" means any sign displayed on private property, the purpose of which is to state a fact or attribute of that property which is of interest to the general public, such as the location of the restroom, the hours of operation, a security protection notice and similar facts, and which sign does not exceed an area of two (2) square feet. "Legal nonconforming sign" means a sign that was originally erected or installed in compliance with all structural, locational, design, building, and electrical regulations at the time of its erection or installation, but which does not conform to the provisions of this Chapter. "Land owner's consent" means the consent or permission of the owner of land for the display of a sign thereon. For purp. oses of this definition, land owner means the holder of the legal title to the property and all parties and persons holding a present right to possession, control or use of the property. In the case of personal property to which a sign is attached, the land owner's consent means the permission of the owner of such personal property. "L.egally required signs" means those signs which are required to be placed or displayed, by a body of law other than this Chapter. By way of example only, such signs typically include notices of eviction or condemnation, notice of change of ownership, etc. "Logo" means a trademark or symbol identifying the establishment, commemial or industrial service provided on the site. Logos shall be considered signs for the purposes of this Chapter. "Marquee sign" means any permanent architectural canopy projecting over the entrance to an establislunent, and any signage or message display thereon. "Monument or ground sign" means a low-profile freestanding sign erected with its base on the ground. "Multisided sign" means signs constructed back-to-back, with faces in approximately parallel planes (such as on both sides of a single panel or V shape, provided the angle between the two faces does not exceed 45 degrees), which shall count as only one sign, both as to number and area, i.e., only one side need be counted. Every other sign having multiple sides or faces, including a sign constructed in the form of a cylinder or sphere or similar figure, shall be limited in total area as provided herein. "Noncommercial speech" or "noncommercial message" or "noncommercial sign" means a sign message which is not commercial in nature. Such messages typically relate to debatable matters of public concern, such as, by way of example and not limitation, advocacy on politics, religion, arts, science, philosophy, commentary on governmental policy, etc. "Multiple establishment sign" means a sign upon which more than one establishment is displayed. "Noncommercial sign" means a sign which does not name, advertise or call attention to a commemial or industrial establishment, commodity, product, good, service or other commercial or industrial activity -9- for a conunercial or industrial purpose. "Off-site sign" means a commercial sign not located on the site of the establishment or entity indicated or advertised by the sign, or a commercial sign advertising a commodity, good, product, service or other commercial or industrial activity which originates on a site other than where the sign is maintained. The onsite / offsite distinction applies only to commercial message signs. "On-site sign" means any commercial sign which directs attention to a commercial or industrial occupancy, establishment, commodity, good, product, service or other commercial or industhal activity conducted, sold or offered upon the site where the sign is maintained. The onsite / offsite distinction applies only to commercial message signs. For purposes of this Chapter, all signs with noncommercial speech messages shall be deemed to be "on-site," regardless of location. "Permanent sign" means any sign which is intended to be and is so constructed as to be of lasting and enduring condition, remaining unchanged in character, condition (beyond normal wear and tear) and position and in a permanent manner affixed to the ground, wall or building. "Principal identification sign" means an establishment sign used to identify only the name of the establishment and the principal product or service. "Principal use" in the context of this Chapter means that a sign is a principal, as opposed to an accessory, use on the parcel or lot where it is located, or proposed to be located. "Pole sign" means a sign which is supported by one or more columns, uprights or braces in or upon the ground. "Portable sign" means any sign not permanently attached to the ground or another permanent structure, or a sign capable of being transported, including, but not limited to, signs designed to be transported by means of wheels, signs converted to A or T-frames, menu and sandwich board signs. "Professional sign" means a sign indicating the name or names and occupation or occupations of a professional person or group of associated professional persons occupying the premises. "Projecting sign" means a sign that is mounted on and at an angle to the face of the wall of the building to which it is attached. "Real estate sign" means a sign indicating that real property is available for sale, exchange, rent or lease. Such signs typically state that real property, or any interest therein, is for sale or exchange, or for lease or rent for a period longer than one week, and the names and contact information for persons involved in such economic transaction. "Rear wall sign" means a wall sign placed on a building wall that is parallel to the front wall of a building, but located on the opposite, furthest end of the building. "Roof line" means the upper edge of any building wall or parapet, or ridge line. Ifa building has both a parapet and a ridge line, the lower of the two will be considered the "roof line". -10- "Roof sign" is a sign upon, on or above the roof line of a roof or parapet of any building or structure. "Safety codes" means those codes which have been duly adopted by the City, and which are currently in effect, which regulate matters of safe development and construction, such as, by way of example and not limitation, grading, mechanical, building, electrical and plumbing codes. "Sensitive zones" means agricultural, residential estate, R-l, R-2, R-3 and MHP zones. "Search Lights" means focused light producers designed to project a moving beam of light into the night sky for the purpose of attracting attention to an event or location. Search Lights are considered signs. "Side wall sign" means a wall sign placed on a building wall that is generally perpendicular to the front wall of a building. "Sign" is any device, fixture, placard or structure, including its component parts, which draws attention to an object, product, place, activity, opinion, person, institution, organization, or place of business, or which identifies or promotes the interests of any person and which is to be viewed from any public street, road, highway, right-of-way or parking area. However, the following are not within the definition of a "sign" for regulatory purposes of this Chapter: 1. Public property and public use property: Signs placed on land or other property owned by the City, or in which the City holds the present right of possession or control, or land which the City holds in trust, as well as all public rights of way. Said signs shall be regulated by an adopted City Council policy; 2. Architectural features: Decorative or architectural features of buildings (not including lettering, trademarks or moving parts); 3. Symbols embedded in architecture: Symbols of noncommemial organizations or concepts including, but not limited to, religious or political symbols, when such are permanently integrated into the structure of a permanent building which is otherwise legal; 4. Personal appearance: Items or devices of personal apparel, decoration or appearance, including tattoos, makeup, costumes (but not including commercial mascots); 5. Manufacturers' marks: Marks on tangible products, which identify the maker, seller, provider or product, and which customarily remain attached to the product even after sale; 6. Fireworks, etc.: the legal use of fireworks, candles and artificial lighting not otherwise regulated by this Chapter; 7. Certain insignia on vehicles and vessels: On street legal vehicles and properly licensed watercraft: license plates, license plate frames, registration insignia, noncommercial messages, 8. Grave stones or grave markers. 9. Newsracks and newsstands. "Site" means the location of a sign. In the case of legal parcels containing only one legal use, that parcel is the site. For parcels containing more than one legal use, the site is the portion of the parcel on which each use is located. -11- "Street address sign" means a wall sign placed on the side of the building parallel to the front property line or main entrance, or parallel to the public right-of-way solely for the purpose of providing the street address for the site. "Temporary sign" is any sign constructed of cloth, canvas, light fabric, cardboard, wallboard, or other light materials, with or without frames, intended to be displayed for a limited period of time not to exceed sixty (60) days. "Unsafe sign" means a sign posing an immediate peril or reasonably foreseeable threat of injury or damage to persons or property on account of the condition of the physical structure of the sign or its mounting mechanism. "Wall sign" is a sign, including a painted sign, attached to, painted on, or erected against the wall of a building or structure, with the exposed face of the sign in a plane parallel to the plane of such wall. "Window sign" means a sign that is painted on either the outside or inside surface of the glazed area (including glazed doors), and any sign that is posted or affixed to the inside surface of the glazed area, or is located in such a manner as to be visible through the glazed area. 19.60.100 Sign area. The area ora sign is calcnlated as follows: A. Background panel signs. Sign copy which is mounted, affixed, or painted on a background panel or area distinctively painted, textured or constructed as a background for the sigm copy, is measured as that area contained within the sum of the smallest rectangles, squares, triangles, parallelogram, circles or ellipses that will enclose both the sign copy and the background. B. Background surface signs. The area of a sign consisting of copy mounted as individual letters or graphics against a wall, fascia, mansard, or parapet of a building surface or another surface, that has not been painted, textured, or otherwise altered to provide a distinctive background for the sign copy, is measured as the sum of the smallest rectangles, squares, triangles, parallelograms, circles or ellipses that will enclose each word, graphic or discrete visual element in the total sign. C. Illuminated background signs. The area of a sign with copy mounted, affixed, or painted on an illuminated surface or illuminated element or a building or structure, is measured as the entire illuminated surface or illuminated element which contains sign copy. Such elements may include, but are not limited to lit canopy fascia signs, spanner board signs, and / or interior lit awnings. D. Two faced signs. If a sign has two display faces, and the interior angle between the two faces is forty-five degrees or less, then the sign area is one sign face only; however, if the two faces are of different sizes or shapes, then the larger is used. If the sign has two display faces, and the interior angle between the two faces is greater than forty-five degrees, then the sign area is the sum of the areas of the two faces. - 12- E. Multi-faced signs. If a sign has three or more faces, then the sign area is the 50% of the aggregate area of all sign faces. The area of each face shall be determined according to subsection A. or B. above, as applicable. F. Statuary and Non-planar signs. The area of a spherical, free form, sculptural or other non-planar sign is fifty percent of the sum of the areas, using only the four vertical sides of the smallest four- sided polyhedron which will completely enclose the entire sign structure. 19.60.110 Sign height. Sign height is the vertical distance from the average grade of the ground immediately below the uppermost point of a sign, as measured to points five feet in all directions from said point, to the topmost portion of the sign. The base or structure erected to support or adorn a monument, pole or other freestanding sign is measured as part of the sign height. 19.60.120 Sign illumination. A. Residential signs. Signs on residential uses in any zone may not be separately or specially illuminated, unless other~vise specified. B. General rule for all non-residential uses. Other than signs on residential uses, all other signs may be non-illuminated, or illuminated by internal, internal indirect (halo) illumination, or lit by external indirect illumination, unless otherwise specified. Signs may not be illuminated in a manner which leaves the illumination device exposed to public view except with the use of neon tubing as provided in subsection E. below. C. Internal illumination. Outdoor, internally illuminated signs, including but not limited to awning / canopy signs, cabinet signs (whether freestanding or building mounted), changeable copy panels or service island signs, shall be constructed with an opaque background and translucent letters or other graphical elements, or with a colored background and lighter letters or graphics. D. External indirect illumination. Externally lit signs are permitted to be illuminated only with steady, stationary, down directed and shielded light sources directed solely onto the sign. Light bulbs or tubes (excluding neon), used for illuminating a sign, shall not be visible from the adjacent public rights of way or residential properties. E. Neon. 1. Exposed neon. Exposed neon tube illumination is not permitted in residential zones, or on residential uses in any zone. It is allowed in all other places, unless otherwise specified. 2. Neon borders. Neon illumination used as a sign copy projection, border, frame or other embellishment of sign copy shall not be included in the total size or area of the sign, provided the measured area of any such projection or detailed embellishment does not q13- exceed twelve square feet in area, or twenty-five percent of the sign display face area, whichever is greater. If neon embellishments exceed these limits, then the embellishments shall be included and counted as part of the permitted sign area for the use. 19.60.200 Support requirements. The supporting members of all signs shall be free of any external bracing such as guy wires or cables. All supporting columns shall be designed as an integral or architectural feature of the building. 19.60.210 Materials. Paper or cardboard signs an,d cloth or plastic fabric banners may only be used in conjunction with a special event or temporary outside sale and display as provided in Chapter 19.58 ("Uses"); however, paper or cardboard signs may be used for indoor window and windshield signs, when such are allowed. 19.60.220 Construction standards. All signs shall be installed and constructed in a professional and workmanlike manner and shall be maintained in good and safe structural condition and good physical appearance. All exposed structural components shall be painted, coated or made of rust inhibitive material. 19.60.300 Prohibited signs. Unless otherwise provided, the following sign types are prohibited throughout the City. A. Flashing. Signs which use intemfittent illumination, intermittent reflection (whether from the sun or an artificial soume) flashing images, scintillation or lights of varying intensity, including electronic message board signs, but not including barber poles; B. Moving. Signs which have any visible portion in motion, either constantly or at intervals, which motion may be caused by either artificial or natural sources; C. Air activated. Signs which are activated by wind or moving air, including but not limited to whirligigs; D. Lighter than air. Tethered blimps, tethered dirigibles, and tethered balloons used to display commercial messages or general advertising; however, certain balloons may be allowable in conjunction with special events, as regulated by CVMC § 19.58.370 and § 19.58.380; E. Visibility blocking. No sign shall be erected at the intersection of any streets in such a manner as to create a traffic hazard by obstructing vision; or at any location where the sign may interfere with, obstruct the view of, or be confused with any authorized traffic sign. 19.60.400 Sensitive zones - basic signage allowance. -14- In agricultural, residential estates, R-l, R-2, R-3 and MHP zones ("sensitive zones"), the signage described in this section is allowed, subject to permit requirements. Additional signage may be allowed, as described in the separate regulations for each particular zone, or particular uses therein. A. Basic signage allowance. For each legal parcel in any of the sensitive zones, either one wall sign or one free standing sign is allowed. The area shall not exceed one and one half square feet. For a freestanding sign the height shall not exceed six feet, and the sign shall be set back from the property line or curbline (whichever is closer to the interior of the parcel) by a minimum often feet. In the residential estates, R-1 and R-2 zones, such signs shall not display commercial messages. B. Public and quasi-public uses within sensitive zones. In addition to the basic signage allowance, parcels on which are located legally operating public and quasi public uses, including but not limited to religious uses (churches, chapels, synagogues, mosques, etc.), emergency services (fire, police, hospital, etc.) and educational uses (schools, day care centers, etc.) the following signage is allowed: 1. One permanent wall sign, the area of which shall not exceed 30 square feet. The wall sign may be illuminated. 2. One changeable.copy sign, the area of which shall not exceed 50 square feet and 12 feet in height. If such sign is free standing, then it shall be set back at least ten feet from all streets. C. Public and quasi-public special event signs. Any public or quasi-public establishment in a sensitive zone may display temporary promotional signs in conjunction with a special event. Said signs may consist of A and I frame signs and signs on paper, cardboard, plastic or fabric. 1. The signs shall: a. Be located on the premises of the establishment having the special event; b. Not create a traffic hazard because of the distractive character to motorists of any sign or the cumulative effect of all the signs on the lot; c. Not unreasonably obscure existing signs or adjacent properties; d. Not interfere with internal circulation or eliminate required parking. 2. Only one freestanding sign shall be allowed on each street frontage. The freestanding sign shall not be more than eight feet in height or contain more than forty square feet of sign area. 3. Not more than six permits allowing special event signage shall be issued to an establishment in any one calendar year. 4. The maximum time limit for displaying special event signs for any one special event shall not exceed 14 consecutive days. 5. Pennants may be used only for safety and precautionary purposes. 6. The applicant shall submit a statement describing the commencement and ending date of the special event. The applicant shall also submit a site plan indicating the location and area of signs. Each permit shall also be accompanied by the required filing fee(si. -15- 19.60.410 R-3 zones. In addition to the basic signage allowance in sensitive zones, the following rules apply to signs in the R- 3 zone: A. Wall sign. One wall sign for each street frontage, a maximum of 15 square feet of sign area for buildings with a width of 30 feet or less. Buildings over 30 feet in width shall be allowed an additional one square foot for each foot over 30 feet to a maximum of 30 square feet. In cases of more than one building on the property, the area of the sign shall be based on the lineal frontage of the building on which it is placed. Only the name and address may be placed on the building; B. Freestanding sign. One freestanding sign may be used in lieu of one wall sign. Through lots will be allowed an additional freestanding sign if the frontage is used for access. Commercial messages on the sign may consist only of the name and address of the manager, except the Yacancy status and location of the manager's office may be placed on the sign, if designed as part of the sign. Maximum height, five feet. Maximum sign area, 12 square feet, except an additional two square feet may be added for the vacancy status; C. Manager's sign. A sign designating the location of the manager's office may be placed on or near the main entrance to the units. Maximum size: one and one half square feet. Such sign may be attached to the dwelling or incorporated in the design of the freestanding sign. Maximum square footage of the freestanding sign shall not be increased to accommodate said sign; D. Vacancy sign. A separate freestanding vacancy sign, a maximum of three and one-half feet in height and two square feet in area, may be used if no other freestanding sign exists on the property; otherwise, it shall be placed on the building; E. Screening wall sign. One sign may be placed on a structure used for screening of parking in lieu of a wall or freestanding sign. Only the name and address may be placed on the structure. Maximum area, 15 square feet. 19.60.430 MHP zones. In addition to the basic signage allowance in sensitive zones, the following rules apply to signs in the MHP zone: A. Wall or Freestanding sign. One wall sign or single- or double-faced freestanding sign, designating the use of the premises, facing or adjacent to each street abutting the property. The height of a freestanding sign shall not exceed eight feet. The total face area of all wall and freestanding signs, excluding directional signs, shall not exceed one-tenth square foot for each linear foot of street frontage, and no sign shall exceed a maximum area of 32 square feet. B. Directional sign. One directional sign, not to exceed 10 square feet in area, may be placed at each entrance or exit driveway. No such sign shall exceed a height of eight feet measured vertically from the base at ground level to the apex of the sign. Directional signs may be lighted. -16- 19.60.450 P-C zones. The Planning Commission and City Council may establish sign standards and provisions for a P-C (planned community) zone concurrently with the approval of a general development plan or sectional planning area. However, such standards must comply with and incorporate all of the Standard Provisions of this Chapter, CVMC § 19.60.050. 19.60.500 Sign rules - all commercial zones. A. Window signs. When allowed, window signs may cover a maximum of twenty percent of the window area in all commemial and industrial zones. Other than painted window signs, no sign shall be permitted to be located on the outside surface of the glazed area. B. Canopy signs (soffits). One onsite canopy sign or soffit is permitted for each establishment in a commercial zone. Minimum clearance for signs attached under the marquee is seven feet. The maximum size ora canopy sign is one foot wide by five feet long. The sign may not project beyond marquee. Larger canopy signs facing a dedicated street or interior parking area may be used in lieu of wall signs, provided the signs do not exceed the maximum area permitted in the underlying zone for wall signs. C. Temporary promotional signs. Temporary promotional signs in conjunction with "special events" as defined and regulated by CVMC § 19.58.370 and § 19.58.380 are allowed for any non-residentiaI use in a commercial zone. Commercial messages on such signs will pertain to grand openings, change of business address, change of ownership or lessee, business anniversaries and similar promotional events. Said signs may consist orA and I frame signs and signs on paper, cardboard, plastic or fabric. The signs shall be located on the premises of the business having the special event. The number and location of the signs shall not create a traffic hazard because of the distractive character to motorists of any sign or the cumulative effect of all · the signs on the lot, nor shall any sign unreasonably obscure existing signs or adjacent properties. Only one freestanding sign shall be allowed on each street frontage; such sign shall not be more than eight feet in height or contain more than forty square feet of sign area. Pennants 'may be used only for safety and precautionary purposes. Price signs may be used but shall not exceed 12 by 16 inches. Excluding price signs, the total area of all promotional signage shall not exceed two square feet of lineal street frontage.of the sales area. D. Other signs. The following signs are allowed in all commercial zones: Window; temporary promotional, public and quasi-public; directional; warning; instructional; directory; real estate; signs allowed pursuant to the unclassified use approval process; signs on mansard roofs; signs on pitched roofs; and signs on architectural appendages. Service station price signs are allowed anywhere that motor fuels may be legally sold or dispensed to the public. Drive-in theater marquees may be allowed only when onsite to a legal use of drive in theater. Theater marquees are allowed only onsite to legally use as a theater. 19.60.510 Commercial - Administrative and Professional Office (C-O) zone. The following signs are allowed in C-O zones: -17- A. Wall and/or marquee: Each establishment shall be allowed a combined sign area of 20 square feet for each portion of the building facing a dedicated street or alley. Establishments facing a major or collector street shall be allowed an additional one square foot for each two feet of lineal building frontage over 20 feet facing said street, but shall not exceed a total of 50 square feet. Each establishment shall also be allowed signs facing on-site parking areas for five or more cars and walkways, a minimum of 10 feet in width. The signs shall be allowed one-half square foot per lineal foot of building facing said area; maximum area, 20 square feet per establishment; B. Freestanding (pole): Each lot shall be allowed a freestanding sign with a maximum sign area of three square feet; however, if more than one establishment is located on the lot or is located in a building designed for occupancy by more than one establishment, the area of the sign may be increased an additional three square feet for each establishment displayed on the sign to a maximum area of 12 square feet and four tenant establishment signs. The sign shall not exceed eight feet in height. An establistunent or business complex located on a major or collector street shall be allowed a freestanding pole sign subject to the following: 1. Maximum height, 16 feet; 2. Maximum sign area, 32 square feet; 3. Minimum ground clearance, eight feet; 4. The sign shall not be permitted to project into the public right-of-way; 5. The sign shall maintain a 1 O-foot setback from all interior property lines; 6. Only one establistunent or the name of the comtnercial complex may be displayed on the sign. C. Ground (monument): A low-profile ground sign may be used in place ora freestanding pole sign. The sign shall be subject to the following: 1. Maximum height, four feet. Establishments located on major or collector streets, six feet; 2. Maximum sign area, 12 square feet. Establishments located on major or collector streets, 25 square feet; 3. The sign shall maintain a five-foot setback from all streets and 10 feet from ali interior property lines; 4. The sign structure shall be designed to be 'architecturally compatible with the main building and constructed with the same or similar materials. D. Projecting: A projecting sign may be used in lieu of a freestanding (pole or ground) sign subject to the following: l. The maximum projection from the face of the building shall be based on the clearance of the sign from the bottom of the sign to the ground as shown in the following table: Ground I[ Maximum I[ Maximum Diagonal Clearance Pro'ection t Pro'ection corner lot LL................ Ii. J~ .... J ~ .......... {__ ~j II 2'6 II 3'0 12' ti 3'0 I[ 3'8 13' J[ 3'6 ~[ 4'4 _ 14' ~- 4'0~_.~ [ 5'0 d~ 2. Projecting signs less than eight feet from the ground shall not project closer than three feet to any area used for vehicular circulation and six inches to any area used for pedestrian cimulation; 3. The sign shall not project above the roof, parapet or first story; 4. The maximum sign area for double-faced signs shall be 12 square feet and 24 square feet for spheres, cylinders, and multisided signs, not including the top and bottom of the sign when no copy is applied to those surfaces. E. Signs on Screening Walls or Fences: Signs denoting the names of the occupants, principal establishment, or name of the commercial complex may be applied to a wall or fence used as screening of parking areas in lieu of a freestanding or projecting sign. Maximum sign area shall be three square feet; except, an establishment or complex located on a major or collector street shall be allowed an area of 25 square feet. F. The design review committee may reduce sign areas and height below those authorized above based on the sign guidelines and criteria contained in the design manual, without consideration of the graphic design of the copy or message displayed on the sign. 19.60.520 Central Business (C-B) zone. The following signs are allowed in C-B zones: A. Wall and/or marquee: Each establishment shall be allowed a combined sign area of one square foot per lineal foot of building frontage facing a dedicated street or alley; however, the sign area may be increased to a maximum of three square feet per lineal foot of building frontage; provided, the sign does not exceed 50 percent of the background area on which the sign is applied, mounted or displayed. Each establishment shall also be allowed signs facing on-site parking areas for five cars or more and walkways 10 feet or more in width. Such signs may contain an area of one square foot per lineal foot of building frontage facing said area; however, the area may be increased to two square feet per lineal foot of building frontage; provided, the sign does not exceed 50 percent of the background area on which the sign is applied, mounted or displayed; -19- B. Ground (monument): Each lot or commercial complex shall be allowed a low-profile ground sign, subject to the following: 1. Signs are restricted to those lots having a minimum frontage of 100 feet on a dedicated street. In the case of comer lots, only one frontage shall be counted; 2. Maximum height, six feet; 3. Maximum sign area, 25 square feet; 4. The sign shall maintain a five-foot setback from all streets and 10 feet from all interior property lines; 5. The sign structure shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the main building and constructed with the same or similar materials. C. Projecting: Each establishment shall be allowed a projecting sign subject to the following: 1. The maximum projection from the face of the building shall be based on the clearance of the sign from the bottom of the sign to the ground as shown in the following table: Ground ii Maximum Maximum 45° Diagonal ...... _Cleara___n~ ~_ i[- ~_ p.r__gjp__c_t!9~._~L Projection ~corner lot) ii 1 6 ][ 1 8 ;1 2,0 1[ 2'4 11' ][ ............. 2'6._ j[ 3'0 ...... 12'~ ......j[ ........ ~:p ][ .............3'8~ 14' or more i[ ...... 4'0 ......_ii 4'0 2. Projecting signs less than eight feet from the ground shall not project closer than three feet to any area used for vehicular circulation and six inches to any area used for pedestrian circulation; 3.The sign shall not project above the roof, parapet or first story; 4. The maximum sign area for double-faced signs shall be 12 square feet and 24 square feet for spheres, cylinders, and multisided signs, not including the top and bottom of the sign when no copy is applied to those surfaces. D. Signs on Screening Walls or Fences. In lieu of a ground sign or projecting sign, a sign may be applied to a wall or fence used for screening of parking areas. The sign shall be subject to the following: 1. The sign may only denote the name of the principal establishment or the name of the commercial complex; 2. Maximum sign area: 25 square feet. 20- E. The design review con~anittee may reduce sign areas and heights below those authorized above based on the sign guidelines and criteria contained in the design manual, without consideration of the graphic design of the copy or message displayed on the sign. 19.60.530 Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) zone. The following signs are allowed in C-N zones: A. Wall and/or marquee: Each establishment shall be allowed a combined sign area of one square foot per lineal foot of building frontage facing a dedicated street or alley; however, the sign may be increased to a maximum of one and one-half square feet per lineal foot of building fi-ontage; provided, the sign does not exceed 50 percent of the background area on which the sign is applied, mounted or displayed. Each establishinent shall be allowed signs facing on-site parking areas for five cars or more and walkrways 10 feet in width. Such signs may contain a sign area of one-half square foot per lineal foot of building frontage. The maximum sign area shall not exceed 20 square feet per establishment. B. Freestanding (pole): A freestanding pole sign shall be subject to the following: 1. Each neighborhood shopping center or shopping complex consisting of one parcel or contiguous parcels shall be allowed one freestanding pole sign (in existing developed shopping centers a freestanding service station sign shall be allowed to remain and will not be included in determining the total number of signs allowed); 2. Signs are restricted to those lots having a minimum frontage of 100 feet on a dedicated street. In the case of comer lots, only one frontage shall be counted; 3. Maximum height, 25 feet; 4. Maximum sign area, 100 square feet; 5. Minimum ground clearance, eight feet; 6. The sign may project a maximum of five feet into the public right-of-way; 7. The sign shall maintain a l O-foot setback from all interior property lines; 8. Freestanding pole signs less than eight feet in height are restricted to a maximum sign area of 12 square feet and shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from all streets; 9. Commercial messages on pole signs in the C-N zone may identify only the name of the shopping center or complex and tenants therein. C. Ground (monument): A low-profile ground sign may be used in lieu ora freestanding pole sign. The sign shall be subject to the following: 1. Maximum height, eight feet; 2. Maximum sign area, 50 square feet; 3. The sign shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from all streets and 10 feet from all interior property lines; 4. The sign structure shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the main building and constructed with the same or similar materials. -21 - D. Signs on Screening Walls or Fences. In lieu of a freestanding sign, a sign may be applied to a wall or fence used for screening of parking areas. The sign shall be subject to the following: I. The sign may only denote the name of the principal establishment or the name of the commercial complex; 2. Maximum sign area, 25 square feet. E. The design review committee may reduce sign areas below those authorized above based on the sign guidelines and criteria contained in the design manual, without consideration of the graphic design of the copy or message displayed on the sign. 19.60.540 Central Commercial (CC) zone. The following signs are allowed in C-C zones: A. Wall and/or marquee: Each establishment shall be allowed a combined sign area of one square foot per lineal foot of building frontage facing a dedicated street or alley; however, the sign area may be increased to a maximum of three square feet per lineal foot of building frontage; provided, the sign does not exceed 50 percent of the background area on which the sign is applied, mounted or displayed. Each establishment shall also be allowed signs l~acing on-site parking areas for five cars or more and walkways 10 feet or more in width. Such signs may contain an area of one square foot per lineal foot of building frontage facing said area; however, the area may be increased to two square feet per lineal foot of building frontage; provided, the sign does not exceed 50 percent of the background area on which the sign is applied, mounted or displayed. The maximum sign area shall not exceed 100 square feet; B. Freestanding (pole): Each lot shall be allowed one freestanding sign subject to the following: 1. Signs are restricted to those lots having a minimum frontage of 100 feet on a dedicated street. In the case of comer lots or through lots, only one frontage shall be counted; 2. The sign may contain one square foot of area for each lineal foot of street frontage but shall not exceed 150 square feet. In the case of comer lots or through lots, only the frontage the sign is oriented to shall be counted toward the allowable sign area, 3. Maximum height, 35 feet; 4. Minimum ground clearance, eight feet; 5. The sign may project a maximum of five feet into the public fight-of-way; 6. The sign shall maintain a I 0-foot setback from all interior property lines; 7. Comer parcels containing five acres or more shall be allowed one freestanding sign on each street frontage on a major or collector street and shall be spaced at intervals of not less than 500 feet apart. Such signs shall not face the side of any adjoining lot in an R district; 8. Commercial messages on pole signs in the C-C zone may identify only the name of the shopping center or complex and tenants therein." 9. Freestanding pole signs less than eight feet in height are restricted to a maximum sign area - 22 - of 15 square feet and shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from all streets. C. Ground (monument): A low-profile ground sign may be used in lieu of a freestanding pole sign. The sign shall be subject to the following: 1. Maximum height, eight feet; 2. Maximum sign area, 50 square feet; 3. The sign shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from all streets and 10 feet from all interior property lines; 4. The sign structure shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the main building and constructed with the same or similar materials. D. Signs on Screening Walls or Fences. In lieu of a freestanding sign, a sign may be applied to a wall or fence used for screening of parking areas. The sign shall be subject to the following: 1. The sign may only denote the name of the principal business or the name of the commercial complex; 2. Maximum sign area, 25 square feet. E. The design review committee may reduce sign areas below those authorized above based on the sign guidelines and criteria contained in the design manual, without consideration of the graphic design of the copy or message displayed on the sign. 19.60.550 Visitor Commercial (C-V) zone. The following signs are allowed in C-V zones: A. Wall and/or marquee: Each establishment shall be allowed a combined sign area of one square foot per lineal foot of building frontage facing a dedicated street or alley; however, the sign area may be increased to a maximum of three square feet per lineal foot of building frontage; provided, the sign does not exceed 50 percent of the background area on which the sign is applied. Each establishment shall also be allowed signs facing on-site parking areas for five cars or more and walkways 10 feet or more in width. Such signs may contain an area of one square foot per lineal foot of building frontage facing said area; however, the area may be increased to two square feet per lineal foot of building frontage; provided, the sign does not exceed 50 percent of the background area on which the sign is applied, mounted or displayed. The maximum sign area shall not exceed 100 square feet; B. Freestanding (pole): Each lot shall be allowed one freestanding sign subject to the following: 1. Signs are restricted to those lots having a minimum frontage of 100 feet on a dedicated street. In the case of comer lots or through lots, only one frontage shall be counted; 2. The sign may contain one square foot of area for each lineal foot of street frontage but shall not exceed 150 square feet. In the case of comer lots or through lots, only the frontage the sign is oriented to shall be counted toward the allowable sign area; - 23 - 3. Maximum height, 35 feet; 4. Minimum ground clearance, eight feet; 5. The sign may project a maximum of five feet into the public right-of-way; 6. The sign shall maintain a I O-foot setback from all interior property lines; 7. Comer parcels containing five acres or more shall be allowed one freestanding sign on each street frontage on a major or collector street and shall be spaced at intervals of not tess than 500 feet apart. Such signs shall not face the side of any adjoining lot in an R district; 8. Commercial messages on pole signs in the C-V zone may identify only the name of the shopping center or complex and tenants therein. 9. Freestanding pole signs less than eight feet in height are restricted to a maximum sign area of 15 square feet and shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from all streets; C. Ground (monument): A low profile ground sign may be used in lieu of a freestanding pole sign. The sign shall be subject to the following: 1. Maximum height, eight feet; 2. Maximum sign area, 50 square feet; 3. The sign shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from all streets and 10 feet from all interior property lines; 4. The sign structure shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the main building and constructed with the same or similar materials. D. Signs on Screening Walls or Fences. In lieu of a freestanding sign, a sign may be applied to a wall or fence used for screening of parking areas. The sign shall be subject to the following: 1. The sign may only denote the name of the principal establishment or the name of the commercial complex; 2. Maximum sign ama, 25 square feet. E. The design review committee may reduce sign areas below those authorized above based on the sign guidelines and criteria contained in the design manual, without consideration of the graphic design of the copy or message displayed on the sign. 19.60.560. Commercial Thoroughfare (C-T) zone. The following signs are allowed in C-T zones: A. Wall and/or marquee: Each establishment shall be allowed a combined sign area of one square foot per lineal foot of building frontage facing a dedicated street or alley; however, the sign area may be increased to a maximum of three square feet per lineal foot of building frontage; provided, the sign does not exceed 50 percent of the background area on which the sign is applied, mounted or displayed. Each establishment shall also be allowed signs facing on-site parking areas for five cars or more and walkways 10 feet or more in width. Such signs may contain an area of one square foot per lineal foot of building frontage facing said area; however, the area may be increased to two square - 24 - feet per lineal foot of building frontage; provided, the sign does not exceed 50 percent of the background area on which the sign is applied, mounted or displayed. The maximum sign area shall not exceed 100 square feet; B. Freestanding (pole): Each lot shall be allowed one freestanding sign subject to the following: 1. Signs are restricted to those lots having a minimum fi-ontage of 50 feet on a dedicated street. In the case of comer lots, only one frontage shall be counted; 2. The sign may contain one square foot of area for each lineal foot of street frontage, but shall not exceed 150 square feet. In the case of comer lots or through lots, only the frontage the sign is oriented to shall be counted toward the allowable sign area; 3. Maximum height, 35 feet; 4. Minimum ground clearance, eight feet; 5. The sign may project a maximum of five feet into the public right-of-way; 6. The sign shall maintain a 1 O-foot setback from all interior property lines; 7. Comer parcels containing five acres or more shall be allowed one freestanding sign on each street frontage on a major or collector street and shall be spaced at intervals of not less than 500 feet apart. Such signs shall not face the side of any adjoining lot in the R district; 8. Commercial messages on pole signs in the C-T zone may identify only the name of the shopping center or complex and tenants therein. 9. Freestanding pole signs less than eight feet in height are restricted to a maximum sign area of 15 square feet and shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from all streets. C. Ground (monument): A low-profile ground sign may be used in lieu of a freestanding pole sign. The sign shall be subject to the following: 1. Maximum height, eight feet; 2. Maximum sign area, 50 square feet; 3. The sign shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from all streets and ! 0 feet from all interior property lines; 4. The sign structure shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the main building and constructed with the same or similar materials. D. Projecting: A projecting sign may be used in place of a freestanding (pole or ground) sign subject to the following: 1. The maximum projection from the face of the building shall be based on the clearance of the sign from the bottom of the sign to the ground as shown in the following table: Ground Maximum Maximum Diagonal (45©) Clearance Projection ProJection (corner lot) 8' or less 1 '0 1 '0 9' 1 '6 1 '8 1 O' 2'0 2'4 -25 - 15' j[ 4'6 ][ 5'8 16' or more 11 5'0 II 6,4 2. Projecting signs less than eight feet from the ground shall not project closer than three feet to any area used for vehicular circulation and six inches to any area used for pedestrian circulation; 3.The sign shall not project above the roof, parapet, or first story; 4. The maximum sign area shall be 60 square feet for spheres, cylinders and multisided signs, not including the top and bottom of the sign where no copy is applied to those surfaces. E. Rooftop: Each lot shall be allowed a rooftop sign in lieu of a freestanding or projecting sign in accordance with the following: 1. Such signs are restricted to those establishments having a minimum street frontage of 100 feet on a dedicated street and a minimum building frontage of 50 feet. In the case of comer lots, only one frontage shall be counted; 2. The height of the rooftop sign above the building on which it is located shall not exceed the height of the building measured from the ground level to the top of a parapet wall, a ridge line or the highest point of the roof. But in no case shall the height exceed 35 feet above the ground level; 3. The maximum area of the sign shall not exceed 50 square feet for buildings having 50 feet of frontage. Buildings with frontages of more than 50 feet may increase the area of the sign two square feet per lineal foot over 50 feet but shall not exceed 150 square feet. B_u~ilding Frontage_ jL__Si~l~_Area~_S_q. FtO~ so' ][ ss' ii ii ii so s0, J[ ................ ss' ]1 420 90' l] 130 95' II 140 100' and over ii 150 - 26 - 4. The sign shall be placed perpendicular to the street it is oriented to and shall maintain a minimum setback of 10 feet from the sides of the building, 5. The sign shall not be permitted to project beyond the building face. F. Signs on Screening Walls or Fences: In lieu.of a freestanding sign, a sign may be applied to a wall or fence used for screening of a parking area. The sign shall be subject to the following: 1. The sign may only denote the name of the principal establishment or the name of the commemial complex, 2. Maximum sign area, 25 square feet. G. The design review committee may reduce sign areas below those authorized above based on the sign guidelines and criteria contained in the design manual, without consideration of the graphic design of the copy or message displayed on the sign. 10.60.570. Industrial Research (I-R) zone. The following signs are allowed in I-R zones: A. Wall and/or marquee: Each establishment shall be allowed a combined sign area of one square foot for each lineal foot of building frontage facing a dedicated street or alley, to a maximum of 100 square feet. Each establishment shall also be allowed signs facing on-site parking areas for five cars or more and walkways 10 feet or more in width. They shall be allowed a sign area of one square foot per lineal foot of building frontage facing said area, to a maximum of 50 square feet. B. Freestanding (pole): Each lot shall be allowed one freestanding pole sign subject to the following: 1. Signs are restricted to those lots having a minimum frontage of 75 feet on a dedicated street. In the case of corner lots, only one frontage shall be counted; 2. Maximum sign area, 75 square feet; 3. Maximum height, 20 feet; 4. Minimum ground clearance, eight feet; 5. The sign shall not be permitted to project into the public right-of-way; 6. The sign shall maintain a 1 O-foot setback from all interior property lines; 7. Freestanding pole signs less than eight feet in height are restricted to a maximum sign area of 12 square feet and shall maintain a five-foot setback from all streets; 8. Commercial messages on pole'signs in the I-R zone may identify only the name of the complex and tenants therein. C. Ground (monument): A low-profile ground sign may be used in lieu of a freestanding pole sign. The sign shall be subject tothe following: 1. Maximum height, eight feet; - 27 - 2. Maximum sign area, 50 square feet; 3. The sign shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from all streets and 10 feet from all interior property lines, 4. The sign structure shall be designed to be amhitecturally compatible with the main building and constructed with the same or similar materials. D. Signs on Screening Walls or Fences: In lieu of a freestanding sign, a sign may be applied to a wall or fence used for screening of parking areas, The sign shall be subject to the following: 1. The sign may only denote the name of the principal establishment or the name of the commercial complex; 2. Maximum sign ama, 25 square feet. E. The design review committee may reduce sign areas below those authorized above based on the sign guidelines and criteria contained in the design manual, without consideration of the graphic design of the copy or message displayed on the sign. 19.60.580 Limited Industrial (I-L) zone. The following signs are allowed in I-L zones. A. Wall and/or marquee: Each establishment shall be allowed a combined sign area of one square foot per lineal foot of building frontage facing a dedicated street or alley; however, the sign area may be increased to a maximum of three square feet per lineal foot of building frontage; provided, that the sign does not exceed 50 percent of the background area on which the sign is applied, mounted or displayed. Each establishment shall also be allowed signs facing on-site parking areas for five cars or more and walkways 10 feet or more in width. Such signs shall be allowed an area of one square foot per lineal foot of building frontage facing said area; however, the area may be increased to two square feet per lineal foot of building frontage; provided, that the sign does not exceed 50 percent of the background area on which the sign is applied, mounted or displayed. The maximum sign area shall not exceed 100 square feet. B. Freestanding (pole): Each lot shall be allowed one freestanding sign subject to the following: 1. Signs are restricted to those lots having a minimum frontage of 100 feet on a dedicated street. In the case of comer lots, only one frontage shall be counted; 2. The sign may contain one square foot of area for each lineal foot of street frontage but shall not exceed 150 square feet. In the case of comer lots or through lots, only the frontage the sign is oriented to shall be counted toward the allowable sign area; 3. Maximum height, 35 feet; 4. Minimum ground clearance, eight feet; 5. The sign shall not be permitted to project into the public right-of-way; 6. The sign shall maintain a 20-foot setback from all interior property lines; 7. Freestanding pole signs less than eight feet in height are restricted to a maximum sign area - 28 ~ of 12 square feet and shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from all streets; 8. Commercial messages on pole signs in the I-L zone may identify only the name of the complex and tenants therein. C. Ground (monument): A low-profile grotmd sign may be used in lieu of a freestanding pole sign. The sign shall be subject to the following: 1. Maximum height, eight feet; 2. Maximum sign area, 50 square feet; 3. The sign shall maintain a minimum setb.ack of five feet from all streets and 10 feet from all interior property lines; 4. The sign structure shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the main building and constructed with the same or similar materials. D. Signs on Screening Walls or Fences: In lieu of a freestanding sign, a sign may be applied to a wall or fence used for screening of parking areas. The sign shall be subject to the following: 1. The sign may only denote the name of the principal establishment or the name of the commemial complex; 2. Maximum sign area, 25 square feet. E. The design review committee may reduce sign areas below those authorized above based on the sign guidelines and criteria contained in the design manual, without consideration of the graphic design of the copy or message displayed on the sign. 10.60.590 General Industrial (I) zone. The following signs are allowed in I zones: A. Wall and/or marquee: Each establishment shall be allowed a combined sign area of one square foot per lineal foot of building frontage facing a dedicated street or alley; however, the sign area may be increased to a maximum of three square feet per lineal foot of building frontage; provided, the sign does not exceed 50 percent of the background area on which the sign is applied, motmted or displayed. Each establishment shall also be allowed signs facing on-site parking areas for five cars or more and walkways 10 feet or more in width. Such signs shall be allowed an area of one square foot per lineal foot of building frontage facing said area; however, the area may be increased to two square feet per lineal foot of building frontage; provided, the sign does not exceed 50 pement of the background area on which the sign is applied, mounted or displayed. The maximum sign area shall not exceed 100 square feet; B. Freestanding (pole): Each lot shall be allowed one freestanding sign subject to the following: 1. Signs are restricted to those lots having a minimum frontage of 100 feet on a dedicated street. In the case of comer lots, only one frontage shall be counted; - 29 - 2. The sign may contain one square foot of area for each lineal foot of street frontage but shall not exceed 150 square feet. In the case of comer lots or through lots, only the frontage the sign is oriented to shall be cotmted toward the allowable sign area; 3. Maximum height, 35 feet; 4. Minimum ground clearance, eight feet; 5. The sign shall not be permitted to project into the public right-of-way; 6. The sign shall maintain a 20-foot setback from all interior property lines; 7. Freestanding pole signs less than eight feet in height are restricted to a maximum sign area of 12 square feet and shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from all streets; 8. Commercial messages on pole signs in the I zone may identify only the name of the complex and tenants therein. C. Ground (monument): A low-profile ground sign may be used in lieu of a freestanding pole sign. The sign shall be subject to th,e following: 1. Maximum height, eight feet; 2. Maximum sign area, 50 square feet; 3. The sign shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from all streets and 10 feet from all interior property lines; 4. The sign structure shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the main building and constructed with the same or similar materials. D. The design review committee may reduce sign areas below those authorized above based on the sign guidelines and criteria contained in the design manual, without consideration of the graphic design of the copy or message displayed on the sign. 19.60.595 Other zones. Whenever sign standards or provisions have not been established for an unclassified use requiring the issuance ora conditional use permit, the Planning Commission may establish sign standards and provisions concurrently with the request for the conditional use permit. However, such standards must comply with and incorporate all of the Standard Provisions of this Chapter. There are no general sign provisions in the public and quasi-public, floodway, or tidelands zones. The Planning Commission and City Council shall establish sign standards and provisions for a particular use in these zones concurrently with the approval of the use's conditional use permit. However, such standards must comply with and incorporate all of the Standard Provisions of this Chapter, CVMC § 19.60.050. 19.60.600 Specialty signs. The signs described in this section are based on the legal use of the land on a particular parcel. A. Theater marquees. When allowed as an accessory to a legal use as a drive in theater, a freestanding drive-in theater marquee sign shall not exceed 250 square feet in area or 25 feet in height. The sign shall maintain a 20-foot setback from all property lines. Each theater, drive-in or non-drive-in, shall be allowed to use changeable copy signs in addition to the signs permitted in the -30 - underlying zone. The area of the signs shall not exceed 60 square feet facing in any one direction, nor shall the total aggregate sign area exceed 150 square feet. B. Service station price signs. On each legally operating station selling fuels for motor vehicles, one service station price sign is allowed on each street frontage, subject to: 1. The maximum sign area shall be fifteen square feet, and the sign shall not exceed five feet in any dimension. Such sign shall not be in conflict with the provisions of the city's traffic code relating to visual clearance. The sign shall satisfy the requirements of California Business and Professions Code section 13531, and be posted with the correct prices at all times. The signs shall be designed as a permanent structure, rigidly attached to a building, wall, or adequately anchored in the ground to resist wind pressure as specified in Title 15 in the currently adopted uniform building code. A freestanding structure shall be architecturally compatible with the building and shall not exceed a maximum height of six feet. 2. P~ sign may be attached to a freestanding sign if designed to be architecturally part of the sign. 3. Price signs may be displayed on the main body of a pole sign but shall not exceed twenty- five pement of the main sign area or fifteen square feet, whichever is the least amount. 4. Notwithstanding the above provisions, no price signs otherwise required by the provisions of Business and Professions Code Section 13531 shall be placed alongthe following areas which have been designated on the city's general plan as scenic corridors or historic preservation areas: That area along East "H" Street between its intersection with Interstate 805 and its intersection with Ridgeback Road. C. Real estate signs. On any pamel or separately rentable portion thereof, sign(s) pertaining to economic transactions regarding the property (such as sale, rental, lease, exchange, etc.) is allowed, subject to the land owner's consent and: 1. Maximum Sign Area. Commercial and industrial zones, 32 square feet; agricultural zones, 32 square feet for undeveloped acreage of one acre or more, otherwise 4.5 square feet; residential zones, 4.5 square feet. 2. Height, if freestanding. No freestanding sign shall exceed 10 feet in height in any commercial or industrial zone or in the agricultural zone for undeveloped acreage of one acre or more. In all other zones, the maximum height shall be limited to 4.5 feet. 3. Number of signs. Through lots shall be allowed one sign on each street. Comer lots shall be permitted one sign only. 4.Setback. Freestanding signs shall maintain a 10-foot setback from all property lines. 5. Vacancy signs. Real estate signs reflecting the vacancy status and availability of commercial or industrial space within a structure designed for multiple occupancy, whether through rental, sale or lease, shall be limited to a maximum sign area of 16 square feet. Not more than one sign may be used facing a dedicated street. The sign may be attached flat against the building or be part of a permitted freestanding sign if designed to be part of said sign and providing the total sign area does not exceed the ama permitted for the freestanding sign. 6.Location. On the property to which the sign pertains, or on other private property with the -31 - consent of that property owner: 7. Open House signs - special roles. Offpremises temporary real estate open house signs are allowed permitted within all residential zones subject to: a. No more than five offpremise open house signs shall be allowed for each residential open house which occurs. b. No more than one sign shall be allowed to be placed on aEy interior parcel and no more than two on a comer lot (one per street frontage). c. Off premise open house signs shall only be displayed during daylight hours. d. Signs shall be no larger than four square feet and shall be located at minimum of three feet from the sidewalk or ten feet from the curb or edge of pavement, where no sidewalk exists. e. An off premise temporary real estate open house sign shall only be permitted in conjunction with an open house held for the resale of one single family residence. f. Off premise signs advertising the sale of more than one lot or more than two dwellings constitutes a subdivision directional sign subject to the regulations · outlined in CVMC § 19.60.600 E.3. g. Off-premise open house signs are prohibited within the public right-of-way. D. Residential neighborhood identification signs. Permanent residential identification signs designating the name of the residential area may be located at an entrance to the residential area when homeowners' association or maintenance district is formed to insure the maintenance of the signs. The copy area of the sign shall not exceed fifteen square feet. The sign structure shall be designed to be architecturally harmonious with the residential area. This provision does not authorize the mounting of such signs on city owned property or on public rights of way. E. Tract housing. Tract housing signs shall be allowed in any zone of the City as follows: 1. Model homes. For each model home, signage not exceeding 12 square feet in area, eight feet in height, and two in number is allowed. Commercial speech thereon shall relate to the model on the same pamel. All such signage shall be permanently removed within ten days of when the model home ceases to be used as a model. 2. Temporary tract signs. For each subdivision there may be one sign at each principal entrance to the subdivision; such sign may be indirectly illuminated, and any commercial message thereon shall relate only to the dwelling units or lots on the same premises as subdivision on which the sign is maintained. For subdivisions with five or more lots, the total combined area of all temporary tract signs may not exceed 200 square feet or 20 feet in height. For subdivisions with four or fewer tots, the total combined area of all temporary tract signs may not exceed 32 square feet, and no such sign may exceed eight feet in height. All such signs shall be permanently removed not later than ten calendar days after the first sale of all the homes in the subdivision. 3. Subdivision directional signage. Signs indicating a change of direction which travelers must make to reach a subdivision located within the city may be placed on priv~/te property, with the owner's consent, at each place where such change of direction is -32- needed, within five miles of the subdivision. Individual signs may not exceed four and one half square feet in area or three and one half feet in height, and may not be illuminated. Individual signs may be single or double faced, or V shaped if the angle between the two faces does not exceed forty five degrees. Commercial messages thereon shall be limited to the name of the subdivision and directional information. The zoning administrator may require written evidence of owner's consent. Permits for all such signs shall expire not later than six months after issuance, but the zoning administrator may grant a maximum of two extensions of up to one year each, without re-notification or hearing. Such signs may be displayed only until the developer has completed the sale of each unit in the development. F. Signs for unclassified uses. Whenever sign standards or provisions have not been established for an unclassified use requiring the issuance of a conditional use penuit, the Planning Commission may establish sign standards and provisions concurrently with the approval of the conditional use permit. However, such standards must comply with and incorporate all of the Standard Provisions of this Chapter, CVMC § 19.60.050. G. Mansard Roofs. A principal identification or multiple copy wall sign may be placed on a mansard roof subject to the following: 1. The sign shall not exceed one-half the length and width of the mansard on which it is placed; 2. The area on which the sign is placed shall be designed to accommodate the sign except when cut-out letters are used. H. Pitched Roofs. A principal identification or multiple-copy wall sign may be placed on a pitched roof subject to: 1. The sign shall be placed on a pitched roof that slopes toward the street the establishment is oriented to; 2. No sign may be placed on the ridge of the roof; 3. No sign may project above a line drawn from the center of the street to the ridge of the roof; 4. The sign shall set back a minimum horizontal distance of three feet from the front edge of the roof; 5. The length of the sign shall not exceed one-half of the length of the roof and shall be horizontally centered; 6. The area shall not exceed two square feet per lineal foot of roof on which the sign is placed; 7. The ends of the sign shall extend back to the roof to form an enclosure. I. Agricultural uses. Signs for agricultural uses are allowed in any zone, subject to the following: 1. Multiple wall signs facing a dedicated street are allowed, but the total sign area of all wall signs shall not exceed one square foot for each lineal foot of building frontage; in addition 2. One freestanding sign not exceeding eight square feet in sign area and ten feet in height -33- shall be allowed. J. Architectural Appendages. In lieu ora freestanding or projecting sign which is otherwise allowed, a sign may be placed on an architectural appendage. Such sign may not exceed the area or alter the appearance of an appendage on which it is placed, and may not exceed the allowable area of the freestanding or projecting sign which it is replacing. K. Temporary noncommercial signs during certain periods. In addition to signage otherwise allowed in any zone, during the period of four calendar months preceding any scheduled election and up to and including ten calendar days following such election, temporary signs bearing non commercial messages (including but not limited to messages on the topics of politics, religion, science, arts, philosophy, etc.) may be displayed on private property (not including private property ~vhich is also public right of way), without permit, subject to the owner's consent, and also subject to: 1. h~ agricultural and residential zones: a. No sign may exceed five square feet in area. b. Double-faced signs as defined in this Chapter are permitted. c. No sign shall be posted in such a maimer that any portion of said sign is within five feet of the house side of the sidewalk and, if them is no sidewalk within 15 feet of said sign, then 15 feet from the house side of the street curb. Said signs must be placed at least five feet fi'om the house side of intersecting sidewalks or if there are no sidewalks, then 15 feet from the house or back sides of intersecting curbs. Unless a further setback is required by the foregoing roles (as in the case of comer lots adjacent to intersecting streets), said signs shall be located at least five feet from side property lines except for lots located at intersections. d. No sign shall exceed three and one-half feet in height in the front setback area, and such signs shall not exceed six feet in height in any m'ea unless said sign is attached flush to any building. The measurement shall be taken from the ground level to the top of said sign. e. No sign may be affixed to an already existing sign. fi Nothing in this section shall be construed to render a property owner liable for the posting of a sign on his or her property. 2. In conm~ercial and industrial zones: a. No sign may exceed twelve square feet in area. Double-faced signs as defined in this Chapter may be permitted. b. No sign may be affixed to an already existing sign. 3. Removal. The procedure for the removal of temporary noncommercial signs is as follows: a. Notice. The director shall give 24 hours notice to the owner of the sign (if known), of the city's intent to remove any unauthorized temporary sign beating a - 34 - noncommercial message. The notice shall specify the provision of the sign ordinance being violated, and shall inform the owner that removal charges will be assessed. The owner may, within twenty-four hours of receiving notice, request a hearing before the director to appeal the decision to remove the sign. If the owner so requests, the sign shall not be removed until the hearing has been held and a final decision rendered. If the owner cannot be identified or located after reasonable effort, the sign may be treated as abandoned property and removed. b. Appeal and removal. In the absence of an appeal of the removal decision, the sign may be removed by the city and the reasonable cost thereof charged to the sign owner and/or persons responsible for placing the illegal sign. Such cost shall be set by resolution of City Council. L. Informational signs. The signs allowed by this subsection fulfill informational and directional needs. 1. Directory signs. On buildings wherein are located several different establishments, directory signs may be located on an exterior elevation ora building if the directory is placed flat against the building at or near a building entrance or area restricted to pedesthan traffic only. The sign shall be no more than 10 square feet in area and 5 feet in height. 2. Directional signs. Signs containing directional information for pedestrian and vehicular traffic may be used subject to the following: a.. Maximum sign area is 10 square feet; b. No sign may exceed 10 feet in height; c. Directional rooftop signs are prohibited except when incorporated into the design of an approved rooftop sign designed to accommodate the sign; d. The signs shall not be attached to any light standard, flag pole, or onto any other sign except as provided herein; e. The number and location of all directional signs shall be limited to the least number to provide ample notification. 3. Waming and instructional signs. Warning and instructional signs, such as "beware of dog," "danger high voltage," "no trespassing," "no dumping," etc., are allowed subject to: area: maximum 3 square feet; height: if freestanding, maximum six feet; attachment: may not be attached to any light standard, flagpole, or any other freestanding sign. 19.60.700 Signs permits. A. Permits - when required. No person except a public officer or public employee in the performance of an official duty shall paste, post, paint, print, nail, tack, erect, place or otherwise fasten, or maintain or permit any sign, pennant or notice of any kind, facing or visible from a public street, public or private right of way in the city except as provided herein. To insure compliance with this section, a sign permit shall be required for any sign, except as provided herein. The procedure regarding application for and processing of sign permits, as well as the procedures for the appeal of decisions thereon, is set forth beginning with CVMC § 19.60.800. - 35 - B. Purpose of permitting. All permitting and approval processes required by this Chapter are intended to ensure compliance with this Chapter and various safety codes, as well as to prevent the loss of time, effort and materials which might otherwise be invested in an illegal sign. C. Exempt signs. The signs described in this subsection are not subject to the permit requirement, and do not count towards the total signage which is otherwise allowable. 1. Signs described in other sections of this chapter as not requiring or being subject to the permit requirement. 2.Street address signs not exceeding three square feet in area total per parcel; 3. Symbols or insignia which are an integral part of a doormat or welcome mat, or embedded directly into the sidewalk or entrance surface, so long as such device is otherwise legal and is located entirely on private property and on the ground or sidewalk; 4. Signs used in conjunction with "special events" as defined and regulated by CVMC § I9.58.370 and § 19.58.380; 5.Any public or legal notice required by a court or public agency. 6.Signs authorized or required by another body of law. 7. Flags displaying noncommercial images, provided that the total area (one side only) does not exceed one percent of the square feet of surface area of the parcel, the number of flag poles on a parcel does not exceed one per 100 linear feet of street frontage, and the height of any flag pole does not exceed 30 feet; 8. Construction signs which meet these requirements: maximum number per project under construction: one; maximum area: 150 square feet; maximum height (if free standing): 25 feet; minimum setback: 10 feet from all interior property lines; maximum display time: from the time a grading or building permit is issued and remains valid and unexpired, until the construction project is completed or abandoned. 9. Hand held and portable signs that do not display a commercial message and are otherwise legal or allowed under this Chapter; 10. Mass transit signage: Advertisements or banners mounted on trains or duly licensed mass transit vehicles that legally pass through the City; 11. On-site informational signs not viewable from the public right of way or adjacent properties; 12.Off-site directional signs located wholly on private property. 13. Professional signs not exceeding one square foot in area and located wholly on an appurtenant commercial building; 14.Window signs which otherwise comply with all applicable regulations. 15.Temporary non-commercial signs which otherwise comply with all applicable regulations. 16.Real estate and open house signs which otherwise comply with all applicable regulations. 17.Garage sale signs that comply with CVMC § 5.32.050. 18. Messages relating to the business of which the vehicle or vessel is an instrument or tool (not including general advertising) and messages relating to the proposed sale, lease or exchange of the vehicle or vessel. 19. Interior signs: Signs or other visual communicative devices that are located entirely within a building or other enclosed structure and are not visible from the exterior thereof, provided the building or enclosed structure is otherwise legal. - 36 - 19.60.800 Permit applications. The application for a sign permit shall be made in writing on the form provided by the planning department and shall be accompanied by any fee established by City Council resolution. Such application shall set forth and contain the following information and items: A. A drawing to scale showing the design of the 'sign, including dimensions, sign size, colors (applies to commercial message signs only), materials, method of attachment, source of illumination and showing the relationship to any building or structure to which it is proposed to be installed or affixed or to which it relates. B. A site plan, including all dimensions, drawn to scale indicating the location of the sign relative to the property line, rights-of-way, streets, sidewalks, vehicular access points and existing buildings or structures and off-street parking areas located on the premises. The number, size, type and location of all existing signs on the same building, site or premises. D. Any structural information and plans necessary to ensure compliance with the latest adopted building standards. E. Such other information as the planning department may reasonably request to determine that the proposed application is in full compliance with the provisions of this Chapter, the city code and any other applicable law. The message proposed to be displayed on the sign is not required. F. Proof of the consent of the property owner or other person in control or possession of the property. For example, if the subject property is leased and the applicant is the lessee, the lessee must de~nonstrate that the sign complies with all provisions of the lease related to signage, or submit a written landlord's consent. 19.60.810 Processing of applications. A. Time. Unless otherwise stated, all time periods in this section are calendar days. B. Completeness. The zoning administrator shall determine whether the application contains all the information and items required by this Chapter. If it is determined that the application is not complete, the applicant shall be notified in person or in writing within thirty days of the date of receipt of the application that the application is not complete and the reasons therefore, including any additional information necessary to render the application complete. The applicant shall then have thirty (30) calendar days to submit additional information to render the application complete; failure to do so within the thirty (30) day period shall render the application void. Within thirty days following the receipt of an amended application or supplemental information, the planning director shall again determine whether the application is complete in accordance with the procedures set forth in this subsection. Evaluation and notification shall occur as provided above until such time as the application is found to be complete (the "application date"). - 37 - C. Disqualification. No sign application will be approved if: 1. The applicant has installed a sign in violation of the provisions of this Chapter and, at the time of submission of the application, each illegal sign has not been legalized, removed or included in the application; 2. There is any other existing code violation located on the site of the proposed sign(s) (other than an illegal or nonconforming sign that is not owned or controlled by the applicant and is located at a different business location on the site from that for which the approval is sought) which has not been cured at the time of the application; or; 3. The sign approval application is substantially the same as an application previously denied, unless: (i) t~velve (12) months have elapsed since the date of the last application, or (ii) new evidence or proof of changed conditions is furnished in the new application; 4. The applicant has not obtained any applicable required use permit or conditional use permit. D. Method of review. The method of review is standard compliance review. The zoning administrator, or the design review committee, Plarming Commission or City Council on appeal, shall determine whether approval shall be granted for any sign based on its conformance with the regulations and design standards set forth herein and in the city design manual, without consideration of the graphic design of the copy or message displayed on the sign. E. Certain signs calling for design review. Decisions under this standard shall be guided by the following principles and shall not be based on the graphic design of the copy or message displayed on the signs: I. Fluorescent paints shall be avoided; 2. Sign copy should not extend beyond the edges of the background area on which it is applied; 3. The copy area of signs, including logos, emblems, crests and pictorial representations, should not exceed fifty percent of the background area on which it is applied; 4. The height of a pole sign should not be less than twice its width. 5. The height of the bottom of the signboard of a pole sign should be less than three times but more than twice the width of the signboard; 6. The two sides of a rectangular pole sign should have a ratio of three to five; 7. The base of each freestanding sign shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping manual of Chula Vista, without consideration of the graphic design of the copy or message displayed on the sign. F. Decisions. Where an application is denied by the zoning administrator, or the design review committee, Planning Commission or City Council on appeal, the applicant shall be informed in writing of the changes necessary in order to approve the application. If the applicant chooses to amend the application to reflect said changes, the zoning administrator shall grant the permit within thirty days of when a complete and conforming application is submitted. The zoning administrator shall render a decision on a sign permit within thirty days of the date of application. - 38 - G. Appeals. All sign permit applications shall be initially reviewed by the zoning administrator. The applicant or any concerned person may appeal any sign related decision in this order: design review committee, planning commission and city council. In each case, written notice of appeal must be filed with the City Clerk within ten days of when the decision wa~ delivered or sent to applicant and all known concemed persons, or the last day on which a decision could have been timely rendered. In each case, the appellate body must conduct a heating and consider evidence, and render a written decision within thirty days. In the cases of appeal to the Planning Commission and the City Council, the heating must follow normal procedures for agendizing and giving public notice. Unless time is waived by the applicant, any permit or approval on which the city does not render a definite decision within the required time shall be deemed denied, and the time for appeal or filing judicial review shall commence on the last date on which the city could have issued a decision. H. Judicial Review. Following final decision by the City Council, any concerned person may seek judicial review of the final decision on a sign permit application pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.8. I. Multiple sign applications. When an applicati6n proposes two or more signs, the application may be granted either in whole or in part, with separate decisions as to each proposed sign. When an application is denied in whole or in part, the Director'§ written notice of determination shall specify the grounds for such denial.. J. Revocation or cancellation. The Director shall revoke any approval upon refusal of the holder thereof to comply with the provisions of this Chapter after written notice of noncompliance and at least fifteen (15) days opportunity to cure. K. Permits issued in error. Any approval or permit issued in error may be summarily revoked by the City upon written notice to the holder of the reason for the revocation. 19.60.900 Removal of certain signs. A. Obsolete and abandoned signs. All signs relating to a product no longer available for purchase by the public and all signs relating to an establishment which has closed or moved away shall be removed, together with any supporting structures and bracing not considered an integral part of the building. Painted wall signs shall be painted over with a color that closely resembles or matches the color of the wall. If the owner of, or persons responsible for, the sign, or the tenant closing the establishment, fails to remove or paint over the sign, the owner of the premises shall be responsible and the work shall be done within ninety days following the date of obsolescence. B. Charges for moving, removal, correction of sign. The fees for the city moving, removing, correcting, storing, or doing work on a sign or sign structure shall be the required fee(s). The city may charge the fees against any of the following, each of whom shall be jointly and severally liable for said charge: 1. The permittee; - 39- 2. The owner of the sign; 3. The owner of the premises on which the sign is located; 4. The occupant of the premises on which the sign is located. C. Storage of removed signs - Time limit - Recovery procedure. A removed sign shall be held not less than thirty days by the city during which period it may be recovered by the owner upon payment to the city of the required fee(s) as set by resolution of City Council. If not recovered within the thirty-day period, the sign and supporting structures shall be declared abandoned and title thereto shall vest in the city. The fees may be in addition to any penalty for the violation, and recovery of sign does not necessarily abrogate the penalty. 19.60.930 Amortization of nonconforming onsite signs. All on-site signs in any zone constructed and erected prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified herein, or any prior ordinance under which they were also nonconforming (considering only the non- communicative aspects of the sign) pursuant to the issuance of a valid building permit issued by the city, which do not conform to the requirements of the provisions of this title for the particular zone in ~vhich they are located or in regard to design review requirements, shall be allowed an amortization period of fifteen years from the effective date of the earliest ordinance under which they were nonconforming, and shall thereafter be subject to abatement and removal as provided. A. Notice. Any o~vner of a nonconforming sign at the expiration of fifteen years from the effective date of the ordinance codified herein shall be noticed of the nonconformity of the display. Ownership shall be determined by the ownership of the property as shown by the most recent assessor's tax roll. Should any owner wish to appeal the removal of any nonconforming sign based upon the reasonableness of the fifteen-year amortization period, such appeal shall be done in accordance with subsection D. below. Removal of the sign shall be stayed until such time as an appeal is finally decided by the City Council. B. Appeals procedure. Any appeal from an order to remove a nonconforming sign which has used up its amortization allowance may be appealed through the same procedure as a appeal of a sign permit application. In the case of fully amortized nonconforming signs subject to a removal order, the appeal shall state and provide evidence of: 1. A detailed description of the sign or structure, the method of its construction, its measurements and the message contained thereon; 2. The name of the owner or owners of the property upon which the sign or structure is located; 3. A definition and term of the appellant's right to locate and/or maintain the sign or structure on said property. Include amount paid, if any, for the right to locate and/or maintain the sign or structure; 4. The date and cost of original construction of the sign or structure; 5. The date and cost of appellant's purchase of the sign or structure; 6. The date or dates and cost of major repairs to the sign or structure; 7. The average monthly gross income derived from the proceeds generated from the sign or structure, measured over the period of existence or ownership; 8. The current net value of the sign or structure as carried on the books of the company, as - 40 - well as any estimate of current fair market value (including the qualifications of persons making such estimate, and the basis therefore); 9. Each application on appeal shall be verified. SECTION III. Sections 19.04.208 through 19.04.268, 19.20.050, 19.22.050, 19.24.050, 19.26.060, 19.28.050, 19.30.050, 19.32.050, 19.34.040, 19.36.040, 19.38.040, 19.40.040, 19.42.060, 19.44.060, 19.46.050, 19.58.225, and 19.70.016 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code are hereby repealed in their entirety. SECTION IV. Urgency Ordinance No. 2924-A adopted on July 8, 2003 and any legislation extending that ordinance shall be hereby repealed in its entirety upon this ordinance taking effect. SECTION V. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after 'its adoption.. Submitted by: Approved as to form by: James D. Sandoval Acting Planning and Building Director City Attorney J:\Planning~lohnS\Documents\Ordinances\Dralt CV Sign Ordinance-DH Final2.doc -41 - COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ Meeting Date: 8/26/03 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Accepting bids and awarding contract for the "Sidewalk Rehabilitation at Various Locations in the City of Chula Vista, California (STL-281)" project, and authorizing staff to increase value of contract to expend all available funds for this project SUBMITTED BY: Director of Engineeringl~) REVIEWED BY: City Manager~p~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) On July 23, 2003, the Director of Engineering received sealed bids for the "Sidewalk Rehabilitation at Various Locations in the City of Chula Vista, California (STL-281)" project. The work consists of the removal and replacement of displaced curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and driveways. The work includes excavation and grading, PCC sidewalks, driveways, curbs & gutters, pedestrian ramps, removal and d!sposal of existing improvements, traffic control, other miscellaneous work, and all labor, material, equipment, and transportation necessary for the project. RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept bids and award the contract for the "Sidewalk Rehabilitation at Various Locations in the City of Chula Vista, California (STL-281)" project, to MJC Construction of Chula Vista, California, for $95,430.00, and authorize staff to increase value of contract to expend all available funds for this project BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: Included in the FY2002-03 CIP Budget is a project for the maintenance removal and replacement of sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and driveway approaches. Some existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters and driveways show cracking. This project will remove and replace improvements on various locations in the City of Chula Vista. Engineering staff prepared plats, specifications, and advertised the project. The City received and opened bids on July 23, 2003. Eight bids were received as follows: CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT 1. MJC Construction - Chula Vista, California. $95,430.00 2. J.M. Scibilia, Inc. - Escondido, California. $103,377.25 3. Filmex, Inc. - Spring Valley, California. $139,194.00 4. Star Paving, Inc. - San Diego, California $140,975.00 5. Scheidel Contracting & Engineering, Inc. - La Mesa, California $143,000.00 6. Heffler Company, Inc.- National City, California $149,815.00 7. Concrete Building Systems -Bonsall, California $150,685.00 8. HTA Engineenng & Construction - La Mesa, California $154,450.00 Page 2, Item ~ Meeting Date: 8/26/03 The low bid by MJC Construction is below the Engineer's estimate of $115,250.00 by $19,820.00 or approximately 17%. MJC Construction has done several CIP projects for the City and the work has been satisfactory. Staff has verified the references provided by the contractor for previous projects. Staffhas reviewed the low bid and is recommending awarding the contract to MJC Construction, of Chula Vista, California. Attachment "A" shows the specific work to be done at each location, approximate quantities of sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway, and pedestrian ramps to be installed. Because of the Iow bid received, the Public Works Operations Street Maintenance and Engineering staff will be preparing a list with additional locations to be repaired to use all available funds. The contract specifications allow staff to increase or decrease the quantities based on available funds. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Goal The bid documents set forth participation requirements per Federal Regulation for meeting the disadvantaged and women-owned business goals. The Community Development Specialist has reviewed and certified MJC Construction as MBE in the past, and no further review is needed. Staff also reviewed MJC Construction eligibility status about federal procurement programs. MJC Construction is not listed as excluded from Federal Procurement Programs (list of parties excluded from Federal procurement or non-procurement programs as of July 28, 2003). Disclosure Statement Attachment "B" is a copy of the contractor's Disclosure Statement. Environmental Status The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301(c)(1), replacement or reconstruction of existing facilities, of the State CEQA Guidelines. Form of the Agreement The contract will be awarded on the City's standard contract form. The City Attorney will approve the final form of the contract. Wage Statement The source of funding for this project is Community Development Block Grant Funds. This project is covered by the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts. The Davis-Bacon Act requires the payment of prevailing wage rates to all laborers and mechanics employed for the work under this Page 3, Item ,.~ Meeting Date: 8/26/03 project. Prevailing wage rates arc those determined by thc U.S. Department of Labor or thc U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. FISCAL IMPACT: FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Contract Amount $95,430.00 B. Contingencies and additional locations $29,570.00 C. Staff Costs (Design & Inspection) $25,000.00 TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $150,000.00 FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $150,000.00 A. Sidewalk Rehabilitation (CDBG) TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $150,000.00 Upon completion of the project, the improvements will require only routine City street maintenance. Attachments: A - Work to be done. B - Contractor's Disclosure Statement C - CIP Program Detail ] :\ENGIN EER\DESIGN\Sl'L281\STL281-Al13. DOC ATFACHMENT "A" Sidewalk Rehabilitation Phase VI FY2003 - STL-281 Mono $' MonoS' Street Name 4"sFS/W S/W, C/G S/W, C/G 6" sFD/W C/GLF -o LF LF I Street 62 Street I 25 Date Avenue (SW cor on "C" Street) T 90 Fifth Avenue (SW cot on "C" Street) 25 Fifth Avenue Fifth Avenue (& 36 Fifth Avenue) ± 250 195 Fifth Avenue ] 50-~ McIntosh Street (cor 5th) ! 1121 Fifth Avenue I 60i Fifth Avenue (NW cor Casselman) i 112 Fifth Avenue 50 15 D Street 25 D Street 144 3 D Street 126 3 535 D Street 30 D Street 751 17 3 555 D Street 175 D Street D Street 125 Broadway (NE cot D) 30 Broadway 136 3 Broadway (SE cor McIntosh) 35 Broadway 25 C Street (SE cor on Broadway) 100 Date Avenue (on McIntosh Street) 140 Mc[ntosh Street McIntosh Street 676_55~ McIntosh Street Date Avenue 152T Casselman Street 30 Casselman Street @ Smith Street Casselman Street 35 Cassleman Street Street 55 Cassleman Street 248 Casselman Street 235 Casselman Street 215 378 Casselman Street 300 ATTACHMENT "A": Page: 1 ATTACHMENT "A" Sidewalk Rehabilitation Phase VI FY2003 - STL-281 Mono 8' Mono 5' No z6 ~,~ Street Name 4" S/W S/W, C/G S/W, C/G 6" D/W C/G : SF SF LF ~- z LF LF 39 3 532 jCasselman Street 125 40 3 550~N~ntos. h Street (on Smith Ave) 40 '~¥ ~--~---------649jG-St-reet--- ~--~- 120 2 t.43-'-' i47 4 2 D~}' '~-' O~morads' Avenue G Street ~ 70 ~ G street ~ ~~ H Street 97.5~ H Street 187,5 Br~dway (at Rub~o's) Broadway Broadway ~8 Vance S~t ~50 9 Vance Street 55 Roosevelt Street ~80 Roosevelt Street 60 Smith Avenue on Roosevelt Street 36 R~sevelt Street 80 Roosevelt Street -~' Otis Street 40 Otis S~eet Otis Strut Otis Street OUs Strut 162 gan~ St on Smith ~ve alloy b[~ G & ~mith ~venue cot R~sevelt Street 401_ ATTACHMENT "A": Page: 2 ATrACHMENT "A" Sidewalk Rehabilitation Phase VI FY2003 - STL-281 NO ~ '~ ~ Mono 8' Mono 5' ~ ~ -~ Street Name 4" S/W S/W, O/G S/W, C/G 6" D/W C/G ~'~ ;~ SF SF LF m ~.. LF LF Smith Avenue alley b/w Roosevelt St ~'~-~ 76 7 ?.~ Otis St,~ 2 77 7 ~8 Smith Avenue alley b/w Otis St & H St ~ ---" 2 85 8 701 Elder Avenue on J Strut 55 i S2 Elder Avenue Elder Avenue 32~ 9 FiSh Avenue 55 9~ 9 657 FiSh Avenue [75 FiSh Avenue on Halsey Street Elder Avenue on Halsey Strut 4~ Fig Avenue on Halsey Street Fou~h Avenue [70.5 Brigh~o~ Avenue on ~ Strut ~65 Brigh~d Avenue on 3 Street [25 Brigh~o~ Avenue on ~ Strut [05 Elder Avenue Elder Avenue '~" ~"" '- '~ Brigh~d Avenue 228 Brigh~ood Avenue 52 Avenue 80 :ig Avenue 28 Guava Avenue 68 Guava Avenue 60 FiSh Avenue 63 [ Strut 80 [ Strut Elder Avenue 20 Brigh~d Avenue *wnu ATrACH M ENT "A" Sidewalk Rehabilitation Phase VI FY2003 - STL-281 Mono 8' Mono 5' No ~ ~ z~ Street Name 4" S/W S/W, C/G S/W, C/G 6" D/W C/G ~" z SF SF LF LF LF 114____ 10 685 Fourth Avenue 15 115 )10 659 Fourth Avenue ~' 3..-.-.--~.0 116 I 10 641 Fourth Avenue 42 117 10 621 Fourbh Avenue ~ ........................... 118 10 392 I Street ---' 7-----(~ -'- ]~. 119 10 384 I Street 25 120 10 352 I Street (corner Garrett Avenue) .... 9---~ 121 10 320 I Street 130 _..._ TOTALS: ATTACHMENT "A": Page: 4 A'ITACHMENT THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council, Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcon~'actor, material supplier. 2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with a $1000 investment in the business (corpomtion/parmership) entity. 3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or tmstor of the trust. 4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. A'ITACHMENT 5. Has any person* associated with this contract had any financial dealings with~an.gfficial** of the City of Chula Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months? Yes No. ~ 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 ~vitl~in the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? Yes No )('_ If Yes which Council member? 7. Have you or any member of your governing board (i.e. Corporate Board of Directors/Executives, non-profit Board of Directors made contributions totaling more than $.1,000 over the past four (4) years to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? Yes No ~ If Yes, which Council member? 8. Have you provided more than $300 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official** of the Ci~-, ^e Chula ~ista in the past twelve (12) month~9 c~his incl--A~ ~._: .... 'Y 'J' -x~-.. uu~ o~mg a source oI income money to retire a legal debt, gffi, loan, etc.) Yes _ No ~ If Yes, which official** and what was the natur provided? e of item ~a~re of Con,actor/Applic~t ~ P~t or ~e ~ame o~ Co~ctur/App]~cant * P~son is defined as: ~y individual, f~, co-p~ship, joint v~e, ass~iafion, social club, fraternal org~i~tion, co~oration, estate, ~st, receive, s~dicate, ~y o~er co~, ei~, m~icipali~, dis~ct, or o~er political subdi~sion, -or ~y o~er ~oup or combination acting as a unit. Official includes, but ~s not hm~t~ ~. Mayor, Co~cfl mmber, Plying Co~ssioner, Mem~ of a bo~d, co~ssion, or co~iflee of~e Ci~, employee, or s~ffmemb~s. 45 ATTACHMENT "C RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR "SDEWALK REHABILITATION AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA (STL-281)" PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO INCREASE THE VALUE OF CONTRACT TO EXPEND ALL AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR THIS PROJECT WHEREAS, on July 23, 2003, the Director of Engineering received the following sealed bids for'.'Sidewalk Rehabilitation at Various Locations in the City of Chula Vista, California (STL-281)" project: CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT 1. MJC Construction - Chula Vista, Califomia. $95,430.00 2. J.M. Scibilia, Inc. - Escondido, California. $103,377.25 3. Filmex, Inc. - Spring Valley, California. $139,194.00 4. Star Paving, Inc. - San Diego, California $140,975.00 5. Scheidel Contracting & Engineering, Inc. - La Mesa, California $143,000.00 6. Heftier Company, Inc. - National City, California $149,815.00 7. Concrete Building Systems - Bonsall, California $150,685.00 8. HTA Engineering & Construction - La Mesa, California $154,450.00 WHEREAS, the low bid byMJC Construction is below the Engineer's estimate of$115,250 by $19,820 or approximately 17% and staff's bid estimate was prepared conservatively using prices from similar projects; and WHEREAS, MJC Construction has performed satisfactory work for this City in the past and Engineering staff checked the references provided by the contractor and all references were verified and their work has been satisfactory; and WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the low bid and is recommending awarding the contract to MJC Construction of Chula Vista, California; and WHEREAS, the source of funding for this project is Community Development Block Grant Funds and contractors bidding this project were required to pay prevailing wages to all laborers and mechanics employed by them for work under this project; and WHEREAS, the bid documents set forth participation requirements per Federal Regulations for meeting the disadvantaged and women-owned business goals and the Community Development Specialist has reviewed and certified that MJC Construction's participation meets those requirements; and WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the proposed project is exempt fi:om CEQA pursuant to Section 15301(c)(1), replacement or reconstruction of existing facilities, of the State CEQA Guidelines; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept bids and award contract for the "Sidewalk Rehabilitations at Various Locations in the City of Chula Vista, California (STL-281)" project to MJC Construction of Chula Vista, California in the amount of $95,430. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff is hereby authorized to increase the value of contract to expend all available funds for this project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by Clifford Swanson Ann Moore Director of Engineering City Attomey j:\atterney\rcso\bids\sidev, alk rehabilitatirn st128 l COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ Meeting Date 8/26/03 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Accepting bids and Awarding Contract for the "Street Light Installation along Bonita Road between Villas Court to Otay Lakes Road and along Otay Lakes Road between Bonita Road to Ridgeback Road/Canyon Drive" (TF-286) project. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Engineering~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager,./d 0~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) At 2:00 p.m. on July 23, 2003, the Director of Engineering received sealed bids from seven (7) electrical contractors for the "Street Light Installation along Bonita Road between Villas Court to Otay Lakes Road and along Otay Lakes Road between Bonita Road to Ridgeback Road/Canyon Drive" (TF-286) project. As part of the Underground Utility District program, this project will relocate eleven (11) existing street light poles and install sixteen (16) new street light poles in order to have a more uniform street lighting pattern along the roadways. RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept bids and award the contract for the "Street Light Installation along Bonita Road between Villas Court to Otay Lakes Road and along Otay Lakes Road between Bonita Road to Ridgeback Road/Canyon Drive" (TF-286) project to DBX, Inc. in the amount of $185,238.00. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The installation of street lights at the subject location was approved and budgeted for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003-2004 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This project was budgeted at the appropriate time, such that the street light project could be coordinated with the utility undergrounding program. The site area limits for the Utility Underground District coincide with the limits for this street light project. The source of the capital improvement funding for this project is the Gas Tax fund. As a result of the undergrounding of overhead utilities, this project will encompass the relocating of existing street lights and add more street lights along Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road to create a more uniformed street light pattern and to meet the City's current street light requirements. Page 2, Item Meeting Date 8/26/03 The scope of work for this project includes the following: public convenience and safety (traffic control), relocate/furnish and install street light standards with 8' mast arm complete with foundation, 250 watt high pressure sodium vapor luminaires and photo electric cells, trench furnish and install conduit and conductor cables, furnish and install pull boxes, asphalt paving, PCC concrete work and protection, restoration, removal and disposal of existing improvements and other miscellaneous work necessary to make the street light installations complete and operational. Once the electrical undergrounding project and this street lighting work is completed, there will be a separate street paving project scheduled for Otay Lakes Road and Bonita Road. Bidding Process The Infrastructure Design section recently prepared plans and specifications for this project. Staff also prepared a cost estimate of $267,108.00 using average unit prices from recently received bids of past contractors on similar types of projects. On July 23, 2003, staff received bids from the following contractors: Contractor Bid Amount [ 2- DBX, Inc. ~ i ;LJ__]i 5 Z--~-f~Lekos Electric, Inc. ~ *oore Electrical Contractor $21S,977.80 1 The low bid, submitted by DBX, Inc. is below the final engineer's estimate of $267,108.00 by $81,87.00 or approximately 31%. The Contractor (DBX, Inc.) has completed recent projects in the City with a favorable performance. Disclosure Statement Attached is a copy of the contractor's Disclosure Statement. Environmental Status The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 1 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary. Page 3, Item Meeting Date 8/26/03 Form of Agreement The Contract will be awarded on the City's standard Engineering Contract form. The City Attorney will approve the final form of the contract. FISCAL IMPACT: A. Contract Amount (DBX, Inc.) $185,238.00 B. StaffCosts (Design, Inspection, Contract Administration) $26,100.00 C. Construction Contingencies $26,100.00 TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $237,438.00 ~ i~- FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION Gas Tax $237,438.00 ~.~T. AL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTR~.I~ ..................................................................... The total mount appropriated for this CIP, TF-286 is $330,000.00. Staff received a very favorable response to the bid requests resulting in considerable savings to this project. We will have approximately $92,562.00 remaining in the project's budget, which will be available to fund other projects. We plan to release this money to the Gas Tax fund immediately following the completion of the project. The above action awarding the contract will authorize a total project expenditure of $237,438.00 from the CIP TF~286. An annual estimated cost to the General Fund of $3,500 will cover energy and maintenance expenses associated with this project. Attachments: Contractor's Disclosure Statement J:~Engineer~AGENDA\TF286A 113 Bonita and Otay Lakes Road.doc CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Council Policy 1014)I, prior; to any action Upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council, Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information must b~ disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, mater~.al supplier. 2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity. 3. If any person* identified pursuant to (I) above is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or tmstor of the mast. 4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. 5. Has any person* associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official** of the City of Chula Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months? Yes No 14 J:XEngineer'~DESIGN~TF286\TF-286 CONTRACT.doc If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official** ! Have you made a contribution of more than $250. within the ast twelve a current member of the Chula Vista City Council9 u,,. ,/v .... P (12) months to I~ ....... ~-- ~__ ~yes, which Council member? 1~ 7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to official** · of Chula Vista in the past twelve (12) months9 orris inelud ' an . of the City ~ retire a legal debt 'it ~ x,~ '-" es being a source of inCome, money to · . , gl loan, etc.~ Yes. ~,u I If Yes, which official** and what was the nature of item provided? ! I Date: ~.~ ~~ Print or type narn~o'f Contractor/Applicant i * Person is de£med as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, distr/ct, or other political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit. I ** Official includes, but is not litnited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board, commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staffmembers. JAEngineerXDESIGN~TF286\TF_286 CONTRACT.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2003- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE "STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION ALONG BONITA ROAD BETWEEN VILLAS COURT TO OTAY LAKES ROAD AND ALONG OTAY LAKES ROAD BETWEEN BONITA ROAD TO RIDGEBACK ROAD/CANYON DRIVE" (TF- 286) PROJECT WHEREAS, on July 23, 2003, the Director of Engineering received sealed bids from the following seven (7) electrical contractors for the "Street Light Installation along Bonita Road between Villas Court to Otay Lakes Road along Otay Lakes Road between Bonita Road to Ridgeback Road/Canyon Drive" (TF-286) project: No. Contractor Bid Amount 1 DBX, Inc. $185 238.00 2 HMS Construction, Inc. $195 538.70 3 Ace Electric $201 328.00 4 T&M Electric, Inc. $208 432.00 5 Lekos Electric, Inc. $215 972.00 6 Moore Electrical Contractor $215 977.80 7 HTA Engineering & Construction $248,544.00 WHEREAS, the low bid by DBX, Inc. is below the Engineer's estimate of $267,108 by $81,870 or approximately 31% and staff's bid estimate was prepared conservatively using prices from similar projects; and WHEREAS, Engineering staff checked the references provided by the contractor and all references were verified and their work has been satisfactory; and WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the low bid and is recommending awarding the contract to DBX, Inc. of Chula Vista, California; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class I categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept bids and award the contract for the "Street Light Installation along Bonita Road between Villas Court to Otay Lakes Road and along Otay Lakes Road between Bonita Road to Ridgeback Road/Canyon Drive" (TF-286) project to DBX, Inc. in the amount of $185,238. Presented by Approved as to form by Clifford Swanson Ann Moore Director of Engineering City Attorney J:XATTORNEY~RESO\ street light installation bid 2 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: Meeting Date: 08/26/03 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Amending the FY04 Recreation Department budget by appropriating $ 10,807 in Community Development Block Grant fimds for the Wiz Kidz program SUBMITTED BY: Director of Recreatio~)~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager 9r~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes X No ) The Youth Services Network, a collaborative comprised of six local agencies, including the Recreation Department, was awarded $126,500 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for FY2003-04. The Recreation Department is requesting an appropriation of its share of the funds, or $10,807 to its operating budget to fund the Wiz Kidz program at Otay Recreation Center and Montgomery Elementary School for the fiscal year. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution amending the FY04 Recreation Department budget by appropriating $8,769 in Personnel Services and $2,038 in Supplies and Services based on unanticipated revenues from Community Development Block Grant funds for the Wiz Kidz program. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION: The Wiz Kidz program is an afterschool program that offers scheduled and supervised activities designed to be educational and healthful, and designed to build social skills and sportsmanship. The two-hour program operates Mondays through Fridays at the Otay Recreation Center and Mondays through Wednesdays at Montgomery Elementary School from September through June. The program works in cooperation with the School's homework center and the STRETCH program at the School to maximize hours of service with minimal cost. Activities include: arts and crafts, field trips, nutrition classes, guest speakers, group discussions, snacks, board games, sports tournaments, contests and other special activities. The program serves approximately 60-80 youth participants per day. The stated obiectives of the program are the following: Increase the availability of positive alternatives to high-risk behaviors that can cause harm to oneself or others. · Provide opportunities to learn skills that improve the ability of children to make positive life choices. · Provide safe social and recreational activities for children who would otherwise be home alone. · Provide safe and healthy options for children of working parents after school. · Provide educational opportunities to help children experience success in school. Page 2, Item: .~ Meeting Date: 08/26/03 FISCAL IMPACT: The City and the Youth Services Network approved the agreement regarding the expenditure of $126,500 in CDBG fimds. As a partner of this collaborative, the Recreation Department's share of the funding is $10,807. These CDBG funds must be appropriated to the Department's operating budget as unanticipated revenues and expenditures, as the Wiz Kidz program is being paid from this budget. Personnel services account for $8,769 and office and recreation supplies account for the remaining $2,038. RESOLUTION NO. 2003- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FY04 RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING $10,807 IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS FOR THE WlZ KIDS PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Youth Services Network, a collaborative comprised of six local agencies, including the Recreation Department, was awarded $126,500 in Commtmity Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for FY2003-04; and WHEREAS, the Recreation Department is requesting an appropriation of its share of the funds, or $10,807, to its operating budget to fund the Wiz Kids program at Otay Recreation Center and Montgomery Elementary School for the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the Wiz Kids program is an afterschool program that serves 60-80 youth participants per day which offers scheduled and supervised activities designed to be educational and healthful, and build social skills and sportsmanship; and WHEREAS, activities included in the program include arts and crafts, field trips, nutrition classes, guest speakers, group discussions, board games, sports tournaments, contests and other special activities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend the FY04 Recreation Department budget by appropriating $8,769 in Personnel Services and $2,038 in Supplies and Services for the Wiz Kids program based on $10,807 in unanticipated revenues from the Community Development Block Grant funds. Presented by Approved as to form by Buck Martin Ann Moore Director of Recreation City Attorney J:XAttorney~reso\grants\Wiz Kids Recreati~ Block Grant COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No.: /a> Meeting Date: 8/26/03 ITEM TITLE: Resolution of the Chula Vista City Council waiving the formal bidding process, approving a First Amendment to the two-party agreement between the City of Chula Vista and RBF Consulting for professional services in support of the City's General Plan Update and authorizing the Mayor to execute said Amendment, and amending the FY 2004 budget of the Planning and Building Department by transferring $150,000 f~om the Personnel Services to the Supplies and Services category and eliminating one permanent Special Planning Projects Manager position. SUBMITTED BY: Acting Director of Planning and Building]~ ~/~n/ (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No __.) REVIEWED BY: City Manager Under a limited contract, RBF Consulting has been assisting staff with the Land Use portion of the G~neral Plan Update program, including the concepts that were presented at the Town Hall meeting on June 21. Staff is requesting that RBF be retained under an expanded contract to provide expert support to complete the development and review of land use and transportation alternatives and policies with the Steering Committee and the community, including support for related public meetings and workshops. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the Resolution approving the proposed Amendment, and authorizing the Mayor to sign on behalf of the City. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION: Background As part of the General Plan Update effort, a Special Planning Projects Manager (SPPM) (Tony Lettieri) was hired to oversee and coordinate the Land Use and Transportation planning portion of the General Plan Update program. The SPPM's role was to bring specific familiarity and expertise in General Plans and land use planning to the project team. The SPPM provided oversight and guidance to the staff land use and transportation teams to develop and refine land use and transportation alternatives. The SPPM was also to work directly with the General Plan Project Manager, the Director of Planning and Building, and the General Plan Management Team in the preparation of related land use and transportation goals, objectives and policies to be included in the General Plan document. The majority of the Director of Planning and Building's time was also anticipated to continue to be allocated to the Update effort through completion. Page 2, Item No.: /t~ Meeting Date: 8/26/03 In early Spring 2003, the land use teams began the process of developing initial planning and transportation concepts for select areas of the City where General Plan changes would be most beneficial or logical considering input and studies to-date. In discussing approaches how best to depict and present these concepts to the public, and meet the demanding timelines, it was determined that use of outside expertise would be beneficial. As a result, the City entered into and agreement with RBF Consulting focusing on graphics preparation for land use and transportation concepts, and assistance with the design and execution of the public Town Hall meeting. That agreement was on a time and materials basis not to exceed $50,000. RBF Consulting possessed significant General Plan experience, familiarity with the City of Chula Vista through other previous work, and had a staff compliment available to perform the work on the City's timeline. The Town Hall II meeting was successfully held on June 21, 2003, and the public provided input on the overall vision and goals developed by the citizen committees', and gave feedback on a range of land usc and transportation concepts that will be refined into Preliminary Alternatives for testing. Completion of Town Hall II marked an important juncture in the General Plan Update process. Phase II (background studies, and identification of visions and goals) of the four-phased program was effectively concluded, and Phase III was commenced. Phase III (Plan Alternatives and Policy Development) is the most intensive portion of the program when plans are formulated and tested, and the actual General Plan documents are prepared. Phase III needs to be completed by the end of 2003 in order to keep the Update on schedule for action by the Planning Commission and City Council in May/June 2004. Staff will be providing the City Council with a detailed overview of the GPU progress to date and future actions in approximately a month. Need for Expanded Services As noted previously, the majority of the former Director of Planning and Building's time and all of the SPPM's time were devoted to the General Plan Update effort. The amount of expertise and time provided by these two individuals must be replaced. The resignation of the two above key participants, and the current organization of the Planning and Building Department coupled with the successful completion of the significant midpoint phase (II) of the Update, caused staff to reevaluate the current status of the General Plan Update effort and determine the best way in which to ensure its timely completion. Staff has determined that the use of an experienced consultant is the best way to fill the void left by the two key participants. The work program has been revised to place staff emphasis on those areas where an in depth knowledge of the City is imperative, and allocate consultant time and efforts to those areas where vast experience with numerous general plan creation/update efforts is useful. The Acting Planning and Building Director will on average devote approximately 25 - 30 % of his time in the form of executive management oversight to the effort. A large portion of the success to date can be attributed to Acting Deputy Planning Director Ed Batchelder who will continue to be The General Plan Update Project Manager. Page 3, Item No.: Meeting Date: 8/26/03 The aggressive work schedule and short time flame for the remaining work to be done to complete the General Plan Update warrants the use of a highly qualified and experienced consultant. RBF has proven their capability in their work for us to-date, and is prepared to apply the expertise and resources necessary to assist us in successfully completing the Update. Waiver of Formal Bidding Process Given the circumstances and urgency, staff is requesting that Council waive the formal bidding process since utilizing the City's standard bid procedures is impractical. RBF Consulting has been providing support to the General Plan, and has successfully demonstrated quality work product, capability, and commitment to key milestones and an aggressive project schedule. No start up time is needed since they are already familiar with Update process. RBF is a proven expert in the area of General Plans, land use, urban design and community participation, and has extensive Southern California experience. Staff has verified that they have the necessary resources and manpower immediately available for the work effort. This includes in-house, multi-disciplinary staffing and skills including design, graphics, and policy development and document preparation. RBF is also willing and able to accommodate flexibility in workload levels. Thus the City's interests will be materially better served by waiving the formal bidding process. Scope of Requested Consultant Services As included in the proposed scope of services, RBF would essentially assume responsibility for oversight and administration for key production components of the Update work program including the land use and transportation alternatives, and related portions of the General Plan document. The cost of the proposed, expanded services totals $199,560. Following is a summary of the major components of work to be completed by RBF: · Program Administration- RBF will conduct necessary organizational meetings with staff and other GP consultants, conduct necessary reconnisance to gather relevant field conditions, prepare monthly progress reports to the General Plan Project Manager and General Plan Management Team, provide overall schedule tracking using Microsoft Project software in conjunction with staff team members, and provide for ongoing project coordination among involved parties including regular meetings with City staff. · General Plan Structure and Organization- Based upon their vast experience with the development of General Plans RBF will work with City staff and management to define a graphic format, and pallet of information to be used to depict and present the land use alternatives and related urban design concepts to the community. They will also provide review and input to propose organizational structures and outlines for the General Plan document content and style formats, including the development of graphic formats for various maps and exhibits to be presented in the document. Page 4, Item No.: ~ Meeting Date: 8/26/03 · Land Use and Transportation Altematives- RBF will work with staff and other General Plan consultants to develop a set of quantitative and qualitative evaluation criteria and indicators that will be used to compare the relative desirability of the land use & transportation alternatives. They will work with staff to define the various planning sub areas and neighborhoods for which alternatives and policies will be developed (urban core, focus areas, specific plan areas, etc.). RBF will prepare preliminary alternatives for each of the major planning sub areas, as well as composite, citywide alternatives for review and discussion with the public and decision makers. · Public Participation and Decision Makers Meetings- RBF will organize and attend all necessary meetings of the General Plan Management Team, Steering Committee, sub area community workshops, Planning Commission and City Council workshops, and a third Town Hall meeting, to present and discuss the alternatives and related information and documents. · Final Alternatives- Subsequent to inputs from the third Town Hall meeting, RBF will work with staff the GPMT, Steering Committee and Planning Commission and City Council to review outcomes, and to prepare the final altematives and a preferred alternative that will be formally present in the EIR. · General Plan Document Preparation- RBF will provide policy review and recommendations for all GP Elements, with a focus on policies related to land use. This will include any policies to address new concepts such as urban form, mixed use, transit oriented development, and sustainability. They will also review and edit the draft General Plan for consistency with State law, internal consistency among and within Elements, and consistency in content and style. · Reimbursable Costs- RBF has also included costs to cover all related support costs including such items as printing of alternatives, maps and graphics, photographic prints, reproduction of handouts for staff and community meetings, printing of reports and papers, and mileage. FISCAL IMPACT: The $199,560 total cost of the services request under the proposed Amendment can be offset from within the Planning and Building Department's already approved FY 2004 budget. Of the total, $150,000 will come from salary savings (i.e. three months of the vacant Assistant Director's position, nine months of the Special Planning Project Manager's position), and the Department is requesting this budget amount be amended from the Personnel Services to the Page 5, Item No.: Meeting Date: 8/26/03 Supplies and Services category within the department budget. The remaining $49,560 will be paid from available Supplies and Services budget. No additional appropriation is requested. In addition, one permanent Special Planning Projects Manager position is being eliminated fi.om the FY 2004 Planning and Building budget, with an annual savings of $124,000 in FY 2005 and ensuing budget years. Attachment Original Agreement with RBF Consulting J:XPIanningXED\GPU RFPs~RBF Contract A 113 08-19-03revl.doc Parties and Recital Page(s) Agreement between City of Chula Vista and RBF Consulting for consulting Services on General Plan Update This agreement ("Agreement"), dated 5/1/03 for the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last exe cured unless another date is otherwise specified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 1 is between the City-related entity as is indicated on Exhibit A, paragraph 2, as such ("City"), whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 3, and the entity indicated on the attached Exhibit A, paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 5, and whose place of business and · telephone numbers are set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 6 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the bllowing facts: Recitals Whereas, Consultant is currently under contract as an extension of staff to provide planning assistance on development review in the Otay Ranch and because of this, the consultant has extensive knowledge of the city planning issues; and, Whereas, consultant has performed satisfactorily in providing services for the General Plan Update,; and, Whereas, Consultant has the technical expertise and some of the most experienced planners throughout the State and within the San Diego region in the preparation of General Plans, community input processes, and issue identification methods related to General Plan updates; and, Whereas, two other qualified firms that were contacted by staff, PDC and P & D Technologies, are working on other land use planning projects in the city and, therefore, have potential conflict of interest; and, Whereas, staff has determined that the proposal submitted by Consultant is fair and reasonable when considering prevailing market rates; and, Whereas, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can 2ptyRBFGPU.doc - 1 - April 28, 2003 prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City within the time frames herein provided-all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; (End of Recitals. Next Page starts Obligatory Provisions.) 2ptyRBFGPU.doc 2 April 28, 2003 Obligatory Provisions Pages NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby mutually a~ree 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" Scope of Work and Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the time frames set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence of this agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the Scope of Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defined Services". Failure to complete the Defined Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate, to terminate this Agreement.. C. Reductions in Scope of Work City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the Defined Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding .reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. D. Additional Services In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Defined Services ("Additional. Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in the 2ptyRBFGPU.doc - 3 April 28, 2003 "Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11 (C), unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon. AL1 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 ~onditio~ and in similar locations. F 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 categor- ies, and to the limits specified, policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City: Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 9. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single-limit applied separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which' names City as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage"). Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy. G. Proof of Insurance Coverage. (1) Certificates o~ 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 2ptyRBFGPU.doc 4 April 28, 2003 demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled without at least thirt~ (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured. (~) 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. 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 ~hall 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. Th~ 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 1. The City Attorney's Office prefers that you obtain approval of the surety or bank, the form of the security and the amount of the security from the Risk Manager i~ the first instance and not the City Attorney. The City Attorney's office would be available on such risk issues as an alternate only if the Risk Manager is unavailable and the matter can't wait. 2ptyRBFGPU.doc 5 - April 28, 2003 amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Letter of Credit", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit-A. (3) Other ~ecurity 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 ~ity 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 Consult- ant 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 2ptyRBFGPU.doc 6 April 28, 2003 19 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 12. All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the propriety of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable thereunder is proper, and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 18 (C) to be charged upon making such payment. 3. Administration of Contract Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 13, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said part~ 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 per- formance. 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, othe~ 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 gr~nted, will be based upon the effect of delays to the work 2ptyRBFGPU.doc 7 April 28, 2003 and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work. 6. Financial Interests of Consultant A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer. If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 15 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney. B. Decline to Participate. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. C. Search to Determine Economic Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, a~d 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. 2ptyRBFGPU.doc 8 April 28, 2003 Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advi~e the City Attorney of City if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests. Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's' employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, or.in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries 'of any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, ("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 15. Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter. .Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this'Agreement, or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement,. except with the written permission of City. 7. Hold Harmless Consultant shall defend, indemnify, prot%ct and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of the conduct of the Consultant, or any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others in connection with the 2ptyRBFGPU.doc - 9 - April 28, 2003 ex&cution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Consultant,s indemnification shall' include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Consultant at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City, .defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Consultants' indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant. 8. Termination of Agreement for Cause If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a ' timely and proper manner Consultant's obligation~ under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereuhder, and less any damages caused City by Consultant's breach. 9. Errors and Omissions In the event that the City Administrator determines that the Consultants' negligence, errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors, omissions, Consultant shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the City. Nothing herein is intended to limit City's rights under other provisions of this agreement. 10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City 2ptyRBFGPU.doc 10 - April 28, 2003 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 befdre the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such termination. Consultant~ hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. 11. Assignability The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby consents to the assignment of the portions of the Defined Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17 to the subconsultants identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants.. 12. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material All reports, s~udies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or'properties produced under this Agreement. 13. Independent Contractor City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services 2ptyRBFGPU.doc - 11 April 28, 2003 required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are, for all purposes under th'is Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and npne of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withh~old state or federal income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto. 14. Administrative Claims ReqUirements and Procedures No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this · agreement, against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. 15. Attorney's Fees. Should a dispute arising out of thi~ Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred. The "prevailing party" shall be deemed to be the party who is awarded substantially the relief sought. 16. Statement of Costs In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the preparation of a report or document in performing the Defined Services, Consultant shall include, or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement of the numbers and cost in dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report or document. 2ptyRBFGPU.doc 12 - April 28, 2003 17. Miscellaneous A. Consultant not au[horized to Represent City Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consult- ant shall have no authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever. B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker or salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents tha~ neither Consultant, nor their principals are licensed real es~'ate 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. 2ptyRBFGPU.doc - 13 - April 28, 2003 F. Governing Law/Venue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the l%ws 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.] 2ptyRBFGPU.doc - 14 April 28, 2003 Signature Page to Agreement betwee~ City of Chula Vista and RBF Consulting for Consulting Services on General Plan Update' 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: ~/[O , 2003 City of Chula Vista by: Approved as to form: ,John Coggin~rchasing Agent Dated: RBF Consulting Jeffr~ ~t~Barfi~ld, AICP Vice President, Planning Exhibit List to Agreement (X) Exhibit A. 2ptyRBFGPU.doc - 15 Ap'ril 28, 2003 Exhibit A to Agreement between City of Chula Vista and RBF Consulting 1. Effective Date of Agreement:5/1/03 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 ( ) Industri'al 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: RBF Consulting 5. Business Form of Consultant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Partnership (X) Corporation 6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant: 9755 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92124-1324 2ptyRBFGPU.doc - 16 - April 28, 2003 Voice Phone (858)614-5000 Fax Phone (858)614-5001 7. General Duties: ~rovide professional planning services to City, focusing on graphics preparation for City-wide preliminary land use/transportation alternatives and assistance with community input at the General Plan Update Town.Hall #2 meeting all to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. 8. Scope of Work and Schedule: A. Detailed Scope of Work: 1. Task 1 - City-wide Preliminary Land Use/Transportation Plan Graphics (80 hours). Consultant shall prepare three (3) city-wide preliminary land use/transportation alternatives for the City's General Plan Update, that communicate the overall framework of each alternative. a. At a city-wide scale, the alternatives shall incorporate the use of 'text and diagrammatic shapes (representing areas within the City that are related geographically, by land use and/or function), lines, symbols and icons to graphically represent the major planning concepts/principles envisioned for each of the subareas, e.g., increased transit-oriented development around BRT/trolley stations. b. Icons will be developed to depict generalized type of land use and function and scale of intensity relating to specific geographic areas, lines, and/or points, e.g., district, corridor, intersection. c. The graphics shall also show the relationship between land use/transportation concept alternatives and the General Plan guiding principles/goals. d. Consultant shall assist City to refine City's initial Steering Committee list of the major planning concepts/principles for the subareas. 2. Task 2 - Subarea Breakout Preliminary Land Use/Transportation Plan Graphics (160 hours). Consultant shall prepare graphics for up to three (3) preliminary land use/transportation 2ptyRBFGPU.doc - 17 April 28, 2003 alternatives for each of the three (3) subareas: Northwest, Southwest-and Otay Ranch. a. Graphics will clearly articulate the connection between the planning principles and the proposed land use and transportation network. b. Graphics will utilize various line weights, line styles, bubbles, color, patterns, symbols and icons, subject to City approval, sufficient to effectively communicate the preliminary land use/transportation alternatives to the general public. 3. Task 3 - City-wide Opportunities and Constraints Graphic (60 hours). Consultant shall prepar~ one (1) graphic map depicting city-wide opportunities and constraints, such as regional facilities, special character areas, linkages between areas, major circulation routes and the habitat preservation system, subject to City direction and approval. A combination of ~bubble" diagrams, lines, symbols, etc. will be used to depict these opportunities and constraints on the graphic.. 4. Task 4 - Graphic to Compare preliminary Land Use/Transportation Alternatives to Existinq General Plan (60 hours). Consultant shall prepare three graphics identifying and comparing the major differences in land use character and intensity between the existing General Plan and the three new city-wide preliminary land use/transportation alternatives proposed for each of the three · planning areas. 5. Task 5 - Community Input Assistance (40 hours). Consultant shall assist City to design the format of upcoming staff workshop, Steering Committee Retreat, and Town Hall Meeting #2. a. Provide method to evaluate community input of the land use alternatives. b. Assist in the preparation of graphic and electronic materials for each of these meetings. 2ptyRBFGPU.doc 18 April 28, 2003 6. Task 6 - Meetings/Workshops/Town Hall. Consultant shall attend the following meetings: a. City staff retreat - 2 persons: Project Manager and Urban Planner (10 hours) b. Steering Committee Workshop - 2 persons: Project Manager and Urban Planner (25 hours) c. Town Hall Meeting (Open House) - 3 persons: Project Manager, Urban Planner and Community Planner (25 hours) d. Staff level meetings - 2 meetings per week for 6 weeks, 2 to 3 persons per meeting with varying job classifications, as determined by City (96 hours) B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services: (X) Same as Effective Date of Agreement ( ) Other: C. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables: Deliverable No. 1: Task 1 - City-wide Preliminary Land Use/Transportation Plan Graphics. Due Date: June 5, 2003. Deliverable No. 2: Task 2 - Subarea Breakout Preliminary Land Use/Transportation Plan Graphics. Due Date: on or before June 5, 2003. Deliverable No. 3: Task 3 - City-wide Opportunities and Constraints Graphic. Due Date: on or before June 5, 2003. Deliverable No. 4: Task 4 - Graphic to Compare preliminary Land Use/Transportation Alternatives to Existing General Plan. Due Date: on or before June 5, 2003. Deliverable No. 5: Task 5 - Community Input Assistance. Due Date: on or before June 21, 2003. Deliverable No. 6: Task ~ - Attendance at Meetings/Workshops/Town Hall: City staff retreat - Date: as determined by City staff. 2ptyRBFGPU.doc - 19 April 28, 2003 Steering Committee Workshop - Date: as determined by City staff. Tow// Hall Meeting #2 Date: June 21, 2003, or as otherwise s~heduled by City staff. Bi-weekly staff meetings: 2 pe~ wgek for 6 weeks, commencing the week of D. Date for completion of all Consultant services: ...12/31/2003 9. Insurance Requirements: (X) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance ( ) Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000. (X) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000. ( ) Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (included in Commercial General Liability coverage). (X) Errors and Omissions Insurance: $250,000 (not included in Commercial General Liability coverage). 10. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant: None. 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 ( ) 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 2ptyRBFGPU.doc - 20 April 28, 2003 of each phase only the ~ompensation 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 sati.sfactorily completed, the City shall receive credit against the compensation due for that phase. The retention amount or percentag~ 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. 2ptyRBFGPU.doc - 21 April 28, 2003 $ $ ( ) 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 nog 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 fo~ that phase. Percentage of completion of a phase shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or such other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon such proof demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim advance payment be made unless the Contractor shall have represented in writing that said percentage of completion of the phase has been performed by the Contractor. The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment. C. (X) Hourly Rate Arrangement For performance of the Defined Services by Consultant as' herei~ required, City shall pay Consultant for the productive hours of time spent by Consultant in ~he performance of said Services, at the rates or amounts set forth in the Rate Schedule hereinbelow according to the following terms and conditions: (1) (X) Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement 2ptyRBFGPU.doc - 22 April 28, 2003 Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess Df said Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant agrees that Consultant will perfor~ all of the ~efined Services herein 'required of Consultant for $ 50,000 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. Rate Schedule Category of Employee Hourly of Consultant Name Rate Senior Principal $200 Principal 175 Planning Manager 140 Project Manager 120 Senior Planner 110 Senior Urban Designer 110 Landscape Architect 110 Project Planner 95 Environmental Specialist 95 Designer/Planner 80 GIS Analyst 80 2ptyRBFGPU.doc . - 23 - April 28, 2003 Graphic Artist 74 Environmental Analyst' 73 Staff Planner 73 Assistant Planner 66 Planning Aid 54 Clerical/Word Processing 45 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: None, the compensation includes all costs. Cost or Rate Reports, not to exceed $ : Copies, not to exceed $ : (X) Mileage, not to exceed $ : 0.40/mile 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: Anthony J. Lettieri, Special Planning Projects Manager, Advance Planning Section, Planning Division, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, Ca 91910, 619-409-5478. Consultant: 2ptyRBFGPU.doc - 24 - April 28, 2003 Jeffrey C. Barfield, Vice-President, Planning, RBF Consulting, 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd. i Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92124-1324, 858-614-5000, FAX 858-614-5001. 14. Liquidated Damages Rate: ( ) $__ per day. ( ) Other: 15. Statement of Economic Interests, consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code: X) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer. ) FPPC Filer Category No. 1. Investments and sources of income. Category No. 2. Interests in real property. ~ategory 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. 2ptyRBFGPU.doc 25 - April 28, 2003 ( ) List "Consultant Assoclates 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: None. 18. Bill Processing: A. Consultant,s Billing to be submitted for the following period of time: (X) Monthly ( ) Quarterly ( ) Other: B. Day of the period for submission of Consultant,s Billing: (X) First of the Month ) 15th Day of each Month ) End of the Month ) Other: C. City's Account Number: 12551-6401 19. Security for Performance Performance Bond, $ Letter of Credit, $ Other Security: Type: Amount: 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 2ptyRBFGPU.doc ' April 28, 2003 - 26 - "Retention Amount" until the City determines that the Retention Release Event, list-ed below, has occurred: (X) R~tention Percentage: 10% ( ) Retention Amount: $. Retention Release Event: (X) Completion of All Consultant Services to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning and Building. ( ) Other: J: \Planning\Ed\2 PtyRBFGPU. word 2ptyRBFGPU.doc 27 - April 28, 2003 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAiVING THE FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS, APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE TWO-PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND RBF CONSULTING FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT, AND AMENDING THE FY 2004 BUDGET OF THE PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT BY TRANSFERRING $150,000 FROM THE PERSONNEL SERVICES TO THE SUPPLIES AND SERVICES CATEGORY AND ELIMINATING ONE PERMANENT SPECIAL PLANNING PROJECTS MANAGER POSITION. WHEREAS, City and RBF Consulting previously entered into an agreement on May 1, 2003 whereby the consultant was to provide professional planning services to City, focusing on graphics preparation for City-wide preliminary land use/transportation alternatives and assistance with community input at the General Plan update Town Hall #2 meeting; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the Town Hall #2 meeting, two key General Plan update City staff members resigned necessitating the shift of management responsibilities within the department and resulting in the net loss of dedicated staff time and expertise to the General Plan update; and WHEREAS, the aggressive work schedule and short time frame of the remaining work to be done to complete the General Plan update requires the use of a consultant; and WHEREAS, RBF Consulting has extensive local knowledge of Chula Vista, has proven expertise and commitment, is efficient and flexible in their work efforts, and has performed satisfactorily in prior General Plan update tasks for the City; and WHEREAS, City staff is recommending the City Council of the City of Chula Vista waive the formal bid process for said services as impractical, under the circumstances; and WHEREAS, the City's interests will be materially better served if the formal bid process is waived in this instance; and WHEREAS, no new budget appropriations are requested due to the salary savings of vacant positions in the Planning and Building Department; and WHEREAS, staff is recommending the elimination of one permanent position, the savings of which will be applied toward the proposed consulting Amendment during FY 2004, but resulting in a budget reduction in ensuing fiscal years; and WHEREAS, a budget amendment within the FY 2004 budget of the Planning and Building Department is needed to move budget from the Personnel Services category to the Supplies and Services category to cover the proposed consulting Amendment. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby waive the formal bidding process. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the First Amendment to the two-party agreement with RBF Consulting and authorizes the Mayor to execute said Amendment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the budget amendment of $150,000 from the Personnel Services to the Supplies and Services category within the FY 2004 budget of the Planning and Building Department. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby eliminate one Special Planning Projects Manager position from the FY 2004 budget of the Planning and Building Department effective October 10, 2003, and reserve the remaining budget of the position for use in the General Plan update. Presented by Approved as to form J.D. Sandoval Ann ff4~r~(/ Acting Director of Planning City Attorney and Building J:~Planning\Jim\RBF GPU Reso.doc THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE FOI:LMALLY SIGNED UPON APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL City Attorney Dated:.. First Amendment to the Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and RBF Consulting, a California Corporation FIRST AMENDMENT to the Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and RBF Consulting, a California Corporation Recitals This First Amendment is entered into effective as of Augnst 1, 2003 by and between the City of Chula Vista ("City") and RBF Consulting, a California Corporation ("Consultant"), with reference to the following facts: WHEREAS, City and Consultant previously entered into an agreement on May 1, 2003 whereby Consultant was to provide professional planning services to City, focusing on graphics preparation for City-wide preliminary land use/transportation alternatives and assistance with community input at the General Plan Update Town Hall #2 meeting all to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building ("Original Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Building devoted 80 percent of his time working on the General Plan Update though the Town Hall #2 meeting; and WHEREAS, after the Town Hall #2 meeting, the Director of Planning and Building resigned; and WHEREAS, after the Town Hall #2 meeting, the Special Planning Projects Manager assigned to oversee the Land Use portion of the General Plan update work program also resigned; and WHEREAS, the shift of management responsibilities within the department as a result of this resignation has resulted in the net loss of dedicated staff time and expertise to the General Plan Update; and WHEREAS, the aggressive work schedule and short time frame of the remaining work to be done to complete the General Plan Update necessitates the use of a consultant; and WHEREAS, Consultant has extensive local knowledge of Chula Vista, has proven expertise and commitment, is efficient and flexible in their work efforts, and has performed satisfactorily in Original Agreement; and WHEREAS, City staff is recommending the City Council of the City of Chula Vista waive the formal bid process under the circumstances. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and the mutual obligation of the parties set forth herein, City and Consultant agree as follows: 1. Exhibit A, Section 7 of the original Agreement, entitled General Duties is hereby amended to read as follows: Provide professional planning services to City in the update of City General Plan, focusing on Program Administration, General Plan Structure and Organization, Land Use / Transportation Alternatives, Public Participation and Decision Makers Meetings, and Review of Final Alternatives, all to the satisfaction of the Acting Director or Director of Planning and Building. 2. Exhibit A, Section 8.A. of the Original Agreement, entitled Detailed Scope of Work, is hereby amended to add the following: 7. Task 7 - Program Administration. a. Project orientation. Consultant shall meet with City staff to establish a mutual understanding of the General Plan Update work program. This is intended to be a collaborative effort between the Consultant, City staff, and other consultants already hired by the City to complete portions of the General Plan. Roles and responsibilities will be defined and management procedures established to assure the most efficient use of both the City's and Consultant's resources. Consultant shall refine the Scope of Work as determined by City, establish the critical path outline, establish dates for receipt of deliverables, as well as obtain and review needed reference information, plans, reports, ordinances, and studies. b. Field verifications. Consultant shall conduct field visits to City's three subareas (Northwest, Southwest, and East), with emphasis on the "focus areas of change," to gain a better understanding of the current characteristics, opportunities and issues in the City. The area visits would be conducted with City staff representatives at a mutually agreed upon time. c. Monthly progress reports. Consultant shall provide Monthly Progress Report Memoranda and submit to City staff to use for record-keeping purposes, updates to the General Plan Management Team (GPMT), City Council, etc. A variety of information will be provided on the progress report, including a summary of work completed for each task; questions and issues; upcoming meetings and deadlines. d. Overall schedule tracking. Consultant shall be responsible for the weekly tracking of the General Plan Update overall schedule for work products and milestones, including City staff and other consultant efforts. Microsoft Project 2000 will be used to create an overall schedule that includes breakouts for the various other consultant work efforts. Consultant shall track all project tasks for critical path items needed to maintain progress, product delivery, and milestones. This will include weekly phone contacts with key staff and other consultants working on specific tasks, with meetings only on an as~needed basis. Consultant shall, in writing, inform City's General Plan Manager on a weekly basis as to the status of task items and the effect on the overall project schedule. ~'~7 2ofll e. On-going project coordination and City staff meetings. Consultant shall meet, at a minimum, every two weeks (two-hour duration) with the City General Plan Manager and others to discuss various items pertaining to the General Plan Update. ' 8. Task 8 - General Plan Structure and Organi:mtion. a. Graphic format of land use alternative maps for Town Hall Meeting #3. Consultant shall meet with City Staff to discuss the graphic format of the land use alternative maps, including the large-scale maps to be used in the subarea workshops products; the city-wide land use maps to be used in the Town Hall 3 public workshop; and other large-scale graphics used to convey information, such as urban form, density, height, etc. Based on the meeting discussion, Consultant shall mock up and specify a graphic template for City Staff (graphic artist) to create, which will become the standard format for graphic products used in General Plan public workshops. b. General Plan Element document content outline and style format. Consultant shall review the content outline options for GP Elements prepared to date by City and provide recommendations. Consultant shall create the document style format for the General Plan Update, with input fi.om City. Consultant shall provide up to two sample style formats, with font styles, margins widths, margin items, tables, captions, etc., so that City may provide input for Consultant to create a unique and user-friendly format for the Chula Vista General Plan. c. General Plan graphic formats. Consultant shall meet with City staff to discuss the graphic format to be used in the General Plan, including graphic size (11 x 17, 8-1/2 x 11) and diagrams incorporated within the text body. The overall intent of the discussion will be to ensure that a user-friendly format is created. Consultant shall provide examples of graphic formats for initial review and discussion at this meeting. Following City input, Consultant shall revise the graphic format and provide City with graphic standards (rules) to be followed and mocked up formats for City staff (graphic artist) to prepare. 9. Task 9 - Area-wide Background Studies. a. Brief review of area-wide background studies. Consultant shall briefly review the existing 19 area-wide background studies and summarize and note the key information necessary to complete the other General Plan update tasks in this scope of work. Consultant shall also note any major omissions for purposes of testing land use alternatives. 10. Task 10 - Land Use / Transportation Alternatives. a. Evaluation criteria and indicators. Consultant shall lead the effort, with participation of City staff and other consultants, to develop a list of evaluation ~ ,~ 3of 11 criteria and indicators that will be used to compare the relative desirability of the city-wide land use/transportation alternatives. These criteria will be both quantitative, e.g., population, dwelling units, and qualitative, e.g., compatibility with City and regional plans, feasibility. Consultant shall also derive commtmity values criteria from the community input received at Town Halls #1 and #2. Evaluation criteria and indicators will be organized into broad categories, such as urban form, environmental, public facilities and services, and economics. Evaluation criteria may include Fiscal impact analysis, Traffic impact analysis, Quality of proposed development, Impacts on existing development (edge effects), Impacts on City image, Compatibility with other plans. b. Definition of urban core, focus areas, and specific plan boundaries. Consultant shall hold two work sessions with City staff as scheduled by City staff to discuss and define on maps the various boundaries (at a parcel level) for the General Plan, including the Northwest subarea's urban core, the three subareas' various "focus areas", and Specific Plan areas. The first work session will be used for Consultant to review the preliminary boundaries established by the subarea teams, discuss them, and determine with City staff if any revisions are recommended. Consultant shall use aerial mapping, observations from the community tour, and City staff input and knowledge of the subareas to determine exactly which parcels are to be included in specific areas, e.g., lots along Main Street in the Southwest subarea. The second work session will be to review the other department comments, determine any revisions, and define the final boundaries. c. Subarea preliminary land use altematives. Consultant shall collaborate with City staff to create three preliminary land use alternatives for each subarea (Northwest, Southwest, and East) that will then be taken as scheduled by City staff to the General Plan Management Team (GPMT), the Steering Committee (SC), and the community for review and comment at the subarea level. The alternatives will be designed to respond to issues identified by City, information from the area-wide backgrotmd reports, community input already available from Town Hall #1 and #2, and additional input from the community workshops to be held at the subarea level. Consultant staff (two senior planners) will meet initially with City General Plan team and City's traffic consultant as scheduled by City staff to brainstorm initial land use and circulation alternatives. Following this meeting, Consultant shall create three preliminary land use alternatives each for the Northwest, Southwest and East subareas that focus on the opportunity (aka "focus areas") areas previously identified by City. Consultant shall prepare graphics in a diagrammatic style for work session and meeting discussion purposes. Alternatives will focus on implementing appropriate land use mixes, and the visual form and characteristics of the community. Input to the alternatives will include, but is not limited, to the following: Economic Development Strategy Goals and Objectives, Steering Committee Goals, Community preferences on land use concepts indicated at To~m Hall #2, Potential development and redevelopment projects known or anticipated by City Staff, Area-wide studies. Following preparation of the nine subarea preliminary land use alternatives, Consultant (two senior planners) shall meet with each subarea team and City's transportation consultant in a separate two-hour meeting (as part of an all-day Work Session) to review and discuss the alternatives and make any needed revisions. Consultant shall attend two more follow up meetings (3- hour duration, 2 senior planners). Consultant shall then present the alternatives to the GPMT and Steering Committee (SC) for review and comment before being taken to the subarea's citizens. The presentations (GPMT and SC) will be a joint effort by Consultant (up to three staff) and City staff, unless otherwise directed by the City. All such meetings will be as scheduled by City staff. Consultant shall review the degree of support/opposition and combination of responses that the commtmity indicated at Town Hall #2 for the various components of the concepts. Consultant shall identify and discuss with City where community input appears to be at odds with other input, such as the Steering Committee or the Economic Development Strategy. d. City-wide land use alternatives. Consultant shall lead a Design Charrette (work session) with City staff, as well as representatives from KHA and ERA, so that the City-wide alternative land uses can be effectively and efficiently developed. It is anticipated that the Design Charrette will be a one-day event (attended by three senior planners). Consultant shall attend two additional 3-hour follow up meetings (two senior planners) with City Staff. All such meetings will be as scheduled by City staff. Each city-wide alternative will be discussed and summarized in a working paper prepared by Consultant. Consultant shall prepare graphics (in a loose diagrammatic style) for work session and meeting discussion purposes. Based upon evaluation criteria and indicators developed in Task 9a above, Consultant shall assist City to organize and coordinate testing of the alternatives, to include the following: Urban form, Environmental, Public facilities and services, Economics. 1 I. Task 11 - Public Participation and Decision Makers Meetings. a. General Plan Management Team Meetings. Consultant shall attend the following meetings as scheduled by City staff by sending two senior planners, unless otherwise noted: GPMT Meeting #1: To review the General Plan document structure and format, plus the proposed design of the community subarea workshops and Town Hall III with the GPMT. Consultant shall present the proposed design and format for the public workshops. GPMT M~ To review the preliminary subarea land use alternatives by the GPM~. prior to the alternatives going out to the Steering Committee or to the public at the community subarea workshops. Consultant and City Staff will jointly present and review the alternatives. GPMT Meeting t43: Following input from the community subarea workshops and a subsequent work session with City Staff, Consultant shall inform the GPMT of the proposed direction and revisions to be taken on the subarea land use alternatives. GPMT Meeting 144: Following creation of three City-wide land use alternatives and analysis/evaluation of the alternatives, Consultant shall present the City-wide alternatives and findings to the GPMT. GPMT Meeting t45: Following Town Hall 143, Consultant shall report on the results and what the public indicated would be the preferred land use alternative. b. Consultant shall design the format for Steering Committee (SC) meetings concerning the Land Use Alternatives and review / revise the format with City Staff. Large-scale conceptual graphics created in other tasks will be used at the SC meetings and be printed by the City. Consultant shall let City know what meeting handout materials are needed, will provide templates for such materials, and review the draft product. Consultant shall attend the following Steering Committee (.SC) meetings: Steering Committee Meeting 141: Consultant shall review the Town Hall #2 report and the area-wide policy implications report with the Committee. (1 senior planner) Steering Committee Meeting #2: Consultant shall present the preliminary land use alternatives that have been created. The overall objective would be to obtain consensus that these preliminary alternatives reflect and respond to the input from Town Hall 142 and exhibit suitable range to take out to the community subarea workshops for further input. (2 senior planners) Steering Committee Meeting #3: Following creation of three City-wide land use alternatives and analysis/evaluation of the alternatives, Consultant shall present the City-wide alternatives and findings to the SC before going to Town Hall #3. (2 senior planners) c. Subarea community workshops. Consultant's public participation expert and one senior planner shall meet with City staff as scheduled by City staff to discuss the purpose and format of the community workshops and Consultant shall design the community workshop presentation and interactive participation process that will be used at each community workshop. Workshop coordination with City's traffic consultant will be discussed with City. Consultant shall prepare workshop handout materials, with technical assistance from City staff. Consultant shall provide one facilitator (senior planner) and one other staff person for wall graphic note-taking for each workshop. Consultant shall summarize workshop results in a written report including photo reductions of wall graph/cs produced during the workshops. Consultant shall attend the following community subarea workshops, with one work session with City staff to be held in between the two mands of public workshops: ~ ¢/ 6ofll Subarea Workshop #1 Inform and Obtain Feedback on Preliminary Laml Use Plans: The purpose of this 3-hour Workshop is to briefly review the General Plan process, raise awareness of proposed planning concepts, identify the key issues for the subarea, review the results of Town Hall//2, and present and obtain public feedback on the preliminary land use alternatives maps prepared from the concepts at Town Hall//2. Following Workshop #1, Consultant shall meet with City staff as scheduled by City staff in an all-day work session (8 hours, up to 3 Consultant senior planners) to review community input and discuss revisions and refinements to the subareas' preliminary land use alternatives. Subarea Workshop #2: Review Revised Preliminary Land Use Alternatives. This second two-hour workshop will be held approximately two weeks following the first workshop, as scheduled by City staff and will present the revised preliminary land use alternatives to the subarea community. This meeting will demonstrate to participants that their input has been seriously considered, and also provide an additional opportunity for Consultant and City to hear again from the public before going to Town Hall #3. d. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop. Joint CC/PC Meeting #1: Review the area-wide Policy Implications Report. Consultant's project manager shall assist the City's General Plan Manager in this presentation. Joint CC/PC Meeting #2: Following creation of three preliminary land use alternatives for each of the three subareas, a workshop to review the alternatives and the evaluation criteria and indicators that will be used in the testing phase of the General Plan process will be held. Consultant's project manager shall assist the City's General Plan Manager to present the alternatives, while a Consultant senior planner attends to provide any additional support. Joint CC/PC Meeting #3: Following creation of three City-wide land use alternatives and analysis/evaluation of the alternatives, present the City-wide alternatives and findings. RBF's project manager will assist the City's GPU Manager, if desired, to present the alternatives, while another RBF senior planner will be in attendance to provide any additional needed information. Joint CC/PC Meeting ~t: Following Town Hall #3, report on the results and what the public indicated would be the preferred land use alternative. Consultant's project manager will assist City's General Plan Manager to present the alternatives, while another Consultant senior planner will be in attendance to provide any additional support. e. Town Hall #3. Consultant's community participation expert and a senior planner shall meet early in the planning process with City Staff as scheduled by City staff to design the format and participation aspect of Town Hall #3, two 3-hour meetings. Following GPMT and Steering Committee approval of the format, Consultant shall assist City in preparation of content for handout materials and slides for a PowerPoint presentation. Consultant shall attend three 3-hour meetings (with up to 3 senior planners) as scheduled by City staff to coordinate Town Hall //3 content and preparation with City staff. 7ofll Consultant's direct participation in Town Hall #3 includes Consultant's project manager and two senior planners, either to directly facilitate, present information or participate to obtain citizen feedback. 12. Task 12 - Final Alternatives. a. Following Town Hall #3 and City's subsequent compilation of Town Hall #3 input, Consultant (two senior planners) shall meet with City staff as scheduled by City staff to review the results and determine what revisions to the three city-wide land use alternatives should be recommended (3-hour duration.) Following presentation of Town Hall #3 results and City staff recommendations to the GPMT, Steering Committee, and City Council, and getting direction on any recommended revisions, Consultant shall attend a full day (8 hour) work session with City staff, as scheduled by City staff, as well as representatives from City's other consultants. The work session's purpose will be to revise the three city-wide land use alternatives so that they can be used as the basis for the Environmental Impact Report. Following this meeting, Consultant shall provide three final city-wide land use alternatives marked up with felt tip pen for City staff to implement the revisions on GIS. 13. Task 13 - General Plan Document Preparation a. Policy review and recommendations for all Elements of the General Plan. Consultant shall review the City-prepared draft policies and discuss with City staff the need for revisions and for additional policies to address new planning concepts. The policies for the Elements include the Land Use and Transportation Element, the Economic Development Element, the Housing Element, the Public Facility and Services Element, and the Environmental Element. b. Consultant shall review the Draft General Plan for consistency with State law, internal consistency between Elements, and consistency in content and writing style, with recommendations for revision. c. Consultant shall attend a total of seven two-hour meetings with City staff as scheduled by City staff, with the attendance of two senior planners to accomplish tasks 13.a and 13.b above. 3. Exhibit A, Section 8.C. of the Original Agreement, entitled Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables, is hereby amended to add the following: Dates of Deliverables 7 through 13 may be subject to change pursuant to the advance approval of the Director of Planning and Building. Deliverable No. 7: Task 7 - Program Administration. a. Project Orientation. Due Date: on or before 8/29/2003. b. Field verifications. Due Date: on or before 9/12/2003. c. Monthly Progress Reports. Due Dates on or about: 10/1/03, 11/1/03, 12/1/03, 1/1/04, 2/1/04. d. Overall Schedule Tracking. Due dates: weekly status reports for duration of agreement commencing the week of 9/1/2003. e. On-going Project Coordination and City Staff Meetings. Due dates: 11 meetings held every other week (2-hr duration, Consultant project manager and one senior planner) over 22 weeks; 6 meetings (2-hr duration, one senior planner) held over 22 weeks commencing 9/8/2003; and 10 contingency meetings/teleconferences (2-hour duration, two Consultant senior planners as scheduled by the City's General Plan Manager. Deliverable No. 8: Task 8 - General Plan Structure and Organization a. Graphic Format of Land Use Alternative Maps for Town Hall #3. Due date: on or before 9/12/2003. b. General Plan Elements Document Content Outline & Style Format. Due date: on or before 9/30/2003. c. General Plan Graphic Formats. Due date: on or before 9/30/2003. Deliverable No. 9: Task 9 - Area-wide Background Studies a. Memorandum of any major omissions that would affect testing of land use alternatives. Due date: on or before 9/19/2003. Deliverable No. 10: Task 10 - Land Use / Transportation Alternatives a. Evaluation Criteria and Indicators. Due date: on or before 9/12/2003. b. Definition of Urban Core, "Focus Areas" and Specific Plan Boundaries. Due dates: on or before 9/26/2003. c. Subarea Preliminary Land Use Alternatives. Due date: on or before 10/10/2003: d. City-wide Land Use Alternatives. Due date on or before 11/3/2003. Deliverable No. 11: Task 11 - Public Participation & Decision Makers Meetings a. General Plan Management Team Meetings. GPMT meeting #1 due date: on or before: 9/8/2003. GPMT meeting #2 due date: on or before 9/22/2003. GPMT meeting #3 due date: on or before 10/13/2003. GPMT meeting #4 due date: on or before 11/3/2003. GPMT meeting #5 due date: on or before 11/24/2003. b. Steering Subcommittee Meetings. Steering Committee Meeting #1 due date: on or before 9/15/2003. Steering Committee Meeting #2 due date: on or before 9/22/2003. Steering Committee Meeting #3 due date: on or before 11/3/2003. c. Subarea Community Workshops. Subarea Workshop #1 due date: on or before 9/26/2003. Subarea Workshop #2 due date: on or before 10/10/2003. d. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop.. Joint CC/PC Meeting #1 due date: on or before 9/25/2003. Joint CC/PC Meeting #2 due date: on or before 10/10/2003. Joint CC/PC Meeting #3 due date: on or before 11/7/2003. Joint CC/PC Meeting #4 due date: on or before 12/11/2003. All City Council and Planning Commission dates are subject to change. e. Town Hall #3. Town Hall #3 format & participation meeting #1 due date: on or before 9/12/2003. Town Hall #3 format & participation meeting #2 due date: on or before 9/26/2003. Town Hall #3 content & preparation meeting #1 due date: on or before 10/10/2003. Town Hall #3 content & preparation meeting #2 due date: on or before 10/24/2003. Town Hall #3 content & preparation meeting #3 due date: on or before 11/7/2003. Town Hall #3 meeting due date: 11/15/2003 or as determined by City. Deliverable No. 12: Task 12 - Final Alternatives. Post-Town Hall #3 meeting due date: within 5 day(s) of Town Hall #3. Full-day Work Session due date: on or before 12/5/2003. Three final city-wide land use alternatives due date: within 7 day(s) of Full-day Work Session. Deliverable No. 13: Task 13 - General Plan Document Preparation. Provide marked-up (red line) revisions to City's draft policies for all Elements of the General Plan update. Due date: on or before 1/9/2004. Provide written comments on major points or omissions and written recommendations and draft policies for the Land Use Element. Due date: on or before 12/19/2003. 4. Exhibit A, Section 8.D. of the Original Agreement, entitled Date for completion of all Consultant services, is hereby amended to read as follows: 06/30/2004 5. Exhibit A, Section ll.C.1, of the Original Agreement, entitled Compensation, is hereby amended to read as follows: $ 249,559 6. Exhibit A, Section 13 of the Original Agreement, entitled Contract Administrators, is hereby amended to read as follows: Edgar Batchelder, General Plan Manager/Acting Deputy Planning Director, Advance Planning Section, Planning Division, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, Ca 91910, 619-691-5005. 3. Except as herein amended, all other terms and provisions of the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. SIGNATURE PAGE TO FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND RBF CONSULTING, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this First Amendment to the Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms: Dated: ,2003 City of Chula Vista by: Stephen C. Padilla, Mayor Attest: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved as to form: Ann Moore, City Attorney RBF Consulting Jeffrey ~ f/ , A'IrCp Vice Pr~ide~l, ~a~ing ~ Dated: ~/~0/03 J:~Planning~ED\GPU RFPsL2PtyRBFGPU Amendment 08-19-03.doc 11 ofll COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item -? Meeting Date 8/26/03 ITEM TITLE: Resolution approving a two-party agreement with Host Vending, Inc. to provide Vending Services citywide on an "as-needed" basis for an initial five-year period, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to renew the agreement for five (5) additional, one (1) year option periods. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Fin~ce~-~~ Director of Recreation REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5 Vote: Yes __ No X ) A Request for Proposal (RFP) for Vending Services was sent to thirteen (13) potential respondents in October 2002. On November 7, 2002, four (4) responses were received. Of the thirteen (13) companies contacted, two (2) were local vendors but neither submitted a proposal. RECOMMENDATION: This item will be continued to the Council meeting of September 16, 2003. COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: ~ Meeting Date: 08/26/03 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DESIGN BUILD AGREEMENT WITH ERICKSON-HALL CONSTRUCTION TO INCLUDE NECESSARY IMPROVEMENT TO THE FIRE STATION AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT SUBMITTED BY: Director of General Services ~ Fire Chief hAP REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~,~a~'~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes No X__) As part of the FY03 Capital Improvement Project Budget, Council approved construction of a 4,000 square foot single bay outfit and storage building at Fire Station No. 2. The storage facility is located adjacent to Fire Station No. 2 on J Street. The project is near completion and will be under budget. Staff is recommending that $30,000 of these project savings be applied to the expanded scope of work to make improvements to the adjacent Fire Station. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve second amendment to the Design Build Agreement with Erickson-Hall for the expanded scope of work and authorize the Mayor to execute said amendment to change the project scope and authorize the expenditure of $30,000 for this purpose. BACKGROUND On November 5, 2002, Council awarded a Design Build Agreement to Erickson- Hall Construction for the provision of services required to design and construct the 4,000 square foot single bay outfit and storage facility at Fire Station No. 2 and appropriated funds therefore. Erickson-Hall was selected from a Qualified Design-Built Entities for Fire Stations list. DISCUSSION Staff is recommending that Council amend the existing agreement with Erickson- Hall Construction for the provision of services required at Fire Station No. 2 to upgrade the vehicle exhaust system. The current project scope includes but is not limited to the following: · Design and construct a completed and fully functional 4,000 square foot single bay outfit and storage building at Fire Station No. 2 including the facilities and site-work required. The storage building shall include, but not be limited to all components outlined and described in the schematic design. The project is on schedule and within the allocated capital improvement budget amount. Based on the anticipated savings of $30,000 staff is recommending improvements to the adjacent fire station. The savings were derived as a result of the design-build process. The proposed improvements are necessary to upgrade the vehicle exhaust system at Fire Station 2. The current exhaust system does not meet National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) recommendations. Due to recent purchases of exhaust systems for Fire Stations 7 and 4, the City is able to upgrade the system at Fire Station 2 at a lower cost. Furthermore, Erickson-Hall Construction has agreed to complete the additional services to be provided by Air Purification Systems. FISCALIMPACT The project is nearing completion and staff is able to comfortably and accurately project the amount of savings we will have in the project budget. The project is funded by both the General Fund (58%) and Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (42%). The original Fire Station 2 facility is not a Public Facilities DIF eligible project; therefore this additional work will be funded exclusively from the General Fund portion of the project fund. No further appropriations are needed. Attachment Agreement 08/20/2003 11:36 FAX 16193976250 CITY OF C¥ ~002 ERICKSON-HALL CONSTRUCTION CO. Via Emall Aug 20, 2003 City of Chula Vista Attn: Matt Little Building and Perk Construotion 1800 Maxwell Road Chula Vista, CA 91911 RE: Project Chula Vista Fire Station No, 2 80 East J Street Chula Vista CA 91910-6115 Matt: In regards to the delivery time for the work documented in Amendment #2 for above referenced project, ] have contac[ed Aair Purification Systems. The entire scope of the vehicle exhaust system upgrades wlJl be completed in a maximum of 9 weeks from the date the City notifies us in writing to proceed with the work. Material procurement should take no more than 8 weeks and the Installation oan be completed in 1 week. Advise ff you require any additional informatior]. Sincerely, Project Manager c; Jobsits u,:x,/;~/~'ou~ J-J-:~6 FAX 16193976250 CITY OF C¥ ~]003 Fluc 11 03 ll:2~a St~'d~ Fl~minC ~do, CA 9~9-15 ~7 A~= ~an ~plin V~ ~ust ~ONE ~O, ~AX ~. ~0~L ~ · ~0N ~ATE Q~' ~ ~' ' ' D~RI~ ~U~ ~, O~ ~ ~ap ~ Saf=~ Di~nn~. Hyd~ Shoc~ ~ Me~ AirJ~e ~ly, l~ud~ sup~ ~ ~~ ~, 10" i~ & ~ ~t~ ~r 5 ~ ~0 lbs 1 D~U~ I~ ~ I ~A~A~ON M~t ~ ~s ~ bl~. ~p~ ~p~ and instil ~1~ ~ 1~ ~ i~ ~ghi, l~ I SU~ ~ ~a appll~b~a ~ ~6~8~.00 ~ ~,e~, TOTAL ~ ~N~ D~ S~ 4~ - ~N D~O, ~ ~21 * TEL: (~) ~-~. F~: (~) ~7~ RESOLUTION NO. 2003- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROViNG THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DESIGN BUILD AGREEMENT WITH ERICKSON-HALL CONSTRUCTION TO INCLUDE NECESSARY IMPROVEMENT TO THE FIRE STATION AND AUTHORIZiNG THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAiD AMENDMENT WHEREAS, as part of the FY03 Capital Improvement Project Budget, Council approved construction of a 4,000 square foot single bay outfit and storage building at Fire Station No. 2; and WHEREAS, the storage facility is located adjacent to Fire Station No. 2 on J Street; and, WHEREAS, the project is near completion and within the allocated capital improvement project budget; and WHEREAS, staff is recommending the project scope be expanded to make improvements to the adjacent Fire Station; and WHEREAS, the proposed improvements are necessary to upgrade the vehicle exhaust system at Fire Station 2; and, WHEREAS, Erickson-Hall Construction has agreed to complete the additional services to be provided by Air Purification Systems; and, WHEREAS, staff is recommending up to $30,000 be used for this purpose; and, Whereas, sufficient funds are available in the Capital Improvement Project (PS 150) requiting no appropriation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Council approve the Second Amendment to the Design-Build Agreement with Efickson-Hall Construction to include necessary improvement to the Fire Station, expenditure of up to $30,000 for this purpose, and authorize the Mayor to execute said Amendment. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Fire Chief H:\attorney\fire station 2 - exhaust system 2 THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE FORMALLY SIGNED UPON APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL AnnM~.~ -' . City Attorney Dated: August 21, 2003 Second Amendment to She Design Build Agreement with Erickson-Hall Construction to Include Necessary Improvement to the Fire Station SECOND AMENDMENT TO the Design Build Agreement Between the City of Chula Vista and Erickson Hall Construction Co. for Design and Construction of the Addition to Fire Station 2 Recitals This Second Amendment is entered into effective as of , by and between the City of Chula Vista ("City") and Erickson Hall Construction Co. ("Design Builder or D/B") with reference to the following facts: WHEREAS, City and D/B entered into an agreement ("Original Agreement"), dated November 5, 2002 and approved by City Council Resolution 2002-432, whereby D/B provides design and construction services to the City for the construction of the 4000 square foot single bay outfit and storage building at Fire Station 2; and WHEREAS, the Original Agreement was amended ("First Amendment") on January 28, 2003 to increase the contract amount to incorporate the guaranteed maximum price of $1,392,459 for the complete design and construction of the addition to Fire Station 2. WHEREAS, the project is near completion and approximately $60,000 under budget; and WHEREAS, the parties now desire to enter into this Second Amendment to expand the scope of work to include upgrading the existing vehicle exhaust system and the Air Purification System. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and the mutual obligation of the parties set forth herein, the City and Design Builder agree as follows: 1. Section 1.3 of the Original Agreement, entitled General Scope of Work to be Performed by D/B, is hereby amended to add the following: 1.3.1 D/B shall remove the existing vehicle exhaust system and install a new Plymovent vehicle exhaust as outlined in the attached Proposal from AAIR Purification Systems. 2. Except as expressly provided herein all other provisions of the Original Agreement and First Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. SIGNATURE PAGE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO DESIGN BUILD AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND ERICKSON HALL CONSTRUCTION CO. FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TIlE ADDITION TO FIRE STATION 2 City of Chula Vista Erickson Hall Construction Co. by by M~hael F. Hal~ Steve Padilla, Mayor Chief Operating Officer Date ATTEST: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved in form by: Ann Moore, City Attorney J:XARomey\EHull~Agreemen~s~Erickson Hall 1 st Amendment FS2.doc CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ Meeting Date 8/26/03 ITEM TITLE: Ordinance Establishing a 35 mph speed limit on Clubhouse Drive between Hunte Parkway and North/South Creekside Drive, thereby mending Schedule X of a register maintained in the Office of the City Engineer. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Engineerings]l/ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~o/ (4/Sths Vote: Yes No X ) Based on the provisions of Division 11-Chapter 7-Article 1 (Sections 22348 thru 22366) and Division 17-Chapter 3-Article 1 (Sections 40800 thru 40808) of the California Vehicle Code (CVC), and pursuant to authority under Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.48.020, titled "Established Speed Limits In Certain Zones", the City Engineer has determined that, in the interest of minimizing traffic hazards and for the promotion of public safety, the speed limit on Clubhouse Drive between Hunte Parkway and North/South Creekside Drive be established at 35 mph. This speed limit will be added to Schedule X of the register maintained in the Office of the City Engineer. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt an ordinance establishing a 35 mph speed limit on Clubhouse Drive between Hunte Parkway and North/South Creekside Drive. Thereafter, Schedule X of the register maintained in the Office of the City Engineer will be amended to include the established speed limit on this portion of the aforementioned roadway. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Safety Commission, at their meeting of July 10, 2003, voted MSC (Perrett/White) 5-0-2 (McAlister and Willett absent) to concur with staff's recommendation to establish a 35 mph speed limit on Clubhouse Drive between Hunte Parkway and North/South Creekside Drive and that Schedule X of the register maintained in the office of the City Engineer be revised to include the established speed limit on this portion of the aforementioned roadway. DISCUSSION: Based on CVC 22358 (Decrease of Local Speed Limits), whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an Engineering and Traffic Survey that the State maximum speed limit of 65 mph is more than is reasonable or safe upon any portion on any street other than a state highway, the local authority may by ordinance determine and declare a prima facie speed limit which is reasonable, safe and appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic on the roadway. This declared prima facie speed limit, thereafter becomes effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the street. Page 2, Item Meeting Date 8/26/03 On April 29, 2003, staffcompleted an Engineering and Traffic Survey for the unposted segment of Clubhouse Drive between Hunte Parkway and North/South Creekside Drive. This portion of Clubhouse Drive is a 2-lane roadway that is 66' feet wide curb-to-curb with a 26' wide raised median island separating the two directions of travel. The segment is 2,761 feet (0.52 miles) long and parking is prohibited along both sides of the roadway. Clubhouse Drive has an Average Daily Traffic of 3,480 and has no reported accidents. According to the Engineering and Traffic Survey, the 85th percentile speed was determined to be 39 mph for eastbound traffic and 40 mph for westbound traffic. Therefore, based on the prevailing travel speeds, an initial speed limit of 40 mph would be set for this roadway. However, Clubhouse Drive is designed with a vertical curve that is 250' in length with a grade difference of 5.0%. This vertical curve produces a design speed of 35 mph, which is below the 85th percentile speeds recorded along this roadway. Normally, speed limits should be established at or below the 85th percentile speed in increments of 5 mph. The 85th percentile speed is defined as the speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving. However, in considering existing conditions with the traffic safety needs of the community, or where unusual conditions exist which are not readily apparent to drivers, speed limits of 5 mph below the 85th percentile maybe warranted. The establishment of a speed limit of more than 5 mph below the 85th percentile speed should be done with great care as this may cause a disproportionate number of the reasonable majority of drivers to be in violation of the established speed limit. In determining the speed limit that is reasonable, safe and most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic, important factors to be considered are prevailing speeds, unexpected conditions, and accident records. Speed limits set at or slightly below the 85th percentile speed provide law enforcement officers with a means of controlling the drivers who will not conform to what the majority considers reasonable and prudent. Upon completion of the Engineering and Traffic Survey, and based on the design speed of the vertical curve on Clubhouse Drive, staff has determined that a 35 mph speed limit would be appropriate for the subject segment. Therefore, in accordance with CVC Sections 22357 and 22358, which authorize local authorities to establish prima facie speed limits on streets under their jurisdiction, staff is recommending that a 35 mph speed limit be established for Clubhouse Drive between Hunte Parkway and North/South Creekside Drive. Upon approval of the proposed speed limit by City Council, Schedule X of the register maintained in the Office of the City Engineer will be revised to include the following information: SCHEDULE X - ESTABLISH SPEED LIMITS IN CERTAIN AREAS Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Proposed Speed Limit Clubhouse Drive Hunte Parkway North/South CreeksideDrive 35 MPH Thereafter, speed limit signs will be installed along this portion of the roadway giving notice of the 35 mph speed limit. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost to install signs and pavement legends is approximately $500. The existing budget is sufficient to fund the cost of the signage needed for this project. Attachment: Engineering and Traffic Survey Aerial Photo J:\Engineer\AGENDA\clubhouse 35 mph al 13.sm.doc SPEED LIMIT - ENGINEERING/TRAFFIC SURVEY STREET: Clubhouse Drive LIMITS: Hunte Parkway to North/South Creekside Drive Length of Segment (ft): 2761.01' (0.523 mile) Existing Posted Limit (mph): Not Posted SUMMARY OF SPEED SURVEYS Segment: Hunte Parkway to North/South Creekside Drive Date Taken: 3 / 25 / 03 to 3 / 28 / 03 No. of Vehicles on Sample (cars): 6,700 85t~ Percentile (mph): 39 mph EB / 40 mph WB Range of Speeds Recorded (mph): 6 - 68 mph ROADWAY CEL4RACTERISTICS Width (ft): 66' curb to curb with a 4 -~6 rinsed median Total No. of Lanes: 2 lanes (1 ver direction). Horizontal Alignment: Tangent. Vertical Alignment: G1 = 1.5% and G~ = -6.5% with a re:adc difference of 5.0% over a distance of - _ 250.0' producing a desian sveed of 35 mph TtL&FFIC CItARACTERISTICS Average Daily Traffic: 3480 (2003). On-Street Parking: Prohibited. Special Conditions: Community Recreation Center located at east end of semnent Accident History,: The accident rate at this segment is 0.0 per million vehicle miles which is lower than the average rate of 2.95 for similar roadways in the State of Califomia. SURVEY RESULTS Study was Prepared by: Leia Cabrera .. Date: 04/29/2003 Recommendation: Post Spe~d L~t of 35 mph Date Recommendation Approved: By: Majed ~-Gh~, P.E.,T.E. Approved Speed Li~t (mph): 35 ~H , ~ .:, / / /-~ Per CVC 40803, Saucy Expires: 03 / 25 / 2010 .~. '- City of Chula Vista Traffic En,qineerinq Speed Histo,qram dHist-790 ~ASETS: Site: [Clubhouse] Westbound approach to Granite Springs Direction: 6 - West bound A>B, East bound B>A., Lane: 0 Survey Duration: 15:00 Tue 25 Mar 2003 to 08:53 Tue 01 Apr 2003 File: C:\Program Files\MetroCount v220\User\Data\Chula Vista~2003\Clubhouse_WB.ECO (Plus) Identifier: 1184DOZB MC56-6 [MC55] (c)Microcom 07J03/01 Algorithm: Advanced PROFILE: Filter time: 15:00 Tue 25 Mar 2003 to 15:00 Fri 28 Mar 2003 Included classes: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 Speed range: 0 - 100 mph. Direction: West (bound) Headway: All Scheme: Scheme F99 Name: Factory default profile Method: Vehicle classification Units: Non-Metric (fi, mi, f/s, mph, lb, ton) In profile: 3317 Vehicles Speed Statistics Total vehicles in profile= 3317 Posted speed limit = 37 mph ~f~ber speeding = 926 (27.92% ~imum speed: 68 mph ~ ~nimum speed = 6 mph Mean speed = 31.45 mph 10 mph pace = 30 to 40 Number in 10 mph pace = 1344 (40.52%) Variance = 70.59 Standard deviation = 8.40 mph City of Chula Vista Traffic En,qineerinq Speed Histoqram ~eedHist-786 ASETS: Site: [Clubhouse] Eastbound Approach to Granite Springs Direction: 8 - East bound A>B, West bound B>A., Lane: 0 Survey Duration: 15:00 Tue 25 Mar 2003 to 16:38 Fri 28 Mar 2003 File: C:\Program Files\MetroCount v220\User\Data\Chula Vista~2003\Clubhouse29MAP,2.003.EC0 (Plus) Identifier: A843XAQ2 MC56-1 [MC55] (c)Microcom 07/06199 Algorithm: Advanced PROFILE: Filter time: 15:00 Tue 25 Mar 2003 to 16::38 Fri 28 Mar 2003 Included classes: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 Speed range: 0 - 100 mph. Direction: North, East, South, West (bound) Headway: Ail Scheme: Scheme F99 Name: Factory default profile Method: Vehicle classification Units: Non-Metric (ft, mi, f/s, mph, lb, ton) in profile: 3383 Vehicles ~peed Statistics Total vehicles in profile= 3383 ?~sted speed I m t = 37 mph ~mber speed ng= 925 (27 34%~ '~a~imum speed = 54 mp'h ' ' Minimum speed = 6 mph Mean speed = 33.35 mph 10 mph pace = 28 to 38 Number in 10 mph pace = 2040 (60.30%) Variance = 34.51 Standard deviation = 5.87 mph =ventL, ount-8~l Page 1 City of Chula Vista Traffic En,qineerinq Event Counts ntCount-881 ASETS: Site: [Clubhouse] Westbound approach to Granite Springs ChannelA: 6 - West bound A>B, East bound B>A. - Added to totals. (1) ChannelB: 0 - Unused or unknown. - Excluded from totals. (0) Survey Duration: 15:00 Tue 25 Mar 2003 to 08:53 Tue 01 Apr 2003 File: C:\Program Files\MetroCount v220\User\Data\Chula Vista~2003\Clubhouse_WB.EC0 (Plus) Identifier: 1184DOZB MC56-6 [MC55] (c)Microcom 02/03/01 Algorithm: Event count .___..- Site: [Clubhouse] Eastbound Approach to Granite Springs ChannelA: 8 - East bound A>B, West bound B>A. - Added to totals. (1) ChannelB: 0 - Unused or unknown. - Excluded from totals. (0) Survey Duration: 15:00 Tue 25 Mar 2003 to 16:38 Fri 28 Mar 2003 File: C:\Program Files\MetroCount v220\User\Data\Chula Vista~2003\Clubhouse29MAR,?.003.EC0 '(Plus) Identifier: A843XAQ2 MC56-1 [MC55] (c)Microcom 07106199 Algorithm: Event count PROFILE: Filter time: 15:00 Tue 25 Mar 2003 to 16:00 Fri 28 Mar 2003 Name: Factory default profile Method: Count axles divided by two. Units: Non-Metric (ft, mi, tis, mph, lb, ton) In profile: 6793 Events Yue 25 Mar 2003 - Total=928(incomplete), 15 minute drops, 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 .............. 19 33 88 38 41 27 19 9 3 4 ............ 25 53 46 39 2'7 18 21 14 5 5 ........... 47 26 51 33 25 26 19 6 4 6 Wed 26 Mar 2003 -Total=2320, 15 minute drops, 0000 oioo 0200 0300 0400 0800 0800 0~00 0800 09o0 iooo iioo i200 i300 i~oo isoo i800 i700 i800 1800 2000 2i00 2200 2300 Thu 27 Mar 2003 - Total=2323, '15 minute drops, Fri 28 Mar 2003 -Total=1221(incomplete), '15 minute drops, City of Chula Vista Traffic EnRineerin Event Counts ntCount-885 ASETS: Site: [Clubhouse] Eastbound Approach to Granite Springs ChannelA: 8 - East bound A>B, West bound B>A. - Added to totals. (1 ChannelB: 0 - Unused or unknown. - Excluded from totals. (0) Survey Duration: 15:00 Tue 25 Mar 2003 to 16:38 Fri 28 Mar 2003 File: C:\Program Files\MetroCount v220\User\Data\Chula Vista~003\Clubhouse29MAP,2003.EC0 (Plus) Identifier: A843XAQ2 MC56-1 [MC55] (c)Microcom 07/06/99 Algorithm: Event count PROFILE: Filter time: 15:00 Tue 25 Mar 2003 to 16:38 Fri 28 Mar 2003 Name: Factory default profile Method: Count axles divided by two. Units: Non-Metric (ft, mi, f/s, mph, lb, ton) In profile: 3424 Events Tue 25 Mar 2003 -Total=580(incomplete), 15 minute drops, 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 230~ ............... 89 86 105 87 83 64 41 t6 9 ............ 18 23 26 18 28 12 10 5 3 4 .............. 26 27 26 25 15 12 9 6 2 4 ........... 27 16 25 23 21 21 9 2 4 4 · ~ 26 Mar 2003 - Total=Il44 15 m nute drops, i : ~0 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 13 4 2 0 2 8 57 49 55 45 61 64 59 85 88 90 70 85 99 78 68 48 18 ]~ 4 1 0 0 0 1 20 8 14 8 21 20 15 24 21 22 23 20 20 14 24 1I 2 5 1 AM PkHr 1t:30 to ';2:30 (n=71), AM PHF=O.85 PM PkHr 18:00 to 19:00 (n=99), PM PHF=0.75 Thu 27 Mar 2003 - Total=1173, 15 minute drops, 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 OBO0 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 6 2 2 1 5 6 58 47 49 45 55 61 81 75 61 72 83 104 120 85 75 53 14 13 3 0 0 0 i 0 1 14 8 9 9 16 20 16 15 24 15 28 37 21 16 16 5 0 I 1 1 0 1 0 3 14 8 12 11 19 21 27 14 7 13 23 24 33 25 15 14 6 5 2 1 1 2 0 4 2 14 12 14 7 17 17 12 27 24 15 24 25 31 23 27 8 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 29 13 15 18 10 7 22 18 15 20 21 27 19 16 17 15 0 3 2 AM PkHr 06:15 to 07:15 (n=71), AM PHF=0.61 PM PkHr 17:45 to 18:45 (n--128), PM PHF=0.06 Fri 28 Mar 2003 - Total=527(incomplete), 15 minute drops, 0000 oloo 0200 0300 0400 0800 8800 0700 0800 0~00 looo iioo i~oo 1300 i~oo isoo i~oo ivoo i800 ~800 2000 ~00 8200 2300 AM PkHr 09:15 to 10:15 (n=67), AM PHF=0.67 ORDiNANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A 35 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT ON CLUBHOUSE DRIVE BETWEEN HUNTE PARKWAY AND NORTH/SOUTH CREEKSDE DRIVE, THEREBY AMENDING SCHEDULE X OF A REGISTER MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER WHEREAS, based on the provisions of Division 11-Chapter 7-Article 1 (Sections 22348 through 22366) and Division 17-Chapter 3-Article 1 (Sections 40800 thru 40808) of the California Vehicle Code (CVC), and pursuant to authority under Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.48.020, titled "Established Speed Limits In Certain Zones," the City Engineer has determined that, in the interest of minimizing traffic hazards and for the promotion of public safety, the speed limit on Clubhouse Drive between Hunte Parkway and North/South Creekside Drive be established at 35 m.p.h.; and WHEREAS, the segment of Clubhouse Drive between Hunte Parkway and North/South Creekside includes a vertical curve that is 250' in length with a grade difference of 5%, and therefore, has a design speed of 35 m.p.h.; and WHEREAS, the Safety Commission of the City of Chula Vista, at its meeting of July 10, 2003, voted 5-0-2 to concur with the City Engineer's determination stated above. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Schedule X of a Register of Schedules maintained by the City Engineer as provided in Section 10.48.020 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, "Established Speed Limits in Certain Zones - Designated", is hereby amended to include the following information: Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.48.020 - SCHEDULE X ESTABLISHED SPEED LIMITS 1N CERTAIN ZONES Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Proposed Speed Limit Clubhouse North/South Drive Hunte Parkway Creekside Drive 35 MPH SECTION II: 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 Clifford Swanson Ann Moore Engineering Director City Attorney J:Attoraey\Ordinance\Hunte Parkway speed limit ~ ~ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item JO Meeting l)nte 8/26/03 ITEM TITLE: Ordinance Establishing a 45 mph speed limit on Hume Parkway between South Greensview Drive/Oak Springs Drive and Olympic Parkway, thereby amending Schedule X of a register maintained in the Office of the City Engineer. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Engineeringl~n~)) REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~' (4/Sths Vote: Yes No X '1 Based on the provisions of Division 11-Chapter 7-Article 1 (Sections 22348' thru 22366) and Division 17-Chapter 3-Article 1 (Sections 40800 thru 40808) of the California Vehicle Code (CVC), and pursuant to authority under Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.48.020, titled "Established Speed Limits In Certain Zones", the City Engineer has determined that, in the interest of minimizing traffic hazards and for the promotion of public safety, the speed limit on Hunte Parkway between South Greensview Drive/Oak Springs Drive and Olympic Parkway be established at 45 mph. This speed limit will be added to Schedule X of the register maintained in the Office of the City Engineer. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt an ordinance establishing a 45 mph speed limit on Hunte Parkway between South Greensview Drive/Oak Springs Drive and Olympic Parkway. Thereafter, Schedule X of the register maintained in the Office of the City Engineer will be amended to include the established speed limit on this portion of the aforementioned roadway. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Safety Commission, at their meeting of July 10, 2003, voted MSC (White/Gove) 5-0-2 (McAlister and Willett absent) to concur with staff's recommendation to establish a 45 mph speed limit on Hunte Parkway between South Greensview Drive/Oak Springs Drive and Olympic Parkway. Thereafter, Schedule X of the register maintained in the Office of the City Engineer will be amended to include the established speed limit on this portion of the aforementioned roadway. DISCUSSION: Based on CVC 22358 (Decrease of Local Speed Limits), whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an Engineering and Traffic Survey that the State maximum speed limit of 65 mph is more than is reasonable or safe upon any portion on any street other than a state highway, the local authority may, by ordinance, determine and declare a prima facie speed limit which is reasonable, safe and appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic on the roadway. This declared prima facie speed limit becomes effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the street. Page 2, Item /~ Meeting Date 8/26/03 On June 5, 2003, staffcompleted an Engineering and Traffic Survey for Hunte Parkway from Otay Lakes Road to Olympic Parkway. Currently, the existing portion of Hunte Parkway north of South Greensview Drive/Oak Springs Drive is posted with a 45 mph speed limit. On the newly constructed portion of Hunte Parkway, south of South Greensview Drive/Oak Springs Drive, 45 mph speed limit signs were installed when the roadway was built. In order for a speed limit on this portion of Hunte Parkway to be enfomeable, an Engineering and Traffic Survey has been completed. Hunte Parkway from South Greensview Drive/Oak Springs Drive to Olympic Parkway is a 4-lane roadway that varies in width from 88 to 112 feet wide curb-to-curb with a 24' wide raised median island separating the two directions of travel. The segment is 1,279 feet (0.24 miles) long and parking is prohibited along both sides of the roadway. Hunte Parkway has an Average Daily Traffic of 7,600. The accident rate for Hunte Parkway between Otay Lakes Road and Olympic Parkway is 1.06 per million vehicle miles, which is lower than the average rate of 1.85 for similar highways in the State of California. According to the Engineering and Traffic Survey, the 85th percentile speed on this segment of Hunte Parkway was determined to be 41 mph. Therefore, based on the prevailing travel speeds, an initial speed limit of 40 mph would be set for this roadway. However, Hunte Parkwaybetween Otay Lakes Road and South Greensview Drive/Oak Springs Drive is already posted dt 45 mph and it is desirable to have a consistent speed limit along the entire length of the roadway unless existing conditions would warrant setting a different speed limit. Since Hunte Parkway between South Greensview Drive/Oak Springs Drive and Olympic Parkway is an uninterrupted mildly curving roadway (3,600' radius) with a 550' sag vertical curve that produces a design speed of 50 mph for the roadway's vertical alignment, the physical conditions along the roadway would allow for a speed limit of 45 mph. This produces a consistent speed zone along the entire length of Hunte Parkway from Otay Lakes Road to Olympic Parkway. Upon completion of the Engineering and Traffic Survey, and based on both the 85% speed and the design speed of the vertical curve on Hunte Parkway, staff has determined that a 45 mph speed limit would be appropriate for the subject segment. Therefore, in accordance with CVC Sections 22357 and 22358, which authorize local authorities to establish prima facie speed limits on streets under their jurisdiction, staff is recommending that a 45 mph speed limit be established for Hunte Parkway between South Greensview Drive/Oak Springs Drive and Olympic Parkway. Upon approval of the proposed speed limit by City Council, Schedule X of the register maintained in the Office of the City Engineer will be revised to include the following information: SCHEDULE X - ESTABLISH SPEED LIMITS IN CERTAIN AREAS Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Proposed Speed Limit Hunte Parkway South Greensview Olympic Parkway 45 MPH Drive/Oak Springs Drive Page 2, Item Meeting Date 8/26/03 FISCAL IMPACT: Cost to install pavement legends at existing sign locations on this portion o£Hunt¢ Parkway is approximately $100. The existing budget is sufficient to fund the cost of the signage needed for this project. Attachment: Engineering and Traffic Survey Aerial Photo J:~Engineer~AGENDA~lunte Pkwy 45 mph al 13.sm.doc SPEED LIMIT - ENGINEERING/TRAFFIC SURVEY STREET: Hunte Parkway LIMITS: Olay Lakes Road to Olympic Parkway Length of Segment(R): 6.624' (1.25 miles) Existing Posted Limit (mph): 45 mdb fi.om Otav Lakes Rd. to S. Cn'eensv/ew and unvosted .. fi-om S. Greensview to Olvmpiq Pkwy. SUMMARY OF SPEED SURVEYS Segment: Ota¥ Lakes Rd.-Clubhouse Clubhouse Drive - S.Greensview Dr. S. Greensveiw - Olympic Pkwv Date Taken: 5/16/2003 5/16/2003 5/I6/2003 No. of Vehicles on Sample (mrs): 100 100 100 85a ?ertenfile (mph): 45 rrmh 44mph 4t mph Range of Speeds Reeonled (mph): 26-55 mph 26-51 mph 20-50 mph ~O,M)WAY CHARACTERISTICS Width (fit): Varies 79-112' curb to curb with raised median 4-24' Total No. of Lanes: 4 lanes total (2 per direction) Horizontal Alignment: 2,000.00' radius over 910.53' ofleneth alon~ entire centerline Vertical Alignment: Grade var/es fi-om +1.00% to -3.73% creatin~ a erade difference of 4.73% over a leneth of 600.00' south of Clubhouse Drive vroducin~ a desima sliced of 49 mph. TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Average Daily Traffic: 7,600 (2001) On-Street Par'king: Not Allowed Special Conditions: Bike lane throughout seement. Dual left mm cockers at Otav Lakes Road & Hunte Parkway. Left turn lanes at N. Greensview / Kin~ Creek Way. Clubhouse Drive, S.Greensview Drive. and Olwnvic Parkwav. Posted "25 MPH When School Children Are Present" between N. Greensview and Pointe VerdeRoad / School House Road. Direct drivewa¥ access to clubhouse park/nE Accident History: The accident rate at this se~oment is (1.06 Vet million vehicle miles) which is lower than the average rate of (1.85) for similar hiv_hwavs in the State of California. SURVEY RESULTS Study was Prepared by: Ikhlass Daood Date: 05/29/2003 ' Recommendation: Retain 45 rr~h from Otay Lakes Rd. to "::~ S'GreensviewDr'andp°st45mphfi'°m [i~~: 'NO..¢.5~0~ ~'! ~i ' ,2 S. Greens,view to Olympic Pkwy. Date Recommehdation Approved: ~tg,//~a~ Approveti Speed Limit (mp~)~Y~ Maled l(i-Chafrv. P.E., T.E. 45 mph Per CVC 40803, Survey Expires: 05/16/2010 .... J:~Engineer\TRAFFICSENGtNEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEYSXSpeed Eimit S~rveysh~Iunte Pkwy(Oihy Lakes l~d-O ympic Pkwy).dc CITY OF CHULA VISTA - VEHICLE SPEED SURVEY SEGMENT UNDER STUDY___Hunte Parkway_ DATE 5/15/2003 SURVEY SITE South Greensview- Olympic Parkway POSTED SPEED unposted TIME START 2:07 PM TIME END 2:20 WEATHER CLEAR DIRECTION:_SOUTH__ = O __NORTH = / MPH ~ ~o ~5 ~ TOTAl % CUM % 50 iO 1 1 100 49 I 0 0 100 48 ~Oi/ 2 2 99 47 O ~O 2 2 97 46 / 1 1 95 45 Q / 2 2 94 44 / / 2 2 92 43 O O 2 2 90 42 O O 2 2 88 40 0 0 0 0 4 4 82 39 0 0 lO 3 3 78 38 0 0 '0 0 0 O 0 / 8 8 75 37 0 0 0 / I/ 7 7 67 36 0 0 / 4 4 60 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 56 34 0 0 / / / 8 8 50 33 0 0 0 / 6 6 42, 32 0 0 0 3 3 3~ 31 0 0 / / / I/ 10 10 33 30 2 2 23 29 0 / 3 3 21 28 0 0 / 3 3 18 27 / 3 3 15 26 2 2 12 25 2 2 10 24 3 3 8 23 !/ 1 1 5 22 0 2 2 4 21 0 1 2 20 / 1 1 19 18 17 16 13 12 11 RECORDER: Ikhlass Daood TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 100 H:\HOME\ENGINEER\TRAFFIC\Speed_Surveys\Hunte Pkwy (S.Greensview-Olympic Pkwy).xls.xls ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A 45 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT ON HUNTE PARKWAY BETWEEN HUNTE SOUTH GREENSVIEW DRIVE/OAK SPRINGS DRIVE AND OLYMPIC PARKWAY, THEREBY AMENDING SCHEDULE X OF A REGISTER MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER WHEREAS, based on the provisions of Division 1 l-Chapter 7-Article 1 (Sections 22348 through 22366) and Division 17-Chapter 3-Article 1 (Sections 40800 thru 40808) of the California Vehicle Code (CVC), and pursuant to authority under Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.48.020, titled "Established Speed Limits In Certain Zones," the City Engineer has determined that, in the interest of minimizing traffic hazards and for the promotion of public safety, the speed limit on Hunte Parkway between South Greensview Drive/Oak Springs Drive and Olympic Parkway be established at 45 mph; and WHEREAS, the Safety Commission of the City of Chula Vista, at its meeting of July 10, 2003, voted 5-0-2 to concur with the City Engineer's determination stated above. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Schedule X of a Register of Schedules maintained by the City Engineer as provided in Section 10.48.020 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Established Speed Limits in Certain Zones - Designated, is hereby amended to include the following information: Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.48.020 - SCHEDULE X ESTABLISHED SPEED LIMITS IN CERTAIN ZONES Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Proposed Speed Limit South Greensview Olympic 45 MPH Hunte Parkway Drive/Oak Springs Drive Parkway SECTION II: 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 Clifford Swanson Ann Moore Engineering Director City Attorney J:Attomey\Ordinance\Hunte Parkway speed limit /cO -.'7 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT , Item /[ Meeting Date 8/26/03 ITEM TITLE: Ordinance decreasing the existing speed limit on Third Avenue between "G" Street and "H" Street, thereby amending Schedule X of a register maintained in the Office of the City Engineer. SUBMITTED BY: Director of EngineeringA~/ REVIEWED BY: C~ty Manager ~ ~,~/ (4/Sths Vote: Yes No X ) Based on the provisions of California Vehicle Code Sections 22352, 22358 and 40802 and pursuant to authority under Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.48.020, the City Engineer has determined that the speed limit on Third Avenue between "G" Street and "H" Street should be decreased from the existing 35 mph limit to 25 mph. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt an ordinance decreasing the existing speed limit on Third Avenue between "G" Street and "H" Street to 25 mph. Thereafter, Schedule X of the register maintained in the .office of the City Engineer will be amended to include this speed reduction. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Safety Commission, at their meeting of July 10, 2003, voted MSC (Gore/White) 5-0-2 (McAlister and Willett absent) to concur with staff's recommendation to decrease the existing speed limit on Third Avenue between "G" Street and "H" Street to 25 mph, and that Schedule X of the register maintained in the office of the City Engineer be revised to include this speed reduction. DISCUSSION: The City Engineer has determined the need to decrease the posted speed limit on Third Avenue between "G" Street and "H" Street from 35 mph to 25 mph in order to comply with California Vehicle Code (CVC) Sections 22352, 22358 and 40802. Section 22352 indicates that 25 mph speed limit may be established in "Business Districts" unless the local authority determines a different speed limit. Section 22358 authorizes the local agency to determine and declare, by ordinance or resolution, a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph on the above-mentioned segment of the roadway if the local agency determines that, upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey, the prima facie .speed of 25 mph is found to be the most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and ~s reasonable and safe for that roadway. Section 40802 requires that a Traffic and Engineering Survey be conducted within seven (7) years that justifies the posted speed limit. Currently, no engineering and traffic survey exists for Third Avenue between "G" Street and "H" Page 2, Item Meeting Date 8/26/03 Street. In addition, the existing survey for Third Avenue between "E" Street and "G" Street will expire on September 17, 2003. Staffhas Completed a new survey for Third Avenue between "E" Street and "H' Street that will be in effect from June 9, 2003 through June 5, 2010. The segment of Third Avenue between "E" Street and "G" Street is posted wtih a speed limit of 25 mph. Physical Conditions Third Avenue between "G' Street and "H" Street is 1331' (0.25 miles) long and 64-71' wide curb- to-curb. The street is a Class I Collector with businesses fronting on both sides of the roadway and a private school (St. Rose of Lima) is located on the east side of Third Avenue between Alvarado Street and "H' Street. Third Avenue in this area is striped for two lanes in each direction with a center painted median between "G" Street and "H" Street. Metered parking exists along both sides of the street. The segment has an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 18,071 (year 2002) and an 85th percentile speed of 33 mph. The segment is currently posted 35 mph in the northbound direction and is unposted in the southbound direction. The alignment of the roadway is tangent with less than a 1% grade along the length of the segment. An accident survey, including the last three years of recorded reports, was conducted for Third Avenue between "E' Street and "H" Street. The accident rate for the studied segment (5.90 per million vehicle miles) is much higher than the average accident rate (2.55 per million vehicle miles) that exists for similar roadways in the State of California. In addition to the above information, staff noted that Third Avenue between "E" Street and "G" Street is the Downtown Business District with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. Reducing the speed limit on Third Avenue between "G' Street and "H" Street would allow for a consistent 25 mph posted speed limit within this business district between the two major east-west traffic corridors of "E" Street and "H" Street. CONCLUSION Based on the above data, as well as other roadway characteristics outlined in the Engineering Traffic Survey, staffhas determined that the appropriate speed limit that should be posted along this segment of Third Avenue is 25 mph. Staff also recommends that Schedule X of the register maintained in the office of the City Engineer be revised as follows: 10.48.020 Schedule X - Established Speed Limits in Certain Zones - Designated Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Proposed Speed Limit Third Ave. "G" Street "H" Street 25 M.P.H. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost to install signs and pavement legends is $300.00. The existing budget is sufficient to fund the cost of the signage needed for this project. Attachments: Engineering Traffic Survey Aerial Photo J:~EngineerLAGENDA\Third Ave 25 mph A113.sm. doc SPEED LIMIT - ENGINEERING/TRAFFIC SURVEY . STREET: Third Avenue LIMITS: '~E" Street to "IF' Slxeet Length of Segment(fO: 3,990' (.756 miles) Existing Posted Limit (mph): 25 mph from '~E" Street to "G" Street and 35 mph from "G" Street to "IF' Street for northbound traffic only. SUMMARY OF SPEED sURVEYS Segment: "E" Street to "H" Street Date Taken: 6/5/2003 No. of Vehicles on Sample (cars):. ! 00 85th Percentile (mph): 33 mph Range of Speeds Recorded (mph): 21-40 mph ROAI~WA¥ CHARACTERISTICS Width (ft): Varies 48-82' with 5-20' raised median Total No. of Lanes: 2 lanes north of"F" Street (1 per direction) and 4 lanes south of"F" Street (2 per direction). Horizontal Alignment: tangent Vertical Alignment: less than 2% TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Average Daily Traffic: 15.632 (2002) On-Street Parking: metered and an~le parkin~ allowed north of Alvarado Street. Special Conditions: Downtoxxm Business District. St. Rosa of Lima School on the northeast comer of Third Avenue and "H" Street. From Roosevelt Street to H Street speed limit is posted "25 MPH When School Children Are Present". Accident History: The accident rate at this sem~ent is (5.9 per million vehicle miles) which is hi~her than the average rate of (2.55) for similar hi~hwavs in the State of Califorda. SURVEY RESULTS Study was Prepared by: Ikhlass Daood Date: 06/12/2003 Recommendation: Retain 25 mnh from "E" Street to "G" Street '' 35 . alld ex~sUn~ mph hmit between S et & H Street to 2~ --~v .......... ff,?.,./:~ "5 directions. ~_ Date Recommendation Approved: ~~2-~9__~ [}x~ r','o 05'~Ol Approved Speed Limit (mph)i 25 mph Per CVC 40803, Survey Expires. 06/05/2010 J:~Engineer\TRAFFIC~ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEYS\Speed L'mit Su~,eys\Th~rd Ave (E St.-H St.).doe CITY OF CHULA VISTA - VEHICLE SPEED SURVEY SEGMENT UNDER STUDY Third Avenue DATE 6/5/2003 SURVEY SITE E Street to H Street (radar taken between G Street and H Street) POSTED SPEED 35 MPH (for northbound traffic) TIME START 1:32 PM TIME END 1:55 PM WEATHER cloudy DIRECTION: South__: O _Norh : / MPH ~ ~o ~5 20 TOTAL % CUM ~ 45 44 43 42 41 40 1 1 100 39 0 0 99 38 1 1 99 37 0 0 98 36 2 2 98 35 O O / / 6 6 96 34 O / 3 3 90 32 O 0 / 6 6 79 31 D 0 0 / / 7 7 73 30 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 / 12 12 66 29 0 0 / I/ 6 6 54 28 O O O O / / / 11 11 48 27 O O O O / / / 12 12 37 26 O O O O O O O O 8 8 25 25 O Q O O 4 4 17 24 O O ,O O / 6 6 13 23 O O O O O O 6 6 7 22 0 0 1 21 I 1 1 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 RECORDER: IKHLASS DAOOD TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 100 H:\HOME\ENGINEER\TRAFFIC\Speed_Surveys\Third Ave.(E St-H St).xls.xls ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A 25 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT ON THIRD AVENUE, BETWEEN G STREET AND H STREET, AND AMENDING SCHEDULE X OF THE REGISTER AS MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER WHEREAS, based on the provisions of Califomia Vehicle Code Sections 22352. 22358 and 40803, and pursuant to authority under Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.48.020, the City Engineer has determined that based on a Traffic Engineering Study, the speed limit on Third Street between G Street and H Street should be decreased from the existing posted 35 m.p.h., to 25 m.p.h. WHEREAS, the Safety Commission of the City of Chula Vista, at its meeting of July 10, 2003, voted 5-0-2 to concur with the City Engineer's determination stated above. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Schedule X of a Register of Schedules maintained by the City Engineer as provided in Section 10.48.020 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Established Speed Limits in Certain Zones - Designated, is hereby amended to include the following changes: Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.48.020 - SCHEDULE X ESTABLISHED SPEED LIMITS IN CERTAIN ZONES Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Proposed Speed Limit Third Avenue G Street H Street 25 MPH SECTION II: 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 Clifford Swanson Ann Moore Engineering Director City Attorney //-,6 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 8/26/03 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving Agreement between Palomar Communications, Inc. and City o£ Chula Vista for Radio Repeater and Antenna Site Lease and Ratifying the action by the Director of Engineering for the continuation of the ctm'ent lease during the interim period SUBMITTED BY: Director of Engineering~.~/ REVIEWED BY: City Manager~/~~~t~r~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes No X ) fi-d~ __ This resolution would approve a lease agreement for space on a communications tower located on Otay Mountain for Chula Vista Transit's (CVT) radio repeater and antenna. Since 1992 CVT has been leasing a site on Otay Motmtain for its radio transmitting equipment through the Purchasing Division via the Purchase Order (P.O.) process. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve a Resolution approving an Agreement between Palomar Communications, Inc. and City of Chula Vista for Radio Repeater and Antenna Site Lease for the period September 1, 2003 - August 31, 2006 (Three-Year Lease) with annual increases based on the Wholesale Price Index published by the U.S. Department of Labor and ratify the action of the Director of Engineering for the continuation of the current lease during the interim pericld. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable DISCUSSION: In 1992, the City ofChula Vista's Transit Division acquired its own radio transmitting equipment to support its transit operations. The radio system is vital to the operations of the transit system. It links the bus operator to dispatch during emergencies, mechanical breakdowns, accidents and on going customer service. The radio equipment, repeater and antenna, has been located on Otay Mountain under a lease with Pinnacle Towers, Inc. for the last three years. The current P.O. ended on June 30, 2003, but in order to maintain the radio system operating Transit staff has reimburse Pinnacle through Direct Payments until we formalize a new lease agreement. Transit staff has received two quotes for a radio site lease at Otay Mountain from the following companies: Palomar Communications, Inc. Pinnacle Towers Inc. Monthly Rate Annualized Rate Monthly Rate Annualized Rate FY 04 $250.00 $3,000.00 $600.00 $7,200.00 FY 05 $257.50 $3,090.00 $618.00 $7,416.00 FY 06 $264.71 $3,182.70 $636.54 $7,638.48 Estimated Three-year Cost $9,272.70 $22,254.48 Note: For comparison purposes a three-percent annual increase quoted by Pinnacle has been applied to Palomar's rates Page 2, Item Meeting Date 8/26/03 The table above demonstrates the significant savings with Palomar Communications' price quote, $12,982 over a three-year period. In the meantime, action has been taken by the Director of Engineering to continue the current lease to maintain the radio system operational. The estimated cost for the current fiscal year mounts to $1,200 for Pinnacle Towers via Direct Payment and $2,500 for Palomar Communications once agreement is executed. FISCAL IMPACT: The radio site lease totals $3,000 annually. This cost is contained in the Transit Division budget, which is funded by MTS Consolidated TDA Article 4.0 funds. No General Fund contributions support this agreement. H:\ENGINEER\TRANSITXA113 Radio and Repeater Lease A~'eement.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2003- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN PALOMAR COMMUNICATIONS, 1NC. AND CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR RADIO REPEATER AND ANTENNA SITE LEASE AND RATIFYING THE ACTION BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE CURRENT LEASE DURING THE INTERIM PERIOD WHEREAS, in 1992, The City of Chula Vista's Transit Division acquired its own transmitting equipment to support its transit operations; and WHEREAS, the radio equipment, repeater, and antenna has been located on Otay Mountain under a contract with Pinnacle Towers, Inc. for the last three years; and WHEREAS, the current P.O. ended on June 30, 2003, but in order to maintain the radio system operating Transit staff has reimburse Pinnacle through direct payments until we formalize a new lease agreement; and WHEREAS, Transit staff has received two quotes for a radio repeater and antenna site lease at Otay Mountain from the following Companies: Palomar Communications, Inc. Pinnacle Towers, Inc. Monthly Annualized Rate Monthly Rate Annualized Rate Rate FY 04 $250.00 $3,000.00 $600.00 $ 7,200.00 FY 05 $257.50 $3,090.00 $618.00 $ 7,416.00 FY 06 $264.71 $3,182.70 $636.54 $ 7,638.48 Estimated Three-year $9,272.70 $22,254.48 Cost Note: For comparison purposes a three-percent annual increase quoted by Pinnacle has been applied to Palomar's rates NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approving an agreements bet~veen Palomar Communications, Inc. and City of Chula Vista for Radio Repeater and Antenna Site Lease and Ratifying the action by the Director of Engineering for the continuation of the current lease, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized to execute said Agreement of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by Cliff Swanson ~9~/Moore ~_~ '" Director of Engineering J~ty Attorney J :~A ttomey\Reso\Agreements\Palomar Communications THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE FORMALLY SIGNED UPON APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL City A~to~ey Dated: August 21, 2003 Agreement between Palomar Communications, Inc. and City of Chula Vista for Radio Repeater and Antenna Site Lease SITE LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE, made this 1st day of SeDtember, 2003, between Palomar Communications Inc., a California corporation, having its principal office at 2230 Micro Place, Escondido, California, 92029 hereinafter referred to as Lessor, and City of Chula Vista hereinafter referred to as Lessee: 1. Lessor hereby grants permission to Lessee to install, maintain, operate and remove communications equipment ("Equipment") on and in Lessor's property, antenna site and/or equipment room, herein sometimes referred to as the "Premises',, located at 1/4 mile S.W. of Doqhouse Junction, Otay Mountain, CA specifically, one repeater on 453.225 MHz. transmit, 458.225 MHz. receive. 100 watts max power output. Duplexer. All contained in one 2' x 2' x 6' cabinet. and the associated cables and antennas specifically, one 450 MHz. Yagi antenna to be placed at the unknown ft. level. 2. TERM AND TERMINATION - This Lease shall become effective upon installation of equipment or thirty (30) days from the afore mentioned date, which ever shall occur first, and shall continue in effect for a term of THREE year(s). This Lease may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days advance written notice. On termination of the Lease in accordance with any of its terms, Lessee shall immediately remove its antennas, wires, and appliances from Lessor's premises. 3. ATTACHMENTS TO PREMISES BY LESSEE - Lessee shall, at its own expense, maintain any Equipment on or attached to the Premises in a safe condition and in good repair, and in a manner reasonably suitable to Lessor so as not to conflict with the use of the premises by Lessor, or by any other company using the premises and so as not to interfere with the working use of facilities thereon or to be placed thereon. Lessee agrees to install equipment of types and frequencies which will not cause interference to Lessor or other existing Lessees of Lessor's property, antenna site and/or equipment room. In the event Lessee's equipment causes such interference, Lessee will take all steps necessary to correct and eliminate the interference. If said interference cannot be eliminated within forty-eight (48) hours after receipt of written notice from Lessor to Lessee, Lessee shall seek regulatory authorization to temporarily disconnect the electric power and shut down Lessee's equipment (except for intermittent operation for the purpose of testing, after performing maintenance, repair, modification, replacement, or other action taken for the purpose of correcting such interference). If such interference is not corrected within thirty (30) days after receipt of said written notice, Lessee agrees to seek regulatory authorization to establish alternative facilities and to remove its equipment from the premises. This Lease shall then terminate Without further obligation by either party, except as may be specifically enumerated herein. 4. Lessor agrees that Lessee shall have free access to Lessor's property, antenna site and/or equipment room for the purpose of installing, maintaining and operating Lessee's equipment, and Lessor further agrees to give Lessee free ingress and egress to the premises during the continuation of this Lease and any renewals thereof. Lessor shall furnish Lessee with necessary keys for the purpose of ingress and egress to the premises. It is agreed, however, that only authorized engineers, employees, contractors, sub-contractors, and agents of Lessee, FCC inspectors, or persons under their direct supervision, will be permitted to enter the premises. 5. COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTES AND REGULATIONS - Antennas, wires and appliances of Lessee shall be erected and maintained in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the safety codes of the State of California, or any amendments or revisions thereof, and in compliance with any rules or orders now in effect, or that hereafter may be issued by the Federal Communications Commission. 6. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF PREMISES - Lessor reserves to itself, its successors, and assigns, the right to maintain the premises and to operate its facilities thereon in such manner as will best enable it to fulfill its own service requirements, but in accordance with the specifications herein mentioned. Lessor shall not be liable to Lessee for any interruption of service of Lessee or for interference with the operation of the equipment, wires and appliances of Lessee arising in any manner from use of the premises hereunder, unless due to negligence of Lessor, its employees, agents or invitees. 7. RENTAL OF PREMISES- Lessee shall pay to Lessor for the use of the premises described hereunder, a rental rate of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars per month, payable in advance, commencing on the commencement date of the lease as provided for in Paragraph 2. 8. UTILITIES - Electrical power is to be supplied and paid for by: X Lessor or Lessee. 9. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT - All B.L.M. fees resulting from the installation and use of the Lessee's equipment at the Premises shall be paid by the Lessee within 30 days of being presented with the amount of such fees. Not applicable this lease. 10. INDEMNIFICATIONS AND INSURANCE - Lessee shall indemnify Lessor against any and all claims and demands for damages to property and injury or death to persons, including any payments made under any workmen's compensation law or any plan for employee's disability and death benefits, which may arise out of or be caused by the installation, maintenance, presence, use or removal of Lessee's equipment, or by any act of Lessee on or in the vicinity of the premises described hereunder. Lessor shall indemnify Lessee and hold Lessee harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses and causes of action, of whatever kind or nature, which are suffered by or asserted against Lessee by any person, and which arise out of, or in connection with, or are based upon, any acts or omissions of negligence on the part of Lessor, its employees, agents or invitees under this Lease. Lessee shall carry adequate insurance to protect the parties hereto against any and all claims, demands, actions, judgments, costs, expenses and liabilities which may arise or result, directly or indirectly from Lessee's use of the Premises, except such liability as shall arise out of the negligence of Lessor. The amounts of such insurance against liability due to damage to property shall be One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.); as to any one occurrence and against liability due to injury or death of a person, One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.). Lessee shall also carry such insurance as will protect it from all claims under any workmen's compensation laws in effect that may be applicable to Lessee. All insurance required hereunder shall remain in force for the entire life of this agreement. Upon request, Lessee shall, so long as this Lease shall remain in force, provide to Lessor current certificates of insurance evidencing that such insurance is in full force and effect. 11. RIGHTS TO EQUIPMENT - Any and all machinery, equipment and trade fixtures installed by Lessee shall remain personalty notwithstanding the fact that it may be affixed or attached to the realty, and shall, during the term of this Lease or any extension or renewal thereof, belong to and be removable for Lessee. Lessee may, at its election, remove said machinery, equipment and trade fixtures on or before the expiration of the term of this Lease provided that Lessee shall repair any damage caused by said removal wear and tear acceptable. Any of Lessee's property remaining on the Premises thirty (30) days after the expiration or termination of this Lease, which Lessor does not require Lessee to remove, shall become the property of Lessor, free of any claim by Lessee or any person claiming through Lessee. 12. RENTAL RATE INCREASE - The rental rate of $250.00 per month shall be reviewed annually on the anniversary date on the beginning of the Term, and shall be adjusted as follows: The basis for completing the adjustment is the Wholesale Price Index, published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics ("Index"), which is published for the date nearest the date of the Term ("Beginning Index"). If the Index published nearest the anniversary adjustment date ("Extension Index") has increased over the Beginning Index, the minimum monthly rent for the following year shall be set by multiplying the minimum monthly rent set forth in Paragraph 7 above by a fraction, the numerator of which is the Extension Index and the denominator of which is the Beginning Index. If the Index is discontinued or revised during this Term, such other government Index or computation with which it is replaced shall be used in order to obtain substantially the same result as would have been obtained if the Index had not been discontinued or revised. 13. DEFAULT - In the event Lessee fails to comply with any of the provisions of this Lease, including the specifications herein mentioned, or default in any of its obligations under this Lease, Lessor may, at its option, immediately terminate this Lease provided Lessor has given Lessee ten (10) days written notice of such default and Lessee has failed to cure the same within twenty (20) days after receipt of such notice provided, however, that where such default cannot reasonably be cured in such twenty (20) day period, if Lessee shall proceed promptly to cure the same and prosecute such curing with due diligence, the time for curing such default shall be extended for such period of time as may be necessary to complete such curing. Lessor hereby expressly waives its Landlord's lien and any and all rights granted by or under any present or future laws to levy or distrain for rent, in arrears, in advance, or both upon any or all antennas, machinery, equipment and other personal property of Lessee or any assignee or sub-tenant of Lessee on the Premises. In addition, Lessor will not, except in any emergency, cure any alleged default by Lessee until after the expiration of twenty (20) days after Lessee's receipt of notice provided for herein and then only if Lessee has failed, during such period, to cure such default or perform such act. 14. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLEASE - Lessee shall have the right to assign this Lease or to sublet without Lessor's consent, to any parent, subsidiary or affiliate of Lessee or to any person, firm or corporation which shall be controlled by, under the control of, or under common control with Lessee, or any corporation into which Lessee may be merged or consolidated or which purchases all or substantially all of the assets of Lessee. Lessor covenants and agrees that it will not unreasonably withhold or delay its consent to any other assignment of this Lease, or subletting of all or any part of the Premises, to any other person, firm or corporation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lessee shall remain liable hereunder just as fully as if such assignment or subletting had not been made. 15. ATTORNEY'S FEES - In the event of any action filed in relation to this Lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other reasonable attorney's fees and other disbursements. 16. MANNER OF GIVING NOTICE - Any notice to be given under this Lease shall be mailed to the party to be notified at the address set forth herein, by registered or certified mail with postage prepaid, and shall be deemed given when so mailed. Any demand or notice to either party may be given to the other party by addressing the written notice to: Lessor: Palomar Communications, Inc. 2230 Micro Place Escondido, CA 92029 Lessee: City of Chula Vista, Transit Div. 1800 Maxwell Rd. Chula Vista, CA 91911 17. Lessor covenants and agrees with Lessee that upon Lessee paying the rent and observing and performing all the terms, covenants and conditions, on Lessee's part to be observed and performed, Lessee may peacefully and quietly enjoy the Premises, subject nevertheless to the terms and conditions of this Lease. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT, SEVERABILITY - This Lease embodies the entire agreement between the parties. It may not be modified or terminated except as provided herein or by other written agreement between the parties. If any provision herein is invalid, it shall be considered deleted from this Lease, and shall not invalidate the remaining provisions of this Lease. 19. PARTIES' BOUND BY AGREEMENT - Subject to the provisions hereof, this Lease shall extend to and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 20. TOWER MARKING & LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS - Lessor acknowledges that it, and not Lessee, shall be responsible for compliance with all tower or building marking and lighting requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") or the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"). Lessor shall indemnify and hold Lessee harmless from any fines, or other liabilities caused by Lessor's failure to comply with such requirements. Further, should Lessee be cited by either the FCC or FAA because this site is not in compliance, and if Lessor does not cure the conditions of noncompliance within the time frame allowed by the citing agency, Lessee may terminate this License Agreement immediately upon notice to Lessor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement on the day and the year first above written. Lessor' Palomar Communications, Inc. Title: Dean R. Hovey, President Lessee: City of Chula Vista By: Title: City Attorney: COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 8/26/03 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving the creation of three classifications, reclassifying various positions in various departments and adjusting the salary table therefore, and changing various position titles. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Human Resourcestj,~'" REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ (4/5th Vote: Yes __ No X ) The Human Resources Department has reviewed several classifications based on changes in duties and responsibilities and, as a result, is recommending reclassifying several positions and creating several new classifications. In addition, it is recommended that several positions' titles be changed to better reflect job content. RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt the resolution approving the creation of 4 new unclassified classifications and 2 new classified classifications, approving 8 reclassifications and approving various title changes, effective the pay period beginning September 5, 2003. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION: Summary During the past few months Human Resources staff has reviewed various positions to determine if reclassification is warranted given changes in duties and responsibilities that have arisen since the job was created. After a thorough review a number of positions were recommended for reclassification, some to newly created positions. It is recommended that the following new classifications be added to the City,s salary table: 1) Chiefof Staff, an unclassified at-will position with senior management benefits and an annual E step salary of $75,375.04; 2) Constituent Services Manager, an unclassified at-will position with middle management benefits and an annual E step salary of $68,519.10; 3) Community Liaison, an unclassified at-will position with confidential benefits and an annual E step salary of $37,026.34; 4) Senior Council Assistant, an unclassified hourly position with an E step hourly salary of $25.90; 5) Design Specialist, a classified middle-management position with an annual E step salary of $59,577.70; and 6) Gift Shop Specialist, a classified CVEA position with an E step annual salary of $35,428.55. It is recommended that the following reclassifications take place in the departments listed based on changes in duties and responsibilities: l) In the Mayor and Council Department: reclassifying the Special Assistant to the Mayor to Chief of Staff, reclassifying the Staff Director-Office of Mayor and Council to Constituent Services Manager, and reclassifying the Office Specialist to Community Liaison, Page 2, Item ;3) Meeting Date 8/26/03 and 2) In the Administration Department reclassifying the Graphics Designer to Design Specialist and reclassifying the Communications Specialist and increasing the annual E step salary to $59,577.70, and 3) In the Nature Center Department reclassifying the Bookstore Manager to Girl Shop Specialist, and 4) In the Police Department reclassifying an Office Specialist to a Secretary, and changing the CBAG Network Assistant position from CVEA to unclassified at-will with Confidential benefits, and 5) in the Management and Information Services Department reclassifying the Operations and Telecommunications Manager and increasing the annual E step salary to $79,999.66. It is recommended the flowing position titles be changed to better reflect job content, industry standard and their respective department and profession: change the Manager of Organization Development and Training (ODT) to Chief Learning Officer, change the Senior ODT Specialist to Senior Employee Development Specialist, change Public Information Officer to Director of Communications, change Adoption Counselor to Animal Services Specialist, change Volunteer Coordinator (City-wide) to Human Resources Analyst, change Personnel Analyst to Human Resoumes Analyst, change Senior Personnel Analyst to Senior Human Resources Analyst, change Principal Personnel Analyst to Principal Human Resources Analyst and change Council Assistant III to Council Assistant. Administration Department Reclassify the incumbent Graphics Designer to a new mid-management position of Design Specialist with a salary of $59,577.70 (E-Step), which is a 17% increase; and adjust the salary of the incumbent Communications Specialist's salary to $59,577.70 (E-Step), which is an 8% increase. These positions will now be aligned with each other based on the scope and complexity of assignments and their role in furthering the professional image of the City of Chula Vista. The $25,952 FY04 cost FY04 will be absorbed through salary savings the ongoing cost of $33,530 will be covered through offsetting budget reductions in FY05. Mayor and City Council Department The new Chief of Staff classification will report directly to the Mayor and be responsible for the conduct of all the Mayor's business, and the general conduct of the Office of the Mayor and Council. The Constituent Services Manager will report directly to the Chief of Staff and provide assistance to the Council on constituent related issues. The Community Liaison will act as liaison between the community and the Mayor's office to assist as appropriate with commtmity related issues. Lastly, the new classification of Senior Council Assistant is being created with a salary 10% above a Council Assistant. This position will work at the direction ofthe assigned Council member. The $20,431 cost of these changes in FY04 will be absorbed in the department's budget. The ongoing cost of $18,285 will be covered through future years' budget adjustments. Management and Information Services Department The Operations and Telecommunications Manager position's responsibilities have significantly changed in complexity and level of assignments and projects as the telecommunications needs of the City have grown in the last few years. The City has expanded in the area of communications with voice processing, and the City's network, which includes the need for connectivity to remote sites such as the recreation centers, fire stations, Eastlake offices and other new City facilities. These telecommunications issues have become a major responsibility for this position and therefore, the Page 3, Item /3 Meeting Date 8/26/03 incumbent. The main areas of responsibility include the management, implementation and monitoring of the City's PBX systems which also include designing and supervising the City's new voice and data communication network infrastructure for new and remodeled City facilities and determining current and future hardware and software needs in the area of telecommunications to meet the City's continued growth and technological needs. Based on the findings, and in reviewing the scope of duties, level of responsibilities assigned, and the internal relationship within the department, salary placement for the .Operations and Telecommunications Manager is recommended at $79,999.66 (E~Step), which is a 10% ~ncrease. The current year fiscal impact of $7,527 and future years' fiscal impact of $9,767 can be absorbed in the department's budget. Nature Center The Bookstore Manager position is accountable for the day-to-day responsibilities of the Nature Center gift shop, which includes store inventory, marketing and public relations, and financial duties related to the gift shop. The incumbent has been able to "modernize" processes and procedures for accountability and replacement of popular items in the shop, which consequently have increased the revenue by almost 20% from the previous year. The installation of the new point of sale register will computerize merchandise tracking at all stages (incoming, sales, inventory, cost, and more). This will enable the incumbent to produce more detailed reports as needed by the Director, as well as planning a better marketing strategy for the gift shop in the Nature Center. The current salary guidelines align this position to 10% below the Accounting Assistant salary. The current alignment is 20% below the Accounting Assistant's Salary. It is recommended that the salary guidelines be followed, which will result in a 10% salary adjustment for the incumbent. It is also recommended that the title be changed to Gift Shop Specialist, which will better reflect the scope of duties and responsibilities related to this classification. The cost of this increase in FY04 of $13,187 and in future fiscal years of$16,964 will be absorbed in the department's budget. Police Department The Office Specialist position was budgeted in July 2001 to provide a wide variety of clerical and secretarial support to the Patrol Division. Since this position was new and the duties were not fully established, Shannon & Associates classified this position at the Office Specialist level during Phase I of the classification study. This position's responsibilities have increased in scope since August 2001. The duties include transcribing Internal Affairs discipline investigations and employee performance evaluations, both are extremely confidential, deadline sensitive, and require transcribing verbatim or editing as needed; working closely with the Scheduling Lieutenant and Agent in charge of the Field Training Officer (FTO) Program to keep current on Field Training Officers assignments. Additional responsibilities are to create and maintain FTO trainee files and records, schedule, notify, set up and take minutes at FTO meetings, other meetings and committees, and enter data to several databases and generate statistical reports as requested. Based on the scope and complexity of duties it is recommended that the incumbent's position be reclassified to Secretary, a 15% increase. Mistakenly the CBAG Network Assistant was placed in CVEA when it was created. Since all CBAG positions are unclassified it is recommended the classification be given confidential group benefits and be moved out of CVEA, consistent with all other CBAG positions. CBAG reimburses the cost of all CBAG personnel so the only additional cost to the department is for the reclassification to secretary, a cost of $7,393 this fiscal year and $9,508 on an ongoing basis. This cost can be absorbed in the department's budget. Page 4, Item Meeting Date 8/26/03 FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of the various reclassifications for FY04 is $74,490. These costs will be absorbed by the respective departments through salary or other savings. The estimated ongoing annual cost of $88,054 will be absorbed within the existing FY05 adopted spending plan through offsetting budget reductions. RESOLUTION NO. 2003- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE CREATION OF THREE CLASSIFICATIONS, RECLASSiFYING VARIOUS POSITIONS IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AND ADJUSTING THE SALARY TABLE THEREFORE, AND CHANGING VARIOUS POSITION TITLES. WHEREAS, Human Resources staff has reviewed various positions to determine if reclassification is warranted given changes in duties and responsibilities that have arisen since the job was created; and WHEREAS, after a thorough review, it was recommended that a number of positions be reclassified and several new classifications be created; and WHEREAS, approval of each of the following recommendations will allow classification changes to accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of the position. l. Admini~tratlnn I'}e?artment Reclassify the incumbent Graphics Designer to a new mid-management position of Design Specialist with a salary of $59,577.70 (E-Step), which is a 17% increase; and adjust the salary of the incumbent Communications Specialist's salary to $59,577.70 (E-Step), which is an 8% increase. These positions will now be aligned with each other based on the scope and complexity of assignments and their role in furthering the professional image of the City of Chula Vista. The $25,952 FY04 cost FY04 will be absorbed through salary savings the ongoing cost of $33,530 will be covered through offsetting budget reductions in FY05. 2. Mayor and (~ity (~onneil Department Create a new Chief of Staff classification which will report directly to the Mayor and be responsible for the conduct of all the Mayor's business, and the general conduct of the Office of the Mayor and Council. Create a Constituent Services Manager which will report directly to the Chief of Staff and provide assistance to the Council on constituent related issues. Create a Community Liaison which will act as liaison between the community and the Mayor's office to assist as appropriate with community related issues. Lastly, create the new classification of Senior Council Assistant with a salary 10% above a Council Assistant. This position will work at the direction of the assigned Council member. The $20,431 cost of these changes in FY04 will be absorbed in the department's budget. The ongoing cost of $18,285 will be covered through future years' budget adjustments. 3. Mgng~ement 9nfl lnfnrmRtinn ,qerviceK De?grtment The Operations and Telecommunications Manager position's responsibilities have significantly changed in complexity and level of assignments and projects as the telecommunications needs of the City have grown in the last few years. The City has expanded in the area of communications with voice processing, and the City's network, which includes the need for connectivity to remote sites such as the recreation centers, fire stations, Eastlake offices and other new City facilities. These telecommunications issues have become a major responsibility for this position and therefore, the incumbent. The main areas of responsibility include the management, implementation and monitoring of the City's PBX systems which also include designing and supervising the City's new voice and data communication network infrastructure for new and remodeled City Facilities and determining current and future hardware and software needs in the area of telecommunications to meet the City's continued growth and technological needs. Based on the findings, and in reviewing the scope of duties, level of responsibilities assigned, and the internal relationship within the department, salary placement for the Operations and Telecommunications Manager is recommended at $79,999.66 (E-Step), which is a 10% increase. The current year fiscal impact of $7,527 and future years' fiscal impact of $9,767 can be absorbed in the department's budget. 4. Natnre ¢Tenter The Bookstore Manager position is accountable for the day-to-day responsibilities of the Nature Center gift shop, which includes store inventory, marketing and public relations, and financial duties related to the gift shop. The incumbent has been able to "modernize" processes and procedures for accountability and replacement of popular items in the shop, which consequently have increased the revenue by almost 20% from the previous year. The installation of the new point of sale register will computerize merchandise tracking at all stages (incoming, sales, inventory, cost, and more). This will enable the incumbent to produce more detailed reports as needed by the Director, as well as plarming a better marketing strategy for the gift shop in the Nature Center. The current salary guidelines align this position to 10% below the Accounting Assistant salary. The current aligun~ent is 20% below the Accounting Assistant's Salary. It is recommended that the salary guidelines be followed, which will result in a 10% salary adjustment for the incumbent. It is also recommended that the title be changed to Gift Shop Specialist, which will better reflect the scope of duties and responsibilities related to this classification. The cost of this increase in FY04 of $13,187 and in future fiscal years of $16,964 will be absorbed in the department's budget. 5. Police I/e?artment The Office Specialist position was budgeted in July 2001 to provide a wide variety of clerical and secretarial support to the Patrol Division. Since this position was new and the duties were not fully established, Shannon & Associates classified this position at the Office Specialist level during Phase I of the classification study. This position's responsibilities have increased in scope since August 2001. The duties include transcribing Internal Affairs discipline investigations and employee performance evaluations, both are extremely confidential, deadline sensitive, and require transcribing verbatim or editing as needed; working closely with the Scheduling Lieutenant and Agent in charge of the Field Training Officer (FTO) Program to keep current on Field Training Officers assignments. Additional responsibilities are to create and maintain FTO trainee files and records, schedule, notify, set up and take minutes at FTO meetings, other meetings and con-unittees, and enter data to several databases and generate statistical reports as requested. Based on the scope and complexity of duties it is recommended that the incumbent's position be reclassified to Secretary, a 15% increase. Mistakenly the CBAG Network Assistant was placed in CVEA when it was Lreate4. Since all CBAG positions are unclassified it is recommended the classification be given confidential group benefits and be moved out of CVEA, consistent with all other CBAG positions. CBAG reimburses the cost of all CBAG personnel so the only additional cost to the department is for the reclassification to secretary, a cost of $7,393 this fiscal year and $9,508 on an ongoing basis. This cost can be absorbed in the department's budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt the resolution approving the creation of 4 new unclassified classifications and 2 new classified classifications, approving 8 reclassifications and approving various title changes, effective the pay period beginning September 5, 2003. Presented by Approved as to form by Marcia Raskin Ann Moore Director of Human Resources City Attorney J:\attomey~reso\classification~reclass.var 03 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 8-26-03 ITEM TITLE: Ordinance amending Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.05.010 relating to the establishment of unclassified positions. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Haman Resources REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ (4/5tbs Vote: Yes: X No: ) Chula Vista City Charter Section 500 requires that all unclassified positions not mentioned specifically in Charter Section 500 be adopted by Ordinance. The Charter also requires that the Ordinance be adopted by a four-fifths vote of the Council. Several new unclassified positions have been created in the recent past. Additionally, with the addition of the new positions, some of the previously existing positions have become obsolete. Consequently, Section 2.05.010 must be amended to reflect the changes to the unclassified positions. This amendment to Section 2.05.010 will add to thc Section all newly created unclassified positions and delete all obsolete or renamed unclassified positions. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the Ordinance amending the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.05.010 relating to thc establishment of uncla§sified positions. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: Background Throughout the years, City Staff has made several amendments to the Municipal Code to add or delete unclassified positions from the ordinance. In the last two years many changes have been made to the ranks of unclassified positions. However, not all changes have been formally adopted by ordinance as required by Chula Vista City Charter Section 500. Adoption of the proposed changes will update the Municipal Code section so that it accurately reflects all the changes that have been made to the list of unclassified positions. FISCAL IMPACT: Passage of this ordinance has no fiscal impact. Attachment 1: City of Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.05.010. J:/Attomey/Council Agenda Statement 2.02.010 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 2.05 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCLUDE NEWLY CREATED UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS AND TO DELETE UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS NO LONGER USED BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WHEREAS, the Human Resources Department has created new classifications to better reflect the needs of the City's workforce; and WHEREAS, the Human Resources Department has deleted classifications when those classifications have become obsolete; and WHEREAS, the Charter Section 500(a) requires that all new unclassified management level positions be adopted by ordinance and a four-fifths vote of the Council. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: SECTION I.' That Section 2.05.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.05.010 Unclassified positions established. In addition to those unclassified positions specifically delineated in Section 500 of the Charter of the city, there are established the unclassified positions entitled deputy city manager, administrative services manaqer, deputy fire chief, assistant fire chief, assistant chief of police, assistant director of finance, assistant director of budqet and analysis, fiscal operations manager, funds development strategic planninq manaqer, purchasin.q aqent, treasu ma~, assistant director of human resources, director of employee development, risk manaqer, ~ssistant director of public works and operations, assistant director of buildinq and housing, deputy building official, buildinq services manaqer, building and park construction manager, parks and open space manaqer, assistant director of recreation, housing coordinator, real property manager, transit coordinator, assistant director of community development, community relations manager, Western Chula Vista development manager, traffic engineer, deputy director of engineering, assistant library director, chief learninq officer, director of communications, police captain, director of conservation and environmental servicec, deputy director of planninq, assistant director of planning, special planning projects manager, general plan project manaqer, chief of staff, constituent services manaqer, community liaison (assiqned to the Office of the Mayor and City Council), California border alliance group deputy executive director, California border alliance qroup budqet manaqer, ~alifornia border alliance qroup meth. strike force coordinator, California C:~Documents and Settings~annak\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OgK54\Unclassified Position Ord.,doc Page 1 of 2 border alliance group network administrator, California border alliance group operations/intelligence coordinator, California border alliance group pro.qram analyst, California border alliance qroup mana.qement assistant, and California border alliance qroup network assistant. SECTION Il: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect upon its second reading and adoption. Submitted by: Approved as to form by: Marcia Raskin Ann Moore Director of Human Resources City Attorney C:~Documents and Settings\annak\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK54\Unclassified Position Ord..doc Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 2.05 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCLUDE NEWLY CREATED UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS AND TO DELETE UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS NO LONGER USED BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WHEREAS, the Human Resources Department has created new classifications to better reflect the needs of the City's workforce; and WHEREAS, the Human Resources Department has deleted classifications when those classifications have become obsolete; and WHEREAS, the Charter Section 500(a) requires that all new unclassified management level positions be adopted by ordinance and a four-fifths vote of the Council. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Section 2.05.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.05.010 Unclassified positions established. In addition to those unclassified positions specifically delineated in Section 500 of the Charter of the city, there are established the unclassified positions entitled deputy city manager, administrative services mana.qer, deputy fire chief, assistant fire chief, assistant chief of police, assistant director of finance, assistant director of budqet and analysis, fiscal operations mana.qer, funds development strategic planninq manager, purchasin.q aqent, treasury manager, assistant director of human resources, director of employee development, risk manaqer, assistant director of public works and operations, assistant director of building and housin0, deputy buildinq official, buildinq services manager, building and park construction manaqer, parks and open space manaqer, assistant director of recreation, housing coordinator, real property manaqer, transit coordinator, assistant director of community development, community relations manager, Western Chula Vista development manager, traffic engineer, deputy director 9f engineering, assistant library director, chief learning officer, director of communications, police captain, director of conservation and environmental services, deputy director of planning, assistant director of planning, special planning projects manager, general plan proiect manager, chief of staff, constituent services manager, community liaison (assiqned to the Office of the Mayor and City Council), California border alliance .qroup deputy executive director, California border alliance qroup budget manaqer, Californa border alliance group meth. strike force coordinator, California J:\Attomey\Ordinance\Unclassified Position Ord..doc Page 1 of 2 border alliance qroup network administrator, California border alliance qroup operations/intelliqence coordinator, California border alliance group program analyst, California border alliance qroup management assistant, and California border alliance group network assistant. SECTION I1: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect upon its second reading and adoption. Submitted by: Approved as to form by: Dave Rowlands Ann Moore City Manager City Attorney J:\Attomey\Ordinance\Unclassified Position Ord..doc Page 2 of 2 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM MEETING DATE 08126/03 ITEM TITLE: 1) Resolution requesting that the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) authorize a referendum to be conducted among eligible Fire Safety Employees to provide Medicare-Only coverage 2) Resolution requesting that the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) au.thorize a referendum to be conducted among eligible Police Safety Employees to provide Medicare-Only coverage 3) Resolution requesting that the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) authorize a division of the present Miscellaneous employees' retirement system to provide Medicare-Only coverage to eligible employees SUBMITTED BY: DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES~T~/ REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER~ --/1~{'~--(4/Sth Vote: Yes_ NoX) Employees hired prior to April 1,1986, are currently exempt from participation in Medicare. Because of this, they may end up paying higher health insurance premiums once they reach age 65 than if they had participated. Medicare-Only coverage can be extended to these exempt employees through an election process governed by CalPERS. These resolutions are the first step in that process. RECOMMENDATION: That Council authorize staffto proceed with procuring Medicare- Only coverage for employees hired prior to April 1, 1986 and adopt the resolutions as the first step in that process. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION: Medicare is a federal insurance program for people with certain disabilities and for those ages 65 and over. Medicare has two parts: Part A (Hospital Insurance) pays some of the costs of hospitalization and limited nursing home care and Part B (Medical Insurance) primarily covers doctors' fees, most outpatient hospital services, and certain related services. Because Medicare does not coverall healthcare expenses, it is usually beneficial to use these benefits to offset some of the cost of a comprehensive private insurance J:\Sheryll%Word Documents~- Edith's Agenda Info\Medicare Only A113.doc Page 1 of 4 15 t program for seniors such as PacifiCare's Secure Horizons and KaiseYs Senior Advantage. Federal Law requires Medicare Hospital Insurance (Part A) contributions for employees hired on or after April 1, 1986. The employer and the employee each contribute 1.45% of the employee's gross wages for this coverage. Pursuant to California's Government and Administrative Codes and the Social Security Act, employees hired prior to April 1, 1986 are specifically excluded from Medicare participation unless the City conducts an election among eligible employees via a process governed by CalPERS. A pre-April 1, 1986, employee who has not participated in Medicare and is not otherwise eligible for Medicare, either through their spouse or Social Security retirement benefits earned from another employer (at least 40 credits-or about 10 years), will pay significantly more for health insurance when they reach age 65 than they would had they participated in Medicare. The following shows the difference in 2003 health insurance premiums for individuals age 65 and over with and without Medicare Part A coverage. Monthly Employee Status Plan Employee Only Premium Post 4/1/86 Employee with Kaiser Senior Advantage $184.70* Medicare Part A Post 4/1/86 Employee with PacifiCare Secure Horizons** $222.70* Medicare Part A Pre 4/1/86 Employee without Medicare Part Kaiser Senior Advantage $708.00 A Coverage *Includes a $58.70 premium for Medicare Part B. ** PacifiCare Secure Horizons only accepts Medicare eligible participants. As you can see, retirees not eligible for Medicare are currently paying an average of $6,052 more per year for their health coverage than those who are Medicare eligible. There are currently 186 active employees who were hired prior to April 1, 1986. There is no way to know how many of these individuals may be otherwise eligible for Medicare either through their spouses or other employment. The Solution The cost of post-retirement health care is a concern to all of us. As an employer, the City has an opportunity to mitigate the impact of these costs to those individuals who have already given at least seventeen years of their lives to the City. Through CalPERS, the City can offer the affected employees an opportunity to participate in Medicare. There are specific regulations depending on one's safety status in CalPERS as to what and howthe option to participate can be implemented. J:\Sher~lF~Word Docurnents~Z_- Edith's Agenda Info\Medicare Only A113.doc Page 2 of 4 For Fire and Police Safety Members, coverage may only be offered on an "All or None Basis". Eligible members (those hired prior to 4/1/86) would vote in a referendum. If a majority of the members vote in favor of Medicare-Only coverage, all employees occupying positions covered under the Fire or Police Safety Retirement plans would contribute the 1.45% of their salary and would earn Medicare credits. Conversely, if a majority of the members voted against participation, no one would be allowed to participate. Because of this apl or nothing proposition, it is proposed that the Police and Fire referendums be held separately to meet the needs of each profession's members. For Miscellaneous Members, coverage may be offered on the "All or None Basis" described above or on a "Divided Basis", which allows each eligible employee on the election date to make a one time irrevocable choice as to whether or not they personally wish to participate in Medicare-Only coverage. Because each person's circumstances are different, it is recommended that the "Divided Basis" option be used for the Miscellaneous employees. The Process The entire process may take more than a year. To accommodate this timeline and upon approval of the Social Security Administration, the City's Medicare-Only coverage for eligible employees will take effect October 1, 2004. The following procedures will be followed pursuant to Sections 20457, 20461.5, 20497, 22150-22152 and 22300-22307 of the California Government Code, Sections 593-598.1 and 598.60-598.68 of the California Administrative Code and Section 218(d) of the Social Security Act: 1. Adopt a resolution requesting permission to conduct a Division among eligible CalPERS Miscellaneous members of the Retirement Plan - Medicare-Only (today's action). 2. Adopt resolution requesting permission to conduct a referendum among eligible CalPERS Safety (police safety) members of the Retirement Plan - Medicare-Only (today's action). 3. Adopt a resolution requesting permission to conduct a referendum among eligible CaIPERS Safety (fire safety) members of the Retirement Plan - Medicare-Only (today's action). 4. City submits resolutions to CalPERS' Board of Administration for approval. 5. City submits proposed Notice of Division, proposed Statement of Information and Plan of Procedure to the State Supervisor. 6. City distributes Notice of Division and Statement of Information to all eligible employees and conducts informational meetings. 7. City conducts a referendum/election by supplying election forms approved by the State Supervisor, containing provisions for an election by the member whether or not they desire to be covered under Medicare-Only. 8. City submits election results and election forms to the State Supervisor for certification. 9. City adopts resolutions and execution of Medicare-Only coverage with the State. 10. State submits the request to include the City in the master Social Security agreement the State has with the Federal Government. 11. Federal government approves agreement. J:\She~71F~Word Documents~Z- Edith's Agenda Info\Medicare Only A113,doc Page 3 of 4 12. Implementation (October 1,2004) FISCAL IMPACT: The employer and the employee each pay 1.45% of the employee's gross wages for Medicare-Only coverage. If all 186 currently eligible employees elect to participate, the cost to the City based on current payroll, would be $168,284. It is not expected that there will be 100% participation because some of the employees may have earned enough credits either through other employers or their spouse and there will likely be some attrition of employees prior to the October 2004 implementation. J:\SherTIF~Word Documents~.- Edith's Agenda Info\Medicare Only A113,doc Page 4 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (CalPERS) AUTHORIZE A REFERENDUM TO BE CONDUCTED AMONG ELIGIBLE FIRE SAFETY EMPLOYEES TO PROVIDE MEDICARE-ONLY COVERAGE WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista hereinafter designated as "Public Agency", desires to include services performed by its employees in Safety Fire positions covered by the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) in the California State Social Security Agreement of March 9, 1951, providing for the coverage of public employees under the insurance system established by the Federal Social Security Act, as amended; and WHEREAS, State and Federal laws require, as a condition of such coverage, that a referendum first be authorized by the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, and conducted among the "eligible employees" (as defined in Section 218(d)(3)of the Social Security Act)of the Public Agency; and WHEREAS, it is necessary that the "Public Agency" now designate any classes of positions covered by said retirement system which it desires to exclude from "Medicare-Only" coverage under said insurance system; PERS-MED-40PF - I- REFERENDUM RESOLUTION (MEDICARE) /fi; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System be, and hereby is requested to authorize the foregoing referendum; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that upon receipt of authorization from the Board of Administration a referendum shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 218(d) of the Social Security Act, and applicable State and Federal laws and regulations; that such referendum shall be held on the question of whether service in positions covered by said retirement system occupied by Safety Fire members should be excluded from or included under the Social Security Act, as hereinbefore provided, for "Medicare Only" coverage, with such coverage as to services performed on and after October 1, 2004; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following classes of positions covered by said retirement system of the Public Agency shall be excluded from coverage under said agreement: 1. All services excluded from coverage under the agreement by Section 218 of the Social Security Act; and 2. Services excluded by option of the Public Agency X a. No optional exclusions desired. b. Service performed: PERS-MED-40PF -2- REFERENDUM RESOLUTION (MEDICARE) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that not less than ninety days' notice of such referendum be given to all "eligible employees" as hereinabove provided; and that Edith Quicho, Employee Benefits Manager, is hereby designated and appointed to conduct such referendum on behalf of the "Public Agency" in accordance with law, regulations, and this resolution, including the giving of proper notice thereof to all such "eligible employees"; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that with respect to the said coverage group the benefits and contributions of the Present Retirement System shall not be modified in any way; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Public Agency will pay and reimburse the State at such time and in such amounts as may be determined by the State the approximate cost of any and all work and services relating to such referendum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, that the above recitations are true and correct. Presiding Officer City of Chula Vista PERS-MED-40PF -3- REFERENDUM RESOLUTION (MEDICARE) I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, State of California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true, and correct copy of Resolution No. adopted by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista at the regular meeting held on the 26th day of August, 2003, as the same appears of record in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City of Chula Vista, at my office this day of August 2003. (Signature) City Clerk, City of Chula Vista PERS-MED-40PF -4- REFERENDUM RESOLUTION MEDICARE) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (CalPERS) AUTHORIZE A REFERENDUM TO BE CONDUCTED AMONG ELIGIBLE POLICE SAFETY EMPLOYEES TO PROVIDE MEDICARE-ONLY COVERAGE WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista hereinafter designated as "Public Agency", desires to include services performed by its employees in Safety Police positions covered by the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) in the California State Social Security Agreement of March 9, 1951, providing for the coverage of public employees under the insurance system established by the Federal Social Security Act, as amended; and WHEREAS, State and Federal laws require, as a condition of such coverage, that a referendum first be authorized by the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, and conducted among the "eligible employees" (as defined in Section 218(d)(3) of the Social Security Act) of the Public Agency; and WHEREAS, it is necessary that the "Public Agency" now designate any classes of positions covered by said retirement system which it desires to exclude from "Medicare-Only" coverage under said insurance system; PERS-MED-40PF -1- REFERENDUM RESOLUTION (MEDICARE) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System be, and hereby is requested to authorize the foregoing referendum; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that upon receipt of authorization from the Board of Administration a referendum shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 218(d) of the Social Security Act, and applicable State and Federal laws and regulations; that such referendum shall be held on the question of whether service in positions covered by said retirement system occupied by Safety Police members should be excluded from or included under the Social Security Act, as hereinbefore provided, for "Medicare Only" coverage, with such coverage as to services performed on and after October 1,2004; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following classes of positions covered by said retirement system of the Public Agency shall be excluded from coverage under said agreement: 1. All services excluded from coverage under the agreement by Section 218 of the Social Security Act; and 2. Services excluded by option of the Public Agency X a. No optional exclusions desired. b. Service performed: PERS-MED-40PF -2- REFERENDUM RESOLUTION (MEDICARE) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that not less than ninety days' notice of such referendum be given to all "eligible employees'' as hereinabove provided; and that Edith Quicho, Employee Benefits Manager, is hereby designated and appointed to conduct such referendum on behalf of the "Public Agency" in accordance with law, regulations, and this resolution, including the giving of proper notice thereof to all such "eligible employees"; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that with respect to the said coverage group the benefits and contributions of the Present Retirement System shall not be modified in any way; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Public Agency will pay and reimburse the State at such time and in such amounts as may be determined by the State the approximate cost of any and all work and services relating to such referendum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, that the above recitations are true and correct. Presiding Officer City of Chula Vista PERS-MED-40PF -3- REFERENDUM RESOLUTION (MEDICARE) I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, State of California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true, and correct copy of Resolution No. adopted by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista at the regular meeting held on the 26th day of August, 2003, as the same appears of record in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City of Chula Vista, at my office this day of August 2003. (Signature) City Clerk, City of Chula Vista PERS-MED-40PF -4- REFERENDUM RESOLUTION (MEDICARE) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (CalPERS) AUTHORIZE A DIVISION OF THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM TO PROVIDE MEDICARE-ONLY COVERAGE TO ELIGIBILE EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista hereinafter designated as "Public Agency", desires to establish a "deemed" retirement system pursuant to Section 218(d)(6) of the Federal Security Act composed of positions of members of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), hereinafter designated "Present Retirement System", desiring "Medicare-Only" coverage, and to include services performed by individuals employed by the Public Agency in positions covered by said "deemed" retirement system, as members of a coverage group established by Section 218(d)(4) of said Act, in the California State Social Security Agreement of March 9, 1951, providing for the coverage of public employees under the Health Insurance system established by said Act as amended; and WHEREAS, State and Federal law and regulations require, as a condition of such coverage, that a division be authorized by the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, and WHEREAS, it is necessary that the "Public Agency" now designate any services which it desires to exclude from coverage with respect to such coverage group under said Health Insurance system; and PERS-MED-40D (12/94) -I- DIVISION RESOLUTION (MEDICARE) WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Public Agency to set forth the modification, if any, of the benefits and contributions under the Present Retirement System that may result from coverage under the said insurance system with respect to such coverage group; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, be and hereby is requested to authorize the foregoing division; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that upon receipt of authorization from the Board of Administration a division shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 218(d) of the Social Security Act, and applicable State and Federal laws and regulations; that each eligible member of the Present Retirement System at the time of the division shall be furnished a form to permit the member to elect whether or not his services should be excluded from or included under the said California State Social Security Agreement as hereinbefore provided; with such "Medicare-Only" coverage effective as to services performed on and after October 1,2004; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following services with respect to said coverage group of the Public Agency shall be excluded from coverage under said agreement: 1. All services excluded from coverage under the agreement by Section 218 of the Social Security Act; and 2. Services excluded by option of the Public Agency: X a. No optional exclusions desired. b. Service performed: PERS-MED-40D (I2/94) -2- DIVISION RESOLUTION (MEDICARE) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that with respect to the said coverage group the benefits and contributions of the Present Retirement System shall not be modified in any way; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the division shall be given to members of the Present System not less than ninety days prior to the date of the division; provided however, that notice shall be given to employees becoming members of the Present Retirement System after the date of such notice up to and including the date of the division on the date on which they attain membership in the system, and that Edith Quicho, Employee Benefits Manager, is hereby designated and appointed to conduct such division on behalf of the Public Agency in accordance with law, regulations, and this resolution, including the fixing of the date and the giving of proper notice thereof to members of the Present Retirement System and to all such eligible employees; and BE iT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Public Agency will pay and reimburse the State at such time and in such amounts as may be determined by the State the approximate cost of any and all work and services relating to such division. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, that the above recitations are true and correct. Presiding Officer City of Chula Vista PERS-MED~[0D (12/94) -3- DIVISION RESOLUTION (MEDICARE) I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, State of California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true, and correct copy of Resolution No. adopted by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista at the regular meeting held on the 26th day of August, 2003, as the same appears of record in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City of Chula Vista, at my office this day of August 2003. (Signature) City Clerk, City of Chula Vista PERS-MED40D (12/94) -4- DIVISION RESOLUTION (MEDICARE) COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: / ~:~ Meeting Date: 8/26/03 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Draft Greenbelt Master Plan- a plan for the formulation of a 28-mile open space and trails system surrounding the city. City initiated. PCM-03-38 SUBMITTED BY: Acting Director of Planning and Building ~ ! REVIEWED BY: City Manager 0" The proposed Greenbelt Master Plan consists of a plan for the formulation of an open space and trails system encircling the city. This plan is intended to implement the Greenbelt Concept identified in the adopted General Plan and join together a variety of open space programs through a connected trail system that links existing and proposed parks, g61f courses and other activity centers around the perimeter of the city. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council open the public hearing and continue the item to the meeting of September 16, 2003. AUG, 26, 2003 4: 55PM NO,0731-P 1 ~"-\=\~ RECEIVED ","" '~IIY~ 'Q3 dtU""P5:Q} ",' "'"" "'"r", ~ ~ "'" ',,':. ~II~ ,", , " '" ',,¡'JJUlÚjrNii1~iiiJsfiiYA$SöciA'TråiíJ:ôfS/i$DiRGai.:QmrTr ,,' ',' ",','. I'" ,(""",,/. .." " '" """¡'~I"'" ""'~, ~"" .NATlONALA.SsÒCIAtION OFINDtJSTlUA.LAND,QPPtciPROPERTIES", , '" ,,633()GtfÙ~n~içh, Sùit,eIÁjsailrhegcj;ëÄ9:2U2:, . "',' ,,< " ¡, '" ' " '" .':" ., . '. " " "'II '" ',', : ·>858) 4s0~12:>t Fax:, (8.5.8),,'55Zi"1445 ,,", ' '..' ",'," ." , . '" ~, I . . '\'" \" I' .'" August 26, 2003 Honorable Steve Padilla City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91912-1087 Dear Mayor Padilla, The Building Industry Association has reviewed the proposed Greenbelt Master Plan and offers the following comments. Sec. 6.2.1 Acquisition of Greenbelt Open Space and Trails Mandatory Exaction. Should include a comment that exactions will only be sought were an appropriate nexus between the development proposed and the land to be acquired through the exaction is to be used. 6.2.3 Maintenance Funding State law, except in very specific instances, prohibits the use of Developer Fees for maintenance and operations. (Govermnent Code §65913.8) this option should be deleted ftom the Master Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to review an comment on the City's proposed Greenbelt Master Plan Sincerely, r Jerry Livingston Staff Counsel COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 8/26/03 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing regarding acquisition of certain rights-of-way on a portion of Assessors Parcel Number (APN) 639-080-21 for construction of "Telegraph Canyon Road Street Widening Project" (CY~ 102). Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista determining and declaring the public interest and necessity for acquiring and authorizing condemnation and immediate possession of a portion of Assessor Parcel Number 639-080-21 for the construction of Telegraph Canyon Road Street Widening Project (CY-102) authorizing the commencement of condemnation proceedings by outside counsel to acquire said property in the manner provided by law. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Engineefin~ i M r(°~ REVIEWED BY: C ty anage ~a,, Or~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No.~) RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1. Hold the Public Hearing regarding acquisition of certain right-of-way over a portion of Assessors Parcel Number (APN) 639-080-21 for the construction of the "Telegraph Canyon Road Street Widening Project" (CY-102), and 2. Approve the Resolution of Necessity to commence the eminent domain process and authorize the commencement of condemnation proceedings by outside counsel, Linda Bartz & Associates, to acquire said rights-of-way and to obtain immediate possession of the properties in the manner provided by law; and BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None DISCUSSION: The City is currently preparing to widen and improve Telegraph Canyon Road from the 1-805 northbound ramp, east to approximately 800 feet west of Crest Drive. When completed this project will add one westbound lane up to the northbound on-ramp to 1-805. This widening project is necessary because traffic volumes have exceeded the existing roadway capacity and are creating excessive delays. In order to complete the construction of this project it is necessary to acquire right-of-way and a temporary construction easement from the two gas stations on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road; one on each side of Halecrest Drive. Appraisals have been completed and offers have been made to each of the affected owners. However, a design change imposed by CALTRANS after the offers were made necessitated the reappraisal of the ARCO gas station 17-1 Page 2, Item: /'~ Meeting Date: 8/26/03 west of Halecrest. This appraisal is ongoing and a revised offer will be made to the owners shortly. In the interim, negotiations with the Union 76 station have reached an impasse and initiation of eminent domain proceedings has become necessary. The City's Real Property Manager is currently working with the property owner in an attempt to acquire the needed portion of his property through negotiation. Since construction of this project is crucial to the continued development of the City of Chula Vista, City staff recommends that Council authorize the use of the City's eminent domain powers by adopting a Resolution of Necessity. The adoption of a Resolution of Necessity at this time will allow the City to obtain timely possession of the needed property while negotiations continue with the property owner. Environmental Determination The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the proposed project was adequately covered in the previously adopted Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-02~35 and that no further environmental review or documentation is necessary. PUBLIC HEARING In order to acquire real property for public purposes, pursuant to Government Code Section 7267.2, the City of Chula Vista must make an offer to purchase the property for an amount constituting "just compensation". If an agreement for the voluntary purchase of the property cannot be reached, the City may then duly notice and conduct a public hearing to consider whether to acquire the property by the exercise of its powers of eminent domain. At such hearing, pursuant to Civil Procedure Code Section 1240.030, the City must find and determine that: A. The public interest and necessity require the project; B. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; C. The properties sought to be acquired are necessary for the project; D. Offers have been made to the record owners or have not been made because the owners cannot be located. Notice of Pnblic Hearing By letter dated August 7, 2003, City staff notified the property owner of a public heating scheduled for Tuesday, August 26, 2003, at which time the City Council would consider adopting a Resolution of Necessity for the acquisition of a portion of his property. The letter informed the owner of his right to appear and to speak to the City Council with regard to the City's right to acquire their property. Page 3, Item: [! Meeting Date: 8/26/03 DETERMINATIONS TO ADOPT A "RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY" FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER (APN) 639-080-21. At tonight's hearing the City Council must determine that the four conditions previously referenced herein have been met. Provided below are these conditions and supporting information to be considered by the City Council: (a) Whether The Public Interest And Necessity Require The Project The construction of the Telegraph Canyon Road Street Widening Project is crucial to the existing development west ofi-805 and to the continued planned and approved development in the eastern portion of the City. Currently, the existing roadway capacity and traffic delays are not adequate to accommodate existing traffic volumes. The public interest and necessity require that the Telegraph Canyon Road be widened East of 1-805 in order to reduce traffic congestion and delays by providing additional capacity for existing and anticipated future traffic volumes in south Chula Vista. (b) Whether The Project Is Planned Or Located In The Manner That Will Be Most Compatible With The Greatest Public Good And The Least Private Injury Alternative alignments were analyzed during the design process. Because existing and anticipated future traffic volumes necessitate widening of the right-of-way to accommodate the additional lane, the only options were to acquire land from the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road or from the south. Widening on the south side poses a series of difficult problems. On the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road is a residential condominium complex on top of a substantial hill and retaining wall. This would require the acquisition of residential land and the construction of a new retaining wall approximately twice as high as the existing wall. Further, this alternative would compromise the geometry of the roadway. Since it is a westbound lane that needs to be added, widening on the south (eastbound) side would create a misalignment with the 1-805 underpass through lanes. By opting to widen on the north (westbound) side of Telegraph Canyon Road and narrowing the existing median, a more desirable alignment is achieved while minimizing the amount of private land to be acquired. Using this option the project is planned or located in a manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury because the roadway and onramp improvements will primarily be located within existing City and/or State right-of- way with additional right-of-way only being needed from two ownerships. Page 4, Item: /7 Meeting Date: 8/26/03 (c) Whether The Properties Sought To Be Acquired Are Necessary For The Project The property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project because it is located within the proposed roadway widening alignment corridor. (d) Whether The Offer For Purchase Required By Government Code Section 7267.2 has been Made To The Owner Of Record On May 14, 2003, in accordance with Government Code Section 7267.2, the City made as offer to acquire the necessary property rights to the property owner of record. This offer was for the full amount determined to be Just Compensation by an approved MAI appraisal. All conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain ("the right to take") to acquire the properties described herein have been complied with by the City of Chula Vista. The adoption of the requested Resolution of Necessity will allow the City to initiate court proceedings to acquire possession of the necessary rights-of-way for the subject project. Commencement of the eminent domain proceedings will authorize the filing of complaint with the Superior Court. The outside legal counsel services of Ms. Linda Bartz will be utilized for the associated condemnation proceedings. Ms. Bartz has reviewed the Resolution of Necessity and determined that the requested action is in compliance with all applicable laws, City codes and ordinances. Both Ms Bartz and the City Of Chula Vista's staff member, Mr. Rick Ryals, Real Property Manager will be present this evening for questions. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The approved project is funded by the development community. Attachments: 1. Area Plat 2. Acquisition Plat File No. CY 102 J:\engineer~aGENDA\Telegraph u76 Reso.doc A'FTACHMENT._.~.,_ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DETERMINING AND DECLARING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR ACQUIRING AND AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION AND IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OF A PORTION OF ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 639-080-21 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD STREET WIDENING PROJECT (CY-102) AUTHORIZING THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO ACQUIRE SAID PROPERTY IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW. WHEREAS, in connection with municipal purposes, the City of Chula Vista must acquire interest in portions of Assessor Parcel Number 639-080-21 for the construction of Telegraph Canyon Road Street Widening Project (CY-102) and appurtenances thereto ("Project"); and WHEREAS, public interest, convenience and necessity require the acquisition of said real property more particularly described and depicted in the attached Deeds and Exhibits A and B thereto for Street & Public Utility and Temporary Construction Easements for said Project; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the proposed project was adequately covered in the previously adopted Telegraph Canyon Road Widening Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-02-35, and WHEREAS, said Project is planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and WHEREAS, said real property, and the interests therein, is necessary for the Project; and WHEREAS, said real property is located entirely within the territorial limits of the City of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is authorized to acquire said real property, for such public use by eminent domain pursuant, inter alia, to California Constitution Article 1, Section 19; California Government Code Sections 37350.5, 38900, and 40404; and California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1240.010, 1240.110, 1240.120, and 1255.410; and WHEREAS, an offer to purchase the required interests in the real property necessary for the Project have been made to the owner of record, pursuant to Section 7267.2 of the California Government Code, which offer has not been accepted; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has provided notice to the persons designated in Section 1245.235 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and has provided all such persons a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard on the matters referred to in Section 1240.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista finds and determines and hereby declares, by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its members, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the staff report and all evidence presented at the public hearing on this matter have been reviewed and considered. 3. That the public interest, convenience and necessity of the City of Chula Vista, and the inhabitants thereof, require the Project and improvements and appurtenances thereto. 4. That the real property described and depicted in the attached Deeds for Street & Utility and Temporary Construction Easements, and Exhibits A and B thereto, have been planned and located in a manner which will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. 5. That the real property, and the interests therein, described in the attached Deeds for Street & Utility and Temporary Construction Easements, and Exhibits A and B thereto, are necessary for the proposed Project. 6. That an offer, as required by Section 7267.2 of the California Government Code, has been made to the owner of record of the property to be acquired, and the notice and opportunity to appear before the City Council as required by Section 1245.235 of the California Code of Civil Procedure have been given. 7. That the City of Chula Vista, and all appropriate officers, representatives and attorneys are hereby authorized and directed to acquire the real property described and depicted in the attached Deeds for Street & Utility and Temporary Construction Easements, and Exhibits A and B thereto, in the name of and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista, and to that end are hereby authorized and directed to commence and prosecute action in eminent domain for the purpose of acquiring said real property and to obtain court order for immediate possession of said property in the manner provided by law. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Clifford L. Swanson Ann Y. Moo~re - Director of Engineering City Attorney August 23, 2003 Re: Hearing regarding Eminent Domain at 501 Telegraph Canyon Road Richard Ryals City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Ave Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Richard Ryals: I am responding to the impending hearing set for August 26" to discuss a potentiaf Eminent Domain lawsuit against me regarding my business property, 501 T e/egraph Canyon Road. I am extremely disappointed to leam that this hearing will occur without the promised prior negotiations and mutually beneficial resolution as discussed in our first meeting last year that included yourself, Harry Burrows, the assistant city manager and other city officials. My concem is not monetary, but logistical. As I stated in the letter dated 0210412003 to Mr. Harry Burrows, but I must convey the damage the condemnation at my site will cause to the expansion and my livelihood. The reduction of a portion of my drive-through area will cause customer congestion on my lot and the overflow will block traffic on Telegraph Canyon Road. This concem of lot size is reiterated by the challenges of the carwash CUP in 1995 permit for previous construction at the site. Additional land behind the current site may alleviate some of these concerns whereas monetary compensation will not. Serious consideration and reasonable resolution of these problems will not only maintain my current business livelihood, but also provide the City of Chula Vista the ability to attain its goal of reducing congestion through expansion of Telegraph Canyon Road without resorting to legal action. I have been rebuffed in my repeated efforts to discuss my concems and prevent any unnecessary litigation or expense for the City of Chula Vista. Postponements of meetings and fruitless phone calls by decision-makers appear designed to prevent me from resolving my concems\ issues. These tactics deluded me from exercising my rights to legal counsel. It has become clear to me that City representatives were merely appeasing my meeting requests with no avail to my main concems. This was a preventative tactic to allow the current necessity hearing for condemnation without consideration of my necessity. Such practices by those in charge of managing the community's welfare have caused me great resentment and distrust, as it will for the community. I am afraid that ignorance of the logistical issues and the disregard for the businesses in the area will not only negatively affect me, but the City's interest with expansion of Telegraph Canyon Road as well. I feel it is evident that a legitimate attempt to provide me with the ability to maintain my business and any possible future growth is being ignored by the City and will only lead to greater harm for myself the community patrons. I am attempting to cooperate with your requests and directions as we discussed in our conversations, but I am concemed that the current processes reflected in this hearing will only lead to greater difficulty for us both. A postponement of this agenda item until after the promised discussions and/or legal counsel is obtained, would be a sign of good will on the part of the City. I am not looking forward to the added expense of requiring counsel to ensure we can reach a beneficial understanding, but I fear that maybe the only option left to me. I look forward to an immediate response and prevent the COsily mistake of disregarding the opinions and support of your business community. Best regards, ~~:/ ~ ¿;/~ //£'/77 If /7 Æ¿Uc ~ECtJ~ 1) ~----~------_.,-- February 4, 2003 Mr. Hany ÐU..TOWS Ciiy ofChuJa Vista Re: 501 Telegraph Canyon Rd. Street widening Dear Mr. Burrow: I want to thank you and the city for working with me and addressing some of my issues regarding the city's taking of my land. While it is potentially beneficial to have access to the strip of land behind my site, it is not now very helpful in keeping my bUsiness a competitive and viable one after my property is reduced by the city "taking". As 1 pointed out at our meeting on Monday 2/3 my biggest anxiety remains the serious impact this "taking" will have on the on site circulation wruch we both witness as we were at the site. At your meeting Friday, 1 wouJd appreciate if you would pass on and remind the decision makers that this taking will in fuct severely handicap my existing business. This "taking" has also eliminated the expansion plans 1 bad fur the future with the addition of two more dispensers as 1 pointed out to you at the site. Oil companies have. spent millions on trying to get the gasoline buying experience as least painful as possible for the consumer. The resuJts have been, larger parcels of land, bigger 1àcilities offering more & more services with easy access and on site circulation. Convenience is the name of the game, everyone wants to get in and out as quick as possible. As a consumer yourself; 1 know this not news to you. Unfortunately, the cities pending taking of my prime &ontage property, will do just the Opposite of what is needed for a viable gas station location. The elimioation of the pass through lane on my busiest isla..,d will severely impact my location and the va.iue of my business. Tþjg Joss.ow circulation \\~Ü compound an already serious problem on such a sUlall jot. One of the biggest concerns of eve¡y city in the county when one wa.¡¡ts to build II gas station is on site circuJatiqn. 1<111>0 share this concern, as I know you do. I hope we can work toward a mutually satisfàcfury resolution to this problem. Rod Bi:sharat /7Ðl? #/7 /tUßU~ ~ea,££) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: Meeting Date: 8126103 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration o£ the following applications filed by McMillin Development Company, involving two sites: 1) a 10 acre site located west of Duncan Ranch Road, north of Proctor Valley Road within Rolling Hills Ranch Neighborhood 7; and 2) a six acre site located south o£ Proctor Valley Road, west of Duncan Rahch Road within Rolling Hills Ranch Neighborhood 8. a. GPA-03-03 amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Diagram in order to 1) change the existing land use designation from Low Density Residential (0-3 du/ac) to Low-Medium Density Residential (3-6 du/ac) in Neighborhood 7. b. PCM-03-24; amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan, Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area Plan and Salt Creek Ranch Planned Community District Regulations and associated documents to change portions o£ the existing land use designations £or parcels within Neighborhood 7 and 8. Resolution o£ the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approving amendments to the City's General Plan Land Use Diagram; Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan, Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and associated regulatory documents to change portions of existing designations for Neighborhoods 7 and 8. Ordinance approving amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch Planned Community District Regulations and Zoning Districts Map. SUBMITTED BY: Acting Director of Planning and Buildin~(4/5ths vote: Yes No REVIEWED BY: C~ty Manager ~ The applicant, McMillin Development Company, has submitted applications to amend the City's General Plan, Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and Salt Creek Ranch Planned Commtmity District Regulations. The proposed amendments involve two separate issues and two separate sites and consist of: 1) converting 10 acres on the west side of Duncan Ranch Road, north of Proctor Valley Road from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential in Neighborhood 7 and includes a request for a density transfer; and 2) adjust the land use boundaries between the parcel designated in the SPA as "Community Park" and the immediately adjacent CPF site within Neighborhood 8 for Project Site 2. (see Locator). Page 2, Item: /ff Meeting Date: 8/26/03 The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the proposed project was adequately covered in previously adopted Environmental Impact Report and has prepared an addendum. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review and consider the addendum for FEIR 88-03 and FSEIR 91-03 and approve the proposed amendments to the General Plan, Salt Creek Ranch General Development plan, Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Salt'Creek Ranch Planned Community District Regulations. BOARDS AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On August 13, 2003 the Planning Commission considered the GPA, GDP and SPA amendments. After hearing staff's presentation, the Commission voted 6-0-1-0 (O'Neil absent) to recommend that the Council consider the addendum and approve the above referenced amendments. DISCUSSION: 1. Background A. Neighborhood 7 (Project Site 1) The I0 acre project site in Neighborhood 7 was originally set aside by the Chula Vista Elementary School District (District) as an optional future school site. The District envisioned this site may become necessary to house a new school if other elementary schools within the vicinity did not come online in time to meet the projected elementary school demand. The District has stated that two new elementary schools (one in San Miguel Ranch; the other in EastLake Woods) will be built within the next two years to serve the area of Eastlake, Rolling Hills Ranch and San Miguel Ranch. As a result, the School District has indicated that the school site is no longer needed and the property was made available to the developer/applicant McMillin Development Company. The McMillin Company proposes to convert the site into 43 single family dwelling units. The decision of the District to abandon the 10 acm site, is reflected in the most recently completed document entitled "School Facilities Needs Assessment" (March 2003) which provides a detailed analysis of the anticipated school district needs. As stated in the school section of the Public Facilities Financing Plan, the original Salt Creek Ranch SPA assumed that two elementary schools might be needed not only to serve Salt Creek Ranch, but also San Miguel Ranch or possibly, portions of Eastlak'e III (see Attachment 2, Section VI). At the time the SPA was originally approved, the timing and Page 3, Item: /0 Meeting Date: 8/26/03 number of units for San Miguel Ranch was unknown. Therefore, the developer was required to reserve both school sites as well as to address the District's fmance requirements. According to the Chula Vista Elementary School District, there is now sufficient information to declare the second school in the Salt Creek Ranch as surplus and not needed to house the projected number of elementary school students within the surrounding area. Therefore, the District has notified the developer that it will not be exercising its option to purchase the site and stated in a letter to the City that this site is not needed to meet the anticipated enrollment levels or to comply with the Quality of Life Threshold Standards (see Attachment 3). On June 26, 2003, a public forum was held to introduce the project to the surrounding neighborhood. At the neighborhood meeting, residents expressed concem about the loss of the 10 acre school site indicating that the area elementary schools were already impacted. The applicant and City staff explained that based upon correspondence and documentation provide by the Chula Vista Elementary School District, the two additional schools expected to be completed within the next two years, will provide sufficient capacity for all the elementary school children in the 3 planned communities. Following the neighborhood meeting, staff discussed the concerns raised by the public with the District and invited District representatives to the Planning' Commission meeting. A representative of the District will be present at both the Planning Commission and City Council public hearing to address questions regarding school capacity. B. Neighborhood 8 (Project Site 2) The project site consists ofa CPF site adjacent to the southeastern portion of the community park. The applicants proposed amefidments are generally for the purpose of reeonfiguring the CPF site relative to the park site with the result of improved vehicular access. The reconfiguration will not result in a decrease in either CPF or park acreage. To accomplish the reconfiguration, it is necessary, among other things, to change the identification in the GDP and other documents from park to CFP or religious site and vice versa. 2. Existing Site Characteristics The 10 acre irregular shaped parcel herby referred to as Project Site 1, is located on the west side of Duncan Ranch Road, north of Proctor Valley Road within Neighborhood 7. Surrounding land uses include: Page 4, Item: /~ Meeting Date: 8/26/03 Project Site 1: Existing Site and Surrounding Land uses Chula Vista Municipal General Plan GDP Land Use PC District (Land Existing Land Code Designation Designation Use District) Use Project PC (Planned Low Density School IS (Institutional Vacant Site Community Residential Uses) East ~ PC (Planned Low Density L (Low Density SFI (Single Family Single Family Community Residential (0- Residential) Residential) Residential 3 du/ac) South PC (Planned Low Density L (Low Density SF1 (Single Family Single Family Community Residential (0- Residential) Detached) Residential 3 du/ac) West PC (Planned Open Space Open Space OS I (Open Space Salt Creek Community Natural) North PC (Planned Low Medium Low medium SF3 (Single Family Single Family Community Residential (3- Residential) Detached) Residential 6 du/ac) Project Site 2, consisting of six acres, is located at the southern intersection of the Community Park and CPF site within Neighborhood 8. Surrounding land uses are as follows: Project Site 2: Existing Surrounding Land uses Chula Vista Municipal General Plan GDP Land Use PC District (Land Existing Land Code Designation Designation Use District) Use Project PC (Planned Future Community Community OS2 (Open Space - Vacant Site Community Park / Open Space Park / CPF Park) / CPF / SF 1 / Low Density (Single Family Residential Residential) East PC (Planned Low Density L (Low Density SF1 (Single Family Single Family Community Residential (0-3 Residential) Residential) Residential du/ac) South PC (Planned Low Density CPF CPF Vacant Community Residential (0-3 du/ac) West PC (Planned Open Space Open Space OS1 (Open Space Salt Creek Community Natural) North PC (Planned Community Park / Community OS2 (Open Space - Future Community Open Space Park / CPF Park) Community Park Page 5, Item: /'4 Meeting Date: 8/26/03 3. Project Description and Analysis General Plan Amendments Project Site 1 The proposal is to amend the Land Use Diagram to change the land use designation from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential (see Attachment 4). The 10 acre site is surrounded by existing residential development on three sides. The increase in density from 0-3 du/ac to 3-6 du/ac allows for the proposed 43 additional residential units to be developed at a density which is more compatible with the existing surrounding residential development. Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) Amendments Project Site 1 The proposal is to change the designation of a 10 acre parcel in Neighborhood 7 from "School" to LM (Low Medium Density Residential) and to modify the land use statistics table to reflect the conversion of 10 acres from School to LM (Low Medium Density Residential). (Attachment 4) The conversion of the school site into residential was anticipated in the Salt Creek Ranch GDP/SPA and was dependent upon the timing and number of units of surrounding developments and how that would affect the timing of development of new elementary schools in these adjacent communities to Rolling Hills Ranch. An analysis conducted by the Elementary School District shows that there is now sufficient information to declare the second school in the Rolling Hills Ranch as surplus and not needed. The proposed 43 residential units will be compatible with the surrounding existing residential development in terms of lot size and density. Project Site 2 The proposal is to change designations of portions of parcels from Neighborhood Park to Religious Site and from Religious Site to Neighborhood Park (see Attachment 4) The rearrangement of a total of 6 acres between Park and CPF designations will allow for a better park site design and configuration of the CFP site. Vehicular access to both the park and CPF site will be improved. Page 6, Item: /at~ Meeting Date: 8/26/03 Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area Plan Project Site 1 The proposal is to change the designation fi:om "School" to "Neighborhood 7C" along with changes to accompanying tables of statistics (See Attachment 4) This amendment will allow the "School" designation to be changed into a new residential subcategory (Neighborhood 7C) which will complement existing subcategories of Neighborhood 7A and 7B. Project Site 2 Change designations of portions of parcels from Community Park to CPF and from CPF to Community Park (See Attachment 4) The proposed amendment to modify the location of"community park" and "CPF" designated land will allow for the development of the CPF site for a church/daycare facility. Salt Creek Ranch Planned Comanunity District Regulations & Land Use District Map Project Site 1 Change the designation fi:om IL (Institutional Uses) to SF2 (Single Family Detached) (see Attachment 4) The SF-2 designation will allow the 10 acre site to be converted into 43 residential lots with lots sizes ranging in size fi:om 6,216 to 12,456 square feet with an average lot size of 7987 square feet. The proposed density and lot sizes are compatible with the existing surrounding development. Project Site 2 Change designations of portions of parcels from OS-2 to CPF and from CPF to OS-2.(see Attachment 4). The proposed amendment will allow for the development of the CPF site for a church/daycare facility. Densi .ty Transfer The project involves the density transfer of 20 units from Neighborhood 1 and 23 units from Neighborhood 2 in order to achieve the necessary 43 units necessary to allow the proposed subdivision of Project Site 1 into 34 lots. This density transfer does not affect the overall number of units approved for the SPA. (see Section II, Table 1, Pg 1-37 of Attachment 2) Page 7, Item: /6 Meeting Date: 8/26/03 The 20 excess units available in Neighborhood 1 and 23 units available in Neighborhood 2 reflect the fact the approved final maps for these two neighborhoods included less total lots than what was allowed per the approved Salt Creek Ranch SPA Plan. Therefore, the addition of 43 units to Neighborhood 7 can be allowed through a density transfer and does not affect the overall number of units approved. Public Facilities Financing Plan The School chapter of the existing Public Facilities Financing Plan has been amended to update the projected enrollment information and existing and proposed school sites. Specifically, the sections discussing the elementary schools have been modified to reflect the discussion elsewhere in this report regarding the availability of Project Site 1 to be converted from a school site into proposed residential development. (See section VI of Attachment 2) 4. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, staff recommends adoption of the Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the addendum and approve the land use amendments. FISCAL IMPACT The applicant has paid for all costs associated with the processing of the GPA, GDP and SPA amendments and will be responsible for paying corresponding Development Impact fees and other applicable development and processing fees, as they may be amended from time-to-time. Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution 2. Amendment Pages 3. Letter from Chula Vista Elementary School District 4. Figures 5. Addendum 6. Disclosure Statement J:\Planning~JEFF\KHR SCHOOL CONVERSIONXPROJECT FILES\CC Rprt - GDP SPA Neigh 7 & 8 final version.doc 8/20/03 9:56 AM ROLLING HILLS RANCH PROJECT LOCATII PROCTO~ PROJECT liN ~D 8 LOCATOR ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO GPA-03-03, PCM-03-24 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM, SALT CREEK RNACH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SALT CREEK RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN AND ASSOCIATED REGULATORY DOCUMENTS TO CHANGE PORTION OF EXISTING DESIGNATIONS FOR NEIGHBORHOODS 7 AND 8 OF ROLLING HILLS RANCH PLANNED COMMUNITY-MCMILLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. WHERES, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on February 4, 2003 by McMillin Land Development Company requested amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan, Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan and Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan; and, WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution consists of: 1) ten acres within Neighborhood 7 located at the southeast comer of Duncan Ranch Road and Hunte Parkway; and 2) six acres within Neighborhood 8 located on the south side of the Com_rnunity Park, north of Otay Lakes Road within the Rolling Hills Ranch Planned Community ("Project Site"); and, WHEREAS the proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use Diagram consists of changing the land use designation of said 10-acres fi.om Residential, Low Density to Residential, Low Medium; and, WHEREAS the proposed amendment to the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) consists of: 1) changing the land use designation within Neighborhood 7 from "School" to LM (Low Medium Residential); and 2) changing the land use designations in Neighborhood 8 from Community Park to CPF and from CPF to Community Park; and, WI~REAS the proposed amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area Plan designation within Neighborhood 7 from "School" to "7C"; and 2) changing the land use designations in Neighborhood 8 Community Park to CPF and from CPF to Community Park; and, WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of various entitlements and agreements, including:l) Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) approved by City Council Resolution 15875 on September 25, 1990 and amended by City Council Resolution 2003-198 on May 13, 2003; 2) Salt Creek Rm~ch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan approved by City Cotmcil Resolution No. 16555 on March 24, 1992 and amended by City Com~cil Resolution 2003-198 on May 13, 2003; 3) The Rolling Hills Ranch Planned Community District Reguitations and Land Use Map approved by City Council Ordinance NO. 2499 on April 7,1992 and amended by Ordinance NO. 2913 on May 20, 2003;4) Public Facilities Financing Plan approved by City Council Resolution 16555 on March 24, 1992 and amended by Resolution 2000-190 on April 10, 2001;5) Tentative Subdivision Map for Salt Creek Ranch, Chula Vista Tract 92-02 previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 16834 on October 6, 1992 and amended by City Council Resolution NO. 2000-190 on June 13, 2000; and 6) Agreement for Monitoring of Building Permits by City Cotmcil Resolution No. 2003-166 on April 15, 2003; WHEREAS, the Enviromental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed tentative subdivision map have been previously addressed by FEIR-89-03 and FSE1R- 91-03, Salt Creek Ranch and has, therefore, prepared an Addendum to said FEIR and FSEIR. The amendments are in substantial conformance with the Salt Creek Ranch GDP and SPA on which the FEIR and FSEIR analysis was based, and, therefore, approval and implementation of the GDP/SPA amendments does not change the basis of conclusions of the FEIR and FSEIR. The Addendum has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and. WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a hearing on the amendments 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 and tenants within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the heating was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., August 13, 2003, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Addendum to FEIR 89-03 and FSEIR 91-03, Salt Creek Ranch and the the attached draft City Council Resolution and Ordinance in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHU-LA VISTA, CALII~ORNIA, this 13th day of August, 2003, by the following vote, to- wit: AYES: Castaneda, Madrid, Hall, Cortes, Hom, Felber NOES: ABSENT: O'Neill Steve Casteneda, Chairperson ATTEST: ATTACHMENT 2 AMENDMENT PAGES (SEE SEPARATE BINDER) ATTACHMENT 3 CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ~Di~-~fC!TT-~':-:.-: ...... 84 EAST "J" STREET · CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910,. "-. u4Y 16 2003 .. EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WOR~ BOARD OF EDUCATION May 12, 2003 ! C~ERY~. S. COX, Ea.~. - E~'m~,l. LOP~Z Mr. Jeff Steichen PAMELA B. SMITH Associate Planner SUPERINTENDEN-r City of Chula Vista· LO~LLI.,~UNOS. E,.~. 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mr. Steichen: Re: GPA & GDP/SPA Amendment for Roiling Hills Ranch School Conversion Project Case No. 03-24 (AC-263) Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the GDP/SPA Amendment for the above-mentioned project. Chula Vista Elementary School District has already constructed one school (Thurgood Marshall Elementary) in Roiling Hills Ranch (RHR) on MacKenzie Creek Road. After evaluating the feasibility of constructing a second elementary school in the RHR development, the District concluded that this site was not needed for construction of an elementary school and released the site to McMillin Companies for additional residential development. In addition to "l-hurgood Marshall Elementary, two other elementary schools will serve students from the RHR development, San Miguel Ranch (SMR) on Proctor Valley Road, and EastLake Woods on Otay Lakes Road. The SMR elementary school will open in the summer of 2004 on a year round calendar. The EastLake Woods school will open shortly thereafter. If additional information is needed, please give us a call. Sincerely, Susan Fahle Assistant Superintendent for Business Services & Support SF:dp ATTACHMENT 4 FIGURES ATTACHMENT 4 o ~8~° Z o"' o o ' ATTACHMENT 5 ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS FEIR 89-03 AND FSEIR-91-03 PROJECT NAME: Rolling Hills Ranch (formerly Salt Creek Ranch) Neighborhood 7; Elementary School Site conversion to Single-Family Residential PROJECT LOCATION: Hunte Parkway and Proctor Valley Road PROJECT APPLICANT: McMillin Rolling Hills Ranch, LLC CASE NO: IS-03-26 DATE: August 7, 2003 I. BACKGROUND The Salt Creek Ranch Environmental Impact Report (EIR-89-03) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR-91-03) evaluated the environmental impacts associated with the development of Salt Creek Ranch Subareas 1-3. The General Development Plan and accompanying E]R (FEIR-89-03) were originally certified on September 25, 1990. The Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and accompanying EIR (FSE1R-91-03) were certified on March 24, 1992. The Salt Creek Ranch SPA Plan delineates an elementary school in the western portion of Neighborhood 7. In response to the Chula Vista Elementary School District's decision not to utilize this site within Neighborhood 7, the applicant proposes to amend the City's General Plan, the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan, and SPA Plan, in order to convert the project site fi.om a current land use designation of School/Low Density Residential to Low-Medium Residential. The applicant has also proposed a revised Tentative Map to subdivide the 10-acre school site into 43 single-family lots. Also included with this application is a minor boundary adjustment in Neighborhood 8 in order to change the location of the boundary between the Community Park and Community Purpose Facility ("CPF") site in this neighborhood. The subject boundary adjustment only affects the boundary line between the CPF site and the City park and does not affect the acreage of either site. The 3~acre CPF site will be reconfigured into two separate parcels of approximately 1.25 and 1.75 acres in size. Minor extensions in existing infi.astructure would be made to serve the CPF parcels. Because this is minor technical adjustment and the acreages of neither site change, the proposed boundary adjustment is considered to be covered under FEIR-89-03 and FSE1R-91 ~ 03 and no further analysis is warranted. This environmental analysis presented within this document will only address the school site conversion. Addendum to EIR's 89-03 and 91~03 08/07/03 II. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The applicant has applied to amend the City's General Plan, as well as the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan and SPA Plan, in order to convert a vacant 10-acre elementary school site (with an underlying land use designation of Low Density Residential) into a Low Medium Residential land use, and requests a Revised Tentative Map to create 43 single-family residential parcels. Also included with this application is a minor boundary adjustment in Neighborhood 8 in order to change to the location of the boundary between the Community Park and Community Purpose Facility ("CPF") site in this neighborhood. The proposed discretionary actions associated with the amendment include the following: I) Chula Vista General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the 10 acre site from School/Low Density Residential (0 - 3 alu/ac) to Low Medium Residential (3 - 6 du/ac). 2) Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan Amendment to change the land use designation for the I0 acre site from School/Low Density Residential to Low Medium Residential 3-6 du/ac in Neighborhood 7, and change land use designations associated with a minor boundary adjustment in Neighborhood 8 between a CPF site and a City park. 3) Salt Creek Ranch SPA amendment to change the land use designation for the 10 acre site from School/Low Density Residential to Low Medium Residential 3-6 du/ac in Neighborhood 7, and change land use designations associated with a minor boundary adjustment between a CPF site and a City park. 4) Salt Creek Ranch PC District Regulations modified to change the designation for a 10 acre site from School/Low Density Residential/to Low Medium Residential in Neighborhood 7, and change the land use designation for portions of a CPF site and City park in Neighborhood 8 between "OS-2" and "CPF". 5) Amendment to the Salt Creek Ranch Design Guidelines to reflect the change in land use. 6) Tentative Subdivision Map to divide the 10 acre site into 43 lots with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square-feet. The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (§15162) establishes the conditions under which a subsequent E1R shall be prepared. A. When an EIR has been prepared for a project, no subsequent E1R shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the EIR due to the Addendum to EIR's 89-03 and 91-03 08/07/03 . involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was prepared. B. If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after preparation of an EIR, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under Subsection A. Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent Negative Declaration, an addendum or no further documentation (Guidelines § ! 5162). Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that: A. The lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. B. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR. C. The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR pr/or to making a decision on the project. D. A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's required fmdings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. This addendum has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Converting the School/Low Density Residential land use designation to Low Medium Residential does not constitute a substantial change to the previously approved project, nor would there be a substantial change in circumstances under which the project would be constructed, and no new information of substantial importance has been presented. The modifications proposed would not result in any environmental effects that were not considered in FEIR 89-03 and FSEIR 91-03, nor would the changes increase the severity of any of the impacts identified in these EIRs. The mitigation measures identified in these documents would be equally applicable to the revised project. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared the following addendum to FEIR 89-03 and FSEIR-91-03. Addendum to EIR's 89-03 and 91-03 08/07/03 III. ANALYSIS Land Use: The applicant is proposing to eliminate the 10-acre elementary school site located in RI-IR Neighborhood 7 by amending the City's General Plan, the RHR General Development Plan and SPA Plan to convert the school site into single-family residential land uses. The school site would be subdivided in 43 single-family residential parcels with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square-feet. The 6,000 square-foot parcels would result in a density of 3-6 units per acre. Since the General Plan designation for the site is low density (0-3 units per acre), a General Plan amendment is required in order to accommodate the increased density. The proposed density is compatible with the densities of the surrounding neighborhoods within the RI-IR SPA plan. The 43 single-family parcels will be transferred from other neighborhoods within RHR which were not developed to maximum density. The proposed amendments would not conflict with surrounding land uses, since the overall residential character of the proposed uses would be similar to existing surrounding land uses. No additional impacts to land use beyond those anticipated in FEIR-89-03 and FSEIR-91-03 are anticipated and the mitigation measures identified in said E1R's would be equally applicable to the revised configuration of land uses. Transportation, Circulation attd Access As illustrated in Table 3, the proposed project would result in approximately 470 fewer daily traffic trips within RHR Phase II as compared to the adopted land use plan evaluated in FEIR-89- 03 and FSE1R 91-03. Table 3: Estimated Project Traffic Generation for Phase II I GDP Estimated Traffic Designation Neighborhood Approved Proposed Difference Generation DU's DU's LM 7a 58 58 0 580 L 7b 138 138 0 1380 LM 7c . 0 43 + 43 430 L 8 j 242 242 0 2420 School 10 ac 0 [ -10ac - 900 Difference -470 The proposed amendments would not cause any additional impacts to the surrounding roadway circulation system, and would not require additional mitigation beyond that required in FEIR 89- 03 and FSEIR-91-03. No additional impacts to traffic and circulation are anticipated and the mitigation measures identified in FEIR 89-03 and FSEIR 91-03 would be equally applicable to the revised project. Addendum to EIR's 89-03 and 91-03 08/07/03 Water Quality and Drainage A revised drainage study, dated April 28, 2003, was prepared by Hunsaker and Associates to evaluate the change in drainage patterns and nmoffrates for the proposed project. The drainage study indicates that the proposed residential uses will not result in an increase in peak runoff rates relative to those generated firom the planned school site. On-site drainage facilities for the project would be constructed as part of the site development. Modifications to the SPA Plan and Tentative Map for Neighborhood 7C would not result in any previously unidentified water impacts, and the mitigation measures identified in FEll*. 89-03 and FSEIR 91-03 would be equally applicable to the revised configuration of land uses. Public Services and Facilities Water and Sewer: Tables 4 and 5 depict the estimated sewage generation and water demand for the proposed project. Although there is a sight increase in the sewer generation and water demand figures noted below, the regional sewer and water facilities planned and approved within RHR have been sized to accommodate a greater number of dwelling units than will actually be built in the project as a whole. The slight increase in the sewer and water figures for Phase II noted below have been offset by a decrease in the overall number of dwelling units to be constructed within the entirety of Rolling Hills Ranch. The proposed amendments would not affect the analysis previously provided in these documents. No impacts to water and sewer are anticipated and the mitigation measures identified in FEIR 89-03 and FSEIR 91-03 will be applicable to the revised project. Table 4: Estimated Sewage Generation for RHR Phase H GDP Estimated Sewerage Designation Neighborhood Approved Proposed Difference Average Unit Generation DU's DU's Flow LM 7a 58 58 0 265 gpd/unit 15,370 L To 138 138 0 265 gpd/unit 36,570 ' LM 7c 0 43 + 43 265 gpd/un/t +11,395 L 8 242 242 0 265 gpd/unit 64,130 School 10 ac 0 -10ac 15 gpd/student -6,885 Difference +4,510 Addendum to EIR's 89-03 and 91-03 08/07/03 Table 5: Estimated Water Demand for RHR Phase GDP Designation Neighborhood Approved Proposed Difference Unit Demand Annual DU's DU's ac~ft/yr Demand LM 7a 58 58 0 500 gpdYdu 116 L 7b 138 138 0 500 gpd/du 276 LM 7c 0 43 + 43 500 gpd/du +86 L 8 242 242 0 500 gpd/du I 484 School 10 ac 0 -10ac 1,785 gpcl/ac -20 ! Difference +3,650 Parks The proposed amendments would result in a minor increase in parkland demand within RHR. The Project applicant would be required to compensate for any changes to the required park acreage elsewhere in RItR and would be subject to the payment of park acquisition and development fees prior to the approval of final maps. The park acquisition and development fees would address any additional demand for park space caused as a result of the project. Therefore, no significant impacts to park lands beyond those identified in FE[R-89-03 and FSEIR-91-03 are anticipated and the mitigation measures identified in the subject E1R's will be applicable to the revised project. Schools: The Chula Vista Elementary School District has notified the City of Chula Vista in writing (on file with the City of Chula Vista) that the school site in Neighborhood 7 is surplus and will not be utilized for the construction of an elementary school. Rolling Hills Ranch is planned for a build out of 2,662 d~velling units. Neighborhoods 1 through 8 are largely completed and future development will consist of mainly Neighborhoods 9 through 12. All future development is projected to be completed by the year 2007. This consists of 168 multi-family tm/ts and 1,172 single-family units. Approximately 1,322 dwelling units have been constructed in Rolling Hills Ranch. Thurgood Marshall Elementary School has been constructed within Rolling Hills Ranch and 2003 enrollment is 559 with 191 seats available. The remaining 1,340 units which includes 168 multi-family units, is expected to generate 402 elementary students. Based upon maximum elementary school capacities, it is anticipated that the projected 402 elementary school students generated by future development in Rolling Hills Ranch wilt be accommodated by the remaining capacity in the Thurgood Marshall Elementary School and/or elementary schools to be constructed by 2005 in San Miguel Ranch and Eastlake III. The original Rolling Hills Ranch SPA plan assumed that two elementary schools might be needed to serve not only RHR, but also San Miguel Ranch and possibly portions of Eastlake III. In 1991, when RHR was being processed by the City of Chula Vista, the timing of approval and number of units for San Miguel Ranch was not known. According to the Chula Vista Elementary School District, the second elementary school in RHR was planned to accommodate future students generated by RHR in the unlikely event that either San Miguel Ranch or Eastlake III were not approved and did not ,a. ddeadum to EIWs 89-03 and 91-03 08/07/03 provide additional elementary school sites. Since there will be three elementary schools'serving the site, the Neighborhood 7c site is not needed. The proposed amendments are the result of the Chula Vista Elementary School District declaring the elementary school site as surplus. IV. CONCLUSION Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and based upon the above discussion, I hereby find that the project revisions to the proposed project will result in only minor technical changes or additions which are necessary to make the Environmental Impact Reports adequate under CEQA. Environmental Review Coordinator References: General Plan, City of Chula Vista Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures Salt Creek Ranch SPA Plan and EIR's Addendum to EIR's 89-03 and 91-03 08/07/03 7 / ATTACHMENT · Appendix B ~ THE C,. , OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE $'1~ I°EMENT Ybu are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. I'd~.¢l~tLLl~ {?nLLI/d.(. ~ILL<; Lt.C 2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. /~AE/LC.D.D ~DAiZ.T/~D.~.c~ LIt~IT1DJ)~ZTNE£~I~IP, ~ r)~LAWALE LIAAtT~ / -. .t~t z-7 ( 3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months'~ Yes No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s): · 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. 6. Have you ~nd/or your o~cers or 8gents, in the ~ggreg~te, contributed more th~n $1,000 to ~ Oounoilmember in the cu~ent or preceding election period? Yes No ~ If yes, state which Oouncilmember(s): -. .. (NOTE: A~ACH ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSAR~ Sigdatur~ of cohtmcto~pplicant · Per, on ~ ~efineg ~.." ' ~ ~ Print or ~pe name of contractor/applicant ' ' ~ ~~ny t~tvtduaL firm, co-partnership, social club, ~eaternal organ~ation, corporatio~ t venture, association, estate, t~t, receiver, ~ndicate. this a~ any other coun~ ci~ and count~, ci~ municipally, district, or other politicaI subdivision, or aav ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE SALT CREEK RANCH PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND ZONING DISTRICTS MAP. I. I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS the area of land, which is the subject of this Ordinance is diagrammatically represented in "Exhibit A' and incorporated herein by this reference and for the purpose of general description herein consists of 10 acres known as Rolling Hills Ranch Neighborhood 7C, and located at the southeast comer of Duncan Ranch Road and Hunte Parkway within the Rolling Hills Ranch Planned Community ("Project Site"); and, B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals WHERES, the proposed amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch Planned Community District Regulations, Zoning District Map consist of changing the adopted land use designation of Project Site I from IS, Institutional Uses, to SF2, Single Family Detached and Project Site 2, between OS-2, Open Space-Park and CPF, CommunityPurpose Facility; and, C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of various entitlements and agreements, including:l) Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) approved by City Council Resolution 15875 on September 25, 1990 and amended by City Council Resolution 2003-198 on May 13, 2003; 2) Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan approved by City Council Resolution No. 16555 on March 24, 1992 and amended by City Council Resolution 2003-198 on May 13, 2003; 3) The Salt Creek Ranch Planned Community District Regulations and Zoning Districts Map approved by City Council Ordinance No. 2499 on April 7,1992 and amended by Ordinance No. 2913 on May 20, 2003;4) Public Facilities Financing Plan approved by City Council Resolution 16555 on March 24, 1992 and amended by Resolution 2000-190 on April 10, 2001;5) Tentative Subdivision Map for Salt Creek Ranch, Chula Vista Tract 92-02 previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 16834 on October 6, 1.992 and amended by City Council Resolution No. 2000-190 on June 13, 2000 and Resolution 2003-199 on May 13, 2003; and 6) Agreement for Monitoring of Building Permits by City Council Resolution No. 2003-166 on April 15, 2003; D. Planning Commission Record of Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public heating on the Project on August 13, 2003 and voted 6-0-1-0 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council on the Project; and, 7 Ordinance No. Page 2 WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at the public hearing on this project held on August 13, 2003 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and, E. City Council Record of Application WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior boundaries of the Project Sites at least ten days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on August 26, 2003 on the Project discretionary approval applications, and to receive the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same. F. Discretionary Approvals Resolution and Ordinance WHEREAS, at the same City Council hearing at which this Ordinance was introduced for first reading on August 26, 2003, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved Resolution ___by which it adopted the amendments on the City of Chula Vista General Plan, Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan and Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan. NOW THEREFORE, the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine and ordain as follows: II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at is public hearing on August 13, 2003, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. III. PREVIOUS FEIR 89-03 AND FSEIR-91-03 REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED; FINDINGS; APPROVALS The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has previously reviewed, analyzed, considered, and certified FEIR-89-03 and FSE1R 91-03, Salt Creek Ranch. IlL CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed amendments have been previously addressed by FE1R 89-03 and FSEIR 91-03, Salt Creek Ranch and has, therefore, prepared an Addendum to said FEIR and FSEIR. The amendments are in substantial conformance with the Salt Creek Ranch GDP and SPA on which the FE1R and FSEIR Ordinance No. Page 3 analysis was based and therefore, approval and implementation of the GDP/SPA amendments does not change the basic conclusions of the FEIR and FSEIR. The Addendum has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. III. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council finds that the Addendum to FEIR 89~03 and FSEIR 91-03, reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and hereby considers the Addendum to FEIR 89-03 and FSEIR 91-03, Salt Creek Ranch. IV. FINDINGS FOR P-C PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE AMENDMENTS The City Council hereby finds that the proposed amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch Planned Community District Regulations are consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, as concurrently amended, and public necessity, convenience, the general welfare and good zoning practice support the amendment. V. APPROVAL OF ZONE AMENDMENTS The City Council does hereby approve the amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch Planned Community District Regulations, Land Use Districts Map as represented in Exhibit B. VI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Ordinance is dependent upon the.enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforcable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. VIII. 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 Jim Sandoval Ann~'l~ro~r Acting Director of Planning City Attorney and Building EXHIBIT A ROLLING HILLS RANCH PROJECT LOCATII PROJECT ON LOCATOR EXHIBIT RESOLUTION 2003- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROViNG AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM ; SALT CREEK RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SALT CREEK RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNiNG AREA (SPA) PLAN AND ASSOCIATED REGULATORY DOCUMENTS TO CHANGE PORTIONS OF EXISTiNG DESIGNATIONS FOR NEIGHBORHOODS 7 AND 8. I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution is diagrammatically represented in "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein by this reference and for the purpose of general description consists of: 1) ten acres within Neighborhood 7 located at the southeast comer of Duncan Ranch Road and Hunte Parkway; and 2) six acres within Neighborhood 8 located on the south side of Duncan Ranch Road between the parcel identified as "Community Park", and the adjacent Community Facilities District (CPF) site ( Project Site ) and, B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals WHERES, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on February 4, 2003 by McMillin Land Development Company requesting amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan, Salt Creek Ranch General Development ]Plan and Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan; and, WHEREAS the proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use Diagram consists of changing the land use designation of said 10-acres from Residential, Low Density to Residential, Low Medium, as illustrated in Exhibit B; and, WHEREAS the proposed amendment to the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) consists off 1) changing the land use designation within Neighborhood 7 from "School" to LM (Low Medium Residential); and 2) changing the land use designations in Neighborhood 8 from Community Park to CPF and from CPF to Community Park, as illustrated in Exhibit C; and, WHEREAS the proposed amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area Plan designation within Neighborhood 7 from "School" to 7C' and 2) changing the land use designations in Neighborhood 8 Community Park to CPF and from CPF to Community Park as illustrated in Exhibit D; and, C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of various entitlements and agreements, including:l) Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) approved by City Council Resolution 15875 on September 25, Page 2 1990 and amended by City Council Resolution 2003-198 on May 13, 2003; 2) Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan approved by City Council Resolution No. 16555 on March 24, 1992 and amended by City Council Resolution 2003-198 on May 13, 2003; 3) The Salt Creek Ranch Planned Community District Regulations and Zoning Districts Map approved by City Council Ordinance No. 2499 on April 7,1992 and amended by Ordinance No. 2913 on May 20, 2003;4) Public Facilities Financing Plan approved by City Council Resolution 16555 on March 24, 1992 and amended by Resolution 2000-190 on April 10, 2001;5) Tentative Subdivision Map for Salt Creek Ranch, Chula Vista Tract 92-02 previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 16834 on October 6, 1992 and amended by City Council Resolution No. 2000-190 on June 13, 2000 and Resolution 2003-199 on May 13, 2003; and 6) Agreement for Monitoring of Building Permits by City Council Resolution No. 2003-166 on April 15, 2003; D. Planning Commission Record of Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on August 13, 2003 and voted 6-0-1-0 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council on the Project; and, WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at the public hearing on this project held on August 13, 2003 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and, E. City Council Record of Application WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior boundaries of the Project Sites at least ten days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on August 26, 2003 on the Project discretionary approval applications, and to receive the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same. NOW THEREFORE BE 1T RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: II. PREVIOUS FEIR 89-03 AND FSEIR-91-03 REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED; FINDINGS; APPROVALS The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has previously reviewed, analyzed, considered, and certified FEIR-89-03 and FSEIR 91-03, Salt Creek Ranch. Page 3 III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed amendments have been previously addressed by FEIR 89- 03 and FSEIR 91-03, Salt Creek Ranch and has, therefore, prepared an Addendum to said FEIR and FSEIR. The amendments are in substantial conformance with the Salt Creek Ranch GDP and SPA on which the FEIR and FSEIR analysis was based and therefore, approval and implementation of the GDP/SPA amendments does not change the basic conclusions of the FEIR and FSEIR. The Addendum has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. III. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council finds that the Addendum to FEIR 89-03 and FSEIR 91-03, reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and hereby considers the Addendum to FEIR 89-03 and FSEIR 91-03, Salt Creek Ranch. IV. APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT The Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Diagram is hereby amended as set forth and diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "B," a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk to change the land use designation of 10 acres located at the southeast comer of Duncan Ranch Road and Hunte Parkway from Residential, Low Density to Residential, Medium-Low Density. V. GENERAL PLAN INTERNAL CONSISTENCY The City Council hereby finds and determines that the General Plan is internally consistent and shall remain internally consistent following the amendments thereto in this Resolution. VI. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS DESCRIBED BY THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS 1N CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN, AS AMENDED. The proposed amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan reflects the land use, circulation system and public facilities that are consistent with the City's General Plan as proposed to be amended. PLANNED COMMUNITY CAN BE INITIATED BY ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIFIC USES OR SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLANS WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE. Approval of the proposed amendments will not affect the timing of development of the Rolling Hills Ranch Community. 1N THE CASE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSTITUTE A RESIDENTIAL ENViRONMENT OF Page 4 SUSTAINED DESIRABLITY AND STABILITY; AND THAT IT WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH OR PROVIDE COMPATIBLE VARIETY TO THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDiNG AREA; AND THAT THE SITES PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES, SUCH AS SCHOOLS, PLAYGROUNDS AND PARKS ARE ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE ANTICIPATED POLPULATION AND APPEAR ACCEPTABLE TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION THEREOF. Development of the proposed project will be consistent with the existing surrounding development. VII. ADOPTION OF AMENDED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN In light of the findings above, the amended Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan is hereby approved and adopted in the form presented to the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. VIII. SPA FINDINGS/APPROVAL A. THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN , (AS AMENDED) IS iN CONFORMITY WITH THE SALT CREEK RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CHULA VESTA GENERAL PLAN. Project Site 1 The SPA plan amendment reflects the proposed changes to the General Plan and Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan. Thus, the amendments will be consistent with the General Plan and Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan, as proposed to be amended. Project Site 2 No amendments are proposed to the General Plan. The readjustment of boundaries between the park and CPF site will not affect the provisions of the Salt Creek Ranch SPA or General Development Plan. B. THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLANS WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE iNVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNiNG AREAS. Project Site 1 and 2 The development of the both sites is subject to the requirements, restrictions and limitations prescribed in The Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) and therefore will be constructed in the order outlined in the PFFP. C. THE SALT CREEK RANCH SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, AS AMENDED, WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. Page 5 Project Site 1 The proposed changes in allowable land uses are consistent with the existing surrounding residential development. The changes in allowable land uses will not adversely affect the adjacent land uses, residential enjoyment, circulation or environmental quality of the surrounding uses. Project Site 2 The proposed adjustment of boundaries between the park and CPF site will enhance the land use potential of both sites. D. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION, 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. The amendments do not involve areas planned for industrial or research uses. E. 1N THE CASE OF INSTITUTIONAL, RECREATIONAL, AND OTHER SIMILAR NONRESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE 1N AREA, LOCATION AND OVER-ALL PLANNING TO THE PURPOSE PROPOSED, AND THAT SURROUNDING AREAS ARE PROTECTED FROM ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM SUCH DEVELOPMENT. The proposed amendments do not involve Institutional, Recreational or similar uses. F. THE STREET AND THOROUGHFARES PROPOSED ARE SUITABLE AND ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC THEREON. Project Site 1 .The proposed project will result in approximately 420 fewer daily traffic trips within Rolling Hills Ranch Phase II than the adopted land use plan evaluated for the original Rolling Hills Ranch project. The proposed amendments will not cause any negative impacts to the surrounding roadway system and MI1 require no new mitigation measures. Project Site 2 There are no anticipated impacts based upon the amendments to this site. The readjustment of boundaries between the park and CPF site will result in enhancing the driveway entrances into the park and CFP site as well as allow for a better overall development. 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). Page 6 The proposed amendments do not involve commercial development. H. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAiD DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED AND ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY WITH SAiD DEVELOPMENT. Project 1 The area surrounding the project site contains existing residential development on three sides. The proposed residential development will be compatible with this existing deelopment. Project Site 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in light of the findings above, the City Council does hereby approve the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Plarming Area (SPA) Plan amendments as presented in "Exhibit D", a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk, subject to the conditions set forth below: X. SPA PLAN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Implement the Federal and State mandated conservation measures outlined in the Salt Creek Ranch Water Conservation Plan. 2. In addition to the mandated water conservation measures, implement the non- mandated water conservation measures, which include 1) Hot Water Pipe Insulation, 2) Pressure Reducing Valves, and 3) Water Efficient/Drought Tolerant Landscaping. 3. Prior to approval of building permits for each phase of the project, the applicant shall demonstrate that air quality control measures outlined in the Salt Creek Ranch Air Quality Improvement Plan pertaining to the design, construction and operational phases of the project have been incorporated in the project design. 4. Tables and exhibits in the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan SPA Plan must be modified to reflect the proposed amendments. Applicant shall submit 20 copies of amended documents for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Building. XI. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the forgoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, and any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to the their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of shall future building permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority o£ approvals herein granted, instituted and prosecute litigate or Page 7 compel their compliance or seek damages for their violations. No vested rights are gained by Developer or successor in interest by the City approval of this Resolution. XII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon enforceability of each and every term provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by the Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, if the city so determines in its sole discretion, this resolution shall be deemed to be revoked and no further in force or in effect. Presented by Approved as to form by Jim Sandoval ~ Acting Director of Planning City Attorney and Building PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 26th day of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Stephen C. Padilla, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula'Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2002-264 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 23rd day of July, 2002. Executed this 26th day of August, 2003. Susan Bigelow, City Clerk EXHIBIT A ROLLING HILLS RANCH LOCATIO! ?) PROCTOR PROJECT LOCATOR EXHIBIT B Z~"~Z~ I ~?~00 /~ ~/~ EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: ~C~ Meeting Date: 8/26/03 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Tentative Subdivision Map to divide approximately 10 acres into 43 single family lots.-McMillin Development Company. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approving a tentative subdivision map to subdivide 10 acres located west of Duncan Ranch Road, north of Proctur Valley Road, into 43 single family residential lots. SUBMITTED BY: Acting Director of Planning and Build'/~/$ths vote: Yes No X~ City Manager ~ ~. REVIEWED BY: The applicant, McMillin Development Company, submitted an application for a tentative subdivision map to divide a 10 acre lot into 43 single-family lots. The Project is located on the west side of Duncan Ranch road, north of Proctur Valley Road ("project site"). The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed tentative subdivision map have been previously addressed by FEIR-89-03 and FSEIR- 91-03, Salt Creek Ranch and has, therefore, prepared an Addendum to said FEIR and FSEIR. The Tentative Map is in substantial conformance with the conceptual tentative map and grading plans on which the FEIR and FSEIR analysis was based and, therefore, approval and implementation of the Tentative Map does not change the basis conclusions nfthe FEIR and FSEIR. The Addendum has been prepared in accordance with reqnirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt attached Resolution PCS 03-13 recommending that the City Council approve the proposed tentative subdivision map based on the £mdings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached City Council Resolution. BOARDS AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On August 13, 2003 the Planning Commission considered the tentative subdivision map. After hearing staff's presentation, the Commission voted 6-0-1-0 (O'Neil absent) to recommend that the Council consider the addendum and approve the above referenced amendments. Page 2, Item: ti Meeting Date: 8/26/03 DISCUSSION: 1. Background The staff report for the previous item on tonight's agenda regarding amendments to the General Plan and Salt Creek Ranch GDP/SPA includes a a detailed discussion of the issues regarding the use of the formerly designated school site for residential use. If the Planning Commission has determined to recommend approval of the amendments, this action is required in order to subdivide the property into buildable lots. 2. Existing Site Characteristics The Project Site is a 10 acre irregular shaped parcel located on the west side of Duncan Ranch Road, north of Proctor Valley Road within Neighborhood 7. Surrounding land uses are as follows: Existing Surrounding Land uses Chula Vista Municipal General Plan GDP Land Use PC District (Land Existing Land Code Designation Designation Use District) Use Project PC (Planned Low Density School IS (Institutional Vacant Site Community Residential Uses) East PC (Planned Low Density L (Low Density SF1 (Single Family Single Family Community Residential (0- Residential) Detached) Residential 3 do/ac) South PC (Planned Low Density ! L (Low Density SF1 (Single Family Single Family Community Residential (0- Residential) Detached) Residential 3 do/ac) West PC (Planned Open Space Open Space OS 1 (Open Space Salt Creek Community Natural) North PC (Planned Low Medium i LM (Low SF3 (Single Family Single Family Community Residential (3- medium Detached) Residential 6 do/ac) Residential) 3. . Project Description The Project, if approved, would consist of 43 single-family residential lots. Twelve lots would maintain a minimum lot size below 7000 square feet and the remaining thirty-one lots be a minimum lot size exceeding 7,000 square feet. The actual range of lot sizes is between 6,216 and 12,456 square feet. (see Attachment 2). Page 3, Item: /~ Meeting Date: 8/26/03 4. Analysis The proposed subdivision consists of forty-three single family lots designed in a curvilinear fashion on both sides of a circular residential street. This is an infill project for a former elementau school site. Due to the existing topography, including surrounding slopes, the proposed layout is best suited for developing single-family lots on the site. Lots have been designed to be primarily perpendicular or radial to the proposed residential street. Due to their height (ranging up to 45 feet), the. City has required that the tall slopes be contained within an open space lot to be maintained by an HOA. Circulation Primary access to each of the 43 lots will be via Duncan Ranch Road. The public streets within the Project will contain a minimum of 56 foot wide right-of-way as prescribed in the circulation element of the General Plan and designed per City design standards and/or requirements, or modifications accepted by the Director of Engineering. Affordable Housing The Project has been conditioned to require the Developer to either enter into a Third Affordable Housing Agreement or amend an existing affordable housing agreement to provide affordable housing units as specified in the adopted Salt Creek Ranch SPA Plan and as modified, or otherwise approved by Director of Community Development to include an additional requirement for two housing units for low income households or the equivalent thereof based upon five percent of the 43 residential lots created in Neighborhood 7C. Parks and Open space The Project's parkland development obligation has been satisfied by the improvement of an existing 7-acre neighborhood park located on Mackenzie Creek Road and the dedication of land and the payment of development fees for a future 22+ acre community park located south of Proctor Valley Road between Duncan Ranch Road and Hunte Parkway. Schools The Project is conveniently located in close proximity to both the future elementary school in San Mignel Ranch and EastLake Woods. It is anticipated that both of these elementary schools will be constructed within the next two years. As a result, the Chula Vista Elementary School District has indicated that the Project Site is no longer needed for an additional future elementary school in Rolling Hills Ranch. Drainage The current mass/rough grading of the Project Site allows for surface drainage only. Plans showing how the drainage will work for the individual project sites will be shown on the next grading plan submitted for review and approval by the City and will be required to comply with all the City standards. 3 Page 4, Item: /~ Meeting Date: 8/26/03 Sewer The project is currently served by a pump station that pumps sewage to the Telegraph Canyon basin. Once the Salt Creek interceptor is constructed the project will flow by gravity to the Salt Creek sewer main. The Salt Creek sewer is anticipated to be operational by the end of this year or sooner. Improvement plans will be submitted for review and approval by the City. Water The Otay Water District has amended the Sub Area Master Plan for Rolling Hills Ranch to include Neighborhood 7C as a residential land use. The project is served by a 10 inch potable main from Duncan Ranch Road. Both the Otay Water District and the City will review the improvement plans for the water improvements serving the project. 5. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, staff recommends adoption of the Resolutions recommending that the City Council approve the tentative map based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. FISCAL IMPACT The applicant has paid for all costs associated with the processing of the tentative subdivision map and will be responsible for paying corresponding Development Impact fees and other applicable development and processing fees, as they may be amended from time-to-time. Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution 2. Figures 3. Disclosure Statement J:\Planning\JEFF\RHR SCHOOL CONVERSIOI~PROJECT FILES\CCRPT.TMdoc.v2doc.doc ROLLING HILLS RANCH PROJECT LOCATII (NEIGHBORHO0[ ?) PROCTOR YAt. LEY LOCATOR ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO PCS 03-13 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMlvlISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AND ESTABLISH CONDITIONS OF THE TENATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR ROLLING HILLS RANCH, CHULA VISTA TRACT 03-13 WHEREAS, duly verified application for a tentative subdivison map was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planrfing and Building Department on March 4, 2003 by the McMillin Land Development ("Developer'S) requesting approval to subdivide 10 acres into 43 single family lots ("Project"), and, WHEREAS the area of land, which is the subject of this Resolution, is located on the west side of Duncan Ranch Road, north of Proctor Valley Road within the Rolling Hills Ranch Planned Community ("project site"); and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed tentative subdivision map have been previously addressed by FEIR-89-03 and FSEIR- 91-03, Salt Creek Ranch and has, therefore, prepared an Addendum to said FEIR and FSEIR. The Tentative Map is in substantial conformance with the Salt Creek Ranch GDP and SPA on which the FEIR and FSEIR analysis was based, and, therefore, approval and implementation of the Tentative Map does not change the basis of conclusions of the FEIR and FSEIR. The Addefidnm has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and. WHEREAS, the Planrdng and Building Director set the time and place for a hearing on the tentative map 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 and tenants within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission having received certain evidence on August 13, 2003, as set forth in record of proceedings herein by reference as is set forth in full, made certain findings as set forth in their recommending Resolution PCS 03-13 herein and recommended to the City Council approval of the application based on certain terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., August 13, 2003, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 'THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the attached City Council Resolution approving the Tentative Map for Chula Vista Tract 03-13 in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 13th day of August, 2003, by the following vote, to- wit: A~rES: Castaneda, Madrid, Hall, Cortes, Hom, Felber NOES: ABSENT: O'Neill Steve Castaneda, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretar~ /?-? ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix B THE C,. , OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE S'[*,['EMENT Ybu are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contribUtions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner applicant, contractor, subcontractor, matedal supplier. 2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s): ' -- -. 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period.'? Yes No ~ If yes, state which Councilmember(s): . . (NOTE: ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY) Sigrlatur~ of cohtracto~applicant Print or ~pe name of contractor/applicant ._ * Person is de)qned as.. "~ny inzIividual J~rrn co ~artnershiD :oint v/entu~r~ · , -I~ ?, j enture, association, social dub. freaternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and country, city municipality, district, or other political subdivision, or any RESOLUTION NO. RESOIA.!TION OF DiE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHELA VISTA APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 10 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF DLNCAN RANCH ROAD, NORTH OF PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD, INTO 43 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, thc area of' land which is the subject matter of' this Resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit ':A," copies of' which are in the office of the City Clerk. attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known Rolling Hills Ranch Neighborhood 7(~ and tbr the purpose of general description herein consists oi'approximately 10 acres located west of Duncan Ranch Road. north of Proctor Valley Road ¢'Projecl Site"); arid. f3. Projecl; Applicatioa Ibr Discretionary Approval WlfEREAS. a duly veri fled application was fi led with the City o fChula Vista Planning and Building Department on March 4, 2003. by McMillin Develyment Company ¢'Developer) requesting approval ot' a Tcnlative Sl~bdivision Map, Chula Vista Tracl 03-) 3, to subdivide 10 ucrcs into 43 single l~lmily residential lots (~'f'rQect"): and, C. Prior Discretionary Appro,~als WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of variotts entitlements and agreements, including:l} Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) approved by City Council Resolution 15875 on September 25, 1990 and amended by City Council Resolution 2003- 198 on May 13, 2(103: 2) Sail Creek Ra~ch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan approved by City Council Resolution No. 16555 on March 24. 1992 an~ amended by City Cotmcil Resolutior} 2003- 198 on May 13, 2003 and as further amended by Resolution on August 26, 2003: 3) The Salt Creek Ranch t:'lmmed Community District Regulations and Zoning Districts Map approved by City Council Ordinance 2499 on April 7~] 992 mid amended by Ordinance No. 2913 on May 20, 2003 and as thrlher amended by Ordinance No. on August 26, 2003; 4) Public Facilities Financing Plan apt)roved by City Council Resolution 16555 on March 24, 19!)2 mid amended hv Resolution 2000-190 on April 10, 2001 ;5) Temative Subdivision Map fbr Salt Creek Rm~ch5Chula Vista Trac! 92-02 previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 16834 on October 6, 1992 and anlended by City Council Resolution No. 2000-190 on Jtme 13. 2000 m~d Resolution 2003-199 on May 13.2003; and 6) Agreement for Monitoring of Building Permits by City Council Resolution No. 2003-166 on April I5, 2003; D. })lant~ing Commissiol~ Record on Application WHEREAS, the [~lmmi~g ( ommission Ineld an advertised pnblic hearing on the Tentative Subdivision Map on August 13. 2003 m~d, aISer hearing stagy presentation and public testimony, voted 64)-1-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the Tentative Std~<tiv ision Map, (hula Vista Trac~ 03-13~ ia accordance with the findings m~d subject to the conddions listed below: ami, City Council Record el'Applications W}f [..REAS. a duly cai/ed and noticed public hearing on the Tentative Subdivision Map was held be[bre the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on August 26, 2003 on thc [~roject and lo receive the recommet~dations of' the Planning Commission. and to hem' public testimony with regard to same; and. W[tEREAS, thc (ity Clerk set the time and place tb~' a hearing on said t~recise [~lan and Tentative Sttbdivision Map applicalions, and notice of said hearing, together with its parposc~ was gix. en by its publication in a newspaper el'general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ti. el'the exterior boundary of the prqject at least 10 days prior to thc hearing; and. WHEREAS, thc hearing was held at lhc time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. August 26, 20D3, in tile Core,oil Chmnbers, 276 Fofirth Avenue, bclk)re lhe City Council m~d said hearing was/herea[ler closed, NOW, 'I'HEREFORE, BE IT RIESOI~VED that lhe City Council does hereby find, determine and resolve as lk:)llows: 11, PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and alt evideuce inlroduced belk)re the Planning (.ommission at its public hearing on the l:)roject application held on Aagust 13, 2003. m~d lhe minules and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record o f this proceeding. PREVIOUS EEIR 89-03 AND FSEIR-91-03 REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED; FINI)INGS; APPROVAI,S The City Council of thc City ol'Chula Vista has previously reviewed, analyzed, considered, and certified FEIR-89-03 and FSEIR 914)3, Salt Creek Ranch. 2 1V. COMPI.IANCE V~"ITH CEQA The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed tentative subdivision map have been previously addressed by FEIR-89-03 and FSEIR-91-03, Salt Creek Ranch and has, therefore, prepared an Addendum to said FEIR and FSEIR. The Tentative Map is in substantial conformance with the adopted Salt Creek Ranch GDP and SPA on which the FEIR and FSEIR analysis was based and, therefore, approval and implementation of the Tentative Map does not change the basic conclusions of the FEIR and FSEIR. The Addendum has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. V. INDEPENI)ENT JUDGMENT OF ITx, COUNCIl. l'hc City Council finds that thc Addendum to Fl{If>. 89-03 and FSEIR 914)o. reflects the independent judgmelrt ol'Ihe City Council ol~the Cilv~ of'Chula Vista and hereby considers thc Addendum to FEIR 89-03 and FSk]ll>, 91-03, Salt Creek Ranch. VI. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned herein for Rolling Hills Ranch 7C, Chula Vista Tract No. 03-13, is in conformance with the elements of the City's General Plan, based on the following: 1. Land Use The Rolling Hills Ranch Neighborhood 7C parcel, as amended, provides for Low Medium Density Residential (3-6 du/ac). The proposed subdivision provides for forty three residential single family lots to be developed on the 10 acre site. Thus, the project, as conditioned, is in substantial compliance with the Salt Creek Ranch GDP and SPA, and since the GDP and SPA are in substantial conformance with the General Plan, the Tentative Map is also in substantial conformance with the General Plan. 2. Circulation All on-site and off-site public streets required to serve the subdivision will be constructed or D1F fees paid by the developer in accordance with the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan. The public streets within the Project will be sized as prescribed in the circulation elemer~t of the General Plan and designed per City design standards and/ or requirements, or ~nodifications accepted by the Director of Engineering The required and anticipated off-site improvements would be designed to handle this Project and future projects in the area: 3. Housing The Project has been conditioned to require the Developer to either enter into a Third Affordable Housing Agreement or amend an existing affordable housing agreement to provide affordable housing units as specified in the adopted Salt Creek Ranch SPA Plan and as modified, or otherwise approved by Director of Community Development to include an additional requirement for two housing units for low income households or the equivalent thereof based upon five percent of the 43 residential lots created in Neighborhood 7C. 4. Conservation FEIR 89-03 and FSEIR 91-03 address the goals and policies of the Conservation Element of the General Plan and found the development of this site to be consistent with these goals and policies. 5. Parks & Building Construction, Open Space The Project's parkland development obligation has been satisfied by the improvement of an existing 7-acre neighborhood park located on Mackenzie Creek Road and the dedication of land and the payment of development fees for a future 22+-acre community park located south of Proctor Valley Road between Duncan Ranch Road and Hunte Parkway. 6. Seismic Safety The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the goals and policies of the Seismic Element of the General Plan for this site. 7. Salty · The Fire Department and other emergency service agencies have reviewed the proposed subdivision for conformance with City safety policies and have determined that the proposal meets the City Threshold Standards for emergency services. 8. Noise Noise mitigation measures included in the FEIR 89-03 and FSE1R 91-03 adequately address the noise policy of the General Plan. The project has been conditioned to require that ail dwelling units be designed to preclude interior noise levels in excess of 45 dBA and exterior noise exposure over 60 dBA for all outside habitable areas. 9. Scenic Highway The Neighborhood 7C and affected Neighborhood 8 portion of the Rolling Hills Ranch project is located east of the intersection of Hunte Parkway and East H Street. The portion of Proctor Valley Road which provides vehicular access to Neighborhood 7C and the community park in Neighborhood 8 via Duncan Ranch Road, and which serves the eastward extension of East H Street is not delineated as a scenic highway within the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 10. Bicycle Routes ~dthough no designated regional off-street bicycle routes are included as components of the ~nternal circulation network, bicyclists will be readily able to share the internal streets with motor vehicles due to Iow traffic volume and limited speeds allowed. Bicycle route segments to connect to regional systems have been incorporated as prescribed by the Circulation Element of the General Plan. On-street bike lanes are included on the adjacent arterial highways. The bike lanes will be paved components of the street systems indicated. 11. Public Buildings No public buildings are proposed on the project site. The project is subject to RCT fees prior to issuance of building permits. B. Pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council certifies that it has considered the effect of this proposal on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. C. The configuration, orientation and topography of the site partially allows for the optimum setting of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities as required by Government Code Section 66473.1. D. The site is physically suited for residential development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such project. E. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extend to the impact created by the proposed development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the Project subject to the general and special conditions set forth below. VII. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Project Site is Improved with Project Developer, or their successors in interest, shall improve the Project Site with the Project as described in the Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 03-13, Final Environmental Impact Report and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except as modified by this Resolution. B. Implement Mitigation Measures Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of all mitigation measures pertaining to the Project identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning 5 Area (SPA) Plan and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Any such measures not satisfied by a specific condition of this Resolution or by the project design shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Building and Environmental Review Coordinator. Mitigation Measures shall be monitored via the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved in conjunction with FEIR 8%03 and FSEIR 91-03. Modification of the sequence shall be at the discretion of the Director of Planning & Building should changes in the circumstances warrant such revision. C. Implement Public Facilities Financing Plan Developer shall install public facilities in accordance with the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan, as amended or as required by the Director of Engineering, to meet the threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The Director of Engineering and Planning & Building Director may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. D. Design Approval The Developer shall develop the lots in accordance with the Salt Creek Ranch Planned Community District Regulations. E. Contingency of Project Approval Approval of the Tentative Map is contingent upon the approval of the GDP/SPA amendment (PCM 03-24) and Ordinance taking effect. VIII. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless otherwise specified, all conditions and code requirements listed below shall be fully completed to the City's satisfaction prior to approval of each final map. 1. 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 ali of the Property. For purposes of this document the term "Developer" shall also mean "Applicant". (Planning and Building) 2. The Developer shall comply with all requirements and guidelines of the City of Chula Vista General Plan; the City's Growth Management Ordinance; Chula Vista Landscape Manual, Chula Vista Design Plan, Subdivision Manual, Salt Creek Ranch Affordable Housing Program, Salt Creek Ranch General Development, SPA Plan, Salt Creek Ranch Planned Community District Regulations and Public Facilities Financing Plan; FE1R 89-03, FSEIR 91-03 and Addendum; Agreement for Monitoring of Building Permits per Resolution 2003- 160; all as may be amended from time to time, unless specifically modified by the appropriate department head, with the approval of the City Manager. These plans maybe 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. (Planning and Building) 6 3. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of building permits, deny, or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from the approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. The Developer shall be notified 10 days in advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the City. (Planning and Building) 4. In the event of a filing of a Final Map for the Project which requires over sizing of the improvements necessary to serve other properties, said Final Map shall be required to install all necessary improvements to serve the Project plus the necessary over sizing of facilities required to serve such other properties as determined by City Engineer (in accordance with the restrictions of state law and City ordinances). (Engineering) STREETS and RIGHT OF WAYS 5. Concurrent with approval of each Final Map for the Project, the Developer shall submit Improvement Plans for the applicable neighborhood for review and approval by the City Engineer, Director of General Services and the Director of Planning and Building. Applicant shall secure in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code, as necessary, the construction and/or construct full street improvements for all on-site and off-site streets as identified on the Tentative Map, and as may be amended from time to time and as deemed necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt concrete pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer, reclaimed water and water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, traffic signals, signs, landscaping, irrigation, fencing, fire hydrants and street light locations, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 6. Prior to the issuance of each street construction permit for the Project, the Developer shall prepare and secure, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Director Of General Services, for parkway and median landscape and irrigation plans. All plans shall be prepared in accordance with the current Chula Vista Landscape Manual and the Rolling Hills Ranch SPA Plan, as may be amended from time to time. Applicant shall install all improvements in accordance with approved plans to the satisfaction of the Director Of General Services and the City Engineer. (Building & Park Construction, Engineering) 7. Prior to the approval of the first Final Map for the Project, the Developer shall construct or enter into an agreement to construct and secure all street improvements as required by City Engineer, for each particular development phase, as may be amended from time to time. The Developer shall construct the improvements and provide security satisfactory to the City Engineer and City Attorney. (Engineering) 7 8. Concurrent with the first Final Map for the Project, submit and receive the approval from the City Engineer of a lot line adjustment, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, between the western boundary of the Project and Lot "A" of Map No. 14164. 9. Prior to approval of each Final Map, the Developer shall acquire and then grant to the City all off-site rights-of-way and easements necessary for the installation of required street improvements and/or utilities. (Engineering) 10. Developer shall, prior to the issuance of each rough grading permit proposing to grade individual lots and streets for the Project, submit a study showing that all curb returns for any intersection in excess of 4% grade, located within the permit boundaries, and all driveways within public right-of-ways, comply with ADA standards at the front and back of sidewalks to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 11. Developer shall notify the City, at least 60 days prior to consideration of the approval of the applicable Final Map by City Council, if off-site right-of-way and easements cannot be obtained as required by these conditions. (Only off-site right-of-way or easements affected by Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act are covered by this condition.) After said notification the Developer shall: a. Pay the full cost of acquiring off-site right-of-way or easements required by the Conditions of Approval of the Tentative Map. b. Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right-of-way or easements. Said estimate is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. c. Have all right-of-way and/or easement documents and plats prepared and appraisals complete, as necessary to commence condemnation proceeding, and as determined by the City Engineer. d. Request that the City use its powers of Eminent Domain to acquire right-of- way, easements, or licenses needed for off-site improvements, or work related to the final map. The Developer shall pay all costs, both direct and indirect, incurred in said acquisition. e. Items a, b, and c above shall be accomplished prior to the approval of the applicable final map. (Engineering) 12. The Developer shall grant on the applicable Final Maps sight visibility easements to the City of Chula Vista for comer lots, as required by the City Engineer, to keep sight visibility areas clear of any obstructions. Sight visibility easements shall be shown on grading plans, improvement plans, and final maps to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 13. Design landscape and irrigation plans such that street tree placement is not in conflict with the sight visibility of any traffic signage. The Developer shall be responsible for the removal of any obstructions within the sight visibility of said traffic signs to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 14. Street cross sections shall conform to the cross sections shown on the tentative map, unless otherwise conditioned or approved herein. All other design criteria shall comply with the 8 current Chula Vista Design Standards, Chula Vista Street Design Standards, and the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual unless otherwise conditioned or approved herein. (Engineering) 15. The Developer shall submit to and obtain approval by the City Engineer of striping plans for all collector or higher classification streets simultaneously with the associated improvement plans. (Engineering) 16. The Developer shall construct a temporary turnaround or street improvements, upon the request of and as determined necessary by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal, at the end of temporarily stubbed streets greater than 150 ft. in length (as measured from the nearest street centerline intersection). (Engineering) 17. The Developer shall design all vertical and horizontal curves and intersection sight distances to conform to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. All streets, which intersect other streets at or near horizontal or vertical curves, must meet intersection design sight distance requirements in accordance with City standards. Sight visibility easements shall be granted as necessary to comply with the requirements in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and City o f Chula Vista policies, where a conflict exists, the City of Chula Vista policies shall prevail. Lighted SAG vertical curves may be permitted, with the approval of the City Engineer, at intersections per AASHTO standards. (Engineering) l 8. Prior to approval of each Final Map, the Engineer-of-Work shall submit and obtain approval by the City Engineer a waiver request for all subdivision design items not specifically waived on the Tentative Map, and not conforming to the adopted City standards. The Engineer-of- work request shall outline the requested subdivision design deviations from adopted City standards and state that in his/her professional opinion, no safety issues will be compromised. The waiver is subject to approval by the City Engineer in the City Engineer's sole discretion. (Engineering) 19. The Developer shall construct sidewalks and construct pedestrian ramps on all walkways to meet "Americans with Disabilities Act" standards and subject to approval of the City Engineer. In the event the Federal Government adopts ADA standards for street rights-of- way, which are in conflict with the standards and approvals contained herein, all such approvals conflicting with those standards shall be updated to reflect those standards. Unless otherwise required by federal law, City ADA standards may be considered vested, as determined by Federal regulations, only alter construction has commenced. (Engineering) 20. The Developer shall not install privately owned water, or other utilities crossing any public street. The installation of sleeves for future construction ofprivatelyowned facilities mavbe allowed subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer if the followin~ is accomplished: a. The Developer enters into an agreement with the City where the Developer agrees to the following: 9 i. Apply for an encroachment permit for installation of the private facilities within the public right-of-way; and, ii. Maintain membership in an advance notice such as the USA Dig Alert Service; and, iii. Mark out any private facilities owned by the Developer whenever work is performed in the area; and, iv. The terms of this agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the Developer. b. Shutoff devices as determined by the City Engineer are provided at those locations where private facilities traverse public streets. (Engineering) 21. Street names shall be as on the approved tentative map, or as otherwise approved by the Director of Planning and Building and City Engineer. (Planning, Engineering) 22. Prior to approval of each Final Map, the Developer shall agree to install permanent street name signs, and shall install such signs prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the applicable final map. (Engineering) 23. Provide security in accordance with Chapter 18.16 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, dedicate, and construct full street improvements for all streets shown on the Tentative Map within the subdivision boundary or off-site, as deemed necessary by the City Engineer to provide service to the subject subdivision, in accordance with Chula Vista Design Standards, Chula Vista Street Standards, Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, and approved Tentative Map, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Said street improvements shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt concrete pavement, base, curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer, water treatment facilities, water quality force mains and pumps, drainage facilities, street lights, traffic signals, signs, striping, fire hydrants and transitions to existing improvements in the manner required by the City Engineer. The amount of the security for required improvements, including landscape and irrigation plans, shall be 110% of a construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer and the Director Of General Services if related plans have been approved by the City, 150% times the approved cost estimate if related plans are being processed by the City or 200% times the construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer and the Director Of General Services ifrelated plans have not been submitted for City review. A lesser percentage may be required if it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Director Of General Services that sufficient data or other information is available to warrant such reduction. (Engineering) OPEN SPACE/ENVIRONMENTAL 10 24. The approval of this map by the City of Chula Vista does not authorize the applicant to violate any Federal, State or City laws, ordinances, regulations or policies, including but not limited to the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and any amendments thereto (16 U.S.C. Section 1531 ct seq.). (Planning & Building) DRAINAGE 25. The Developer shall prior to approval of any grading plans; submit hydrology and hydraulic studies, and calculations demonstrating the adequacy of downstream drainage structures, pipes and inlets. (Engineering) 26. All private storm drains from the Project shall connect into the public storm drain system at a structure such as a cleanout or catch basin. (Engineering) 27. Prior to the approval of the first Final Map for the Project, or issuance of the first grading permit for the Project, whichever occurs earlier, enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista, wherein the Developer agrees to the following: a. Comply with the requirements of the new Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order No. 200.1 y01) issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, including rews~on of plans as necessary. b. Indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all fines, costs, and expenses arising out of non- compl!ance with the requirements of the NPDES regulations, in connection with the execunon of any construction and/or grading work for the Project, whether the non- compliance results from any action by the Developer, any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others. The Developer's indemnification shall include any and ail costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City. c. To not protest the formation of a facilities benefit district or any other funding mechanism approved by the City to finance the operation, maintenance, inspection, and monitoring of NPDES facilities. This agreement to not protest shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to challenge the amount of any assessment, which may be imposed due to the addition of these improvements and shall not interfere with the right of any person to vote in a secret ballot election. The above noted agreement shall run with the entire land contained within the Project. (Engineering) 28. The quantity of runoff from the development shall be reduced to an amount equal to or less than the pre-development 5-, 10-, 25-, 50- and 100-year frequency storm. Retention/detention facilities and water quality basins will be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to reduce the quantity of runoff to an amount equal to or less than the pre-development flows. Said retention/detention facilities and water qualityhasins shall be designed per the City's subdivision manual, constructed by the Developer and maintained by 11 the HOA, or other mechanism as subject to approval of the City· The Developer shall also process and obtain any Resource or like Agencies permits for said facilities. (Engineering) 29. Storm drain systems that collect water from private property shall be designated private on grading and drainage and/or improvement plans to the point of connection with a public system. A grant of easements and encroachment agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney shall be required for all private drainage improvements within the public right of way or within C.F.D. maintained Open Space lots. (Engineering) 30. The Developer shall submit with grading and drainage and/or improvement plans, as applicable, hydrologic and hydrau!ic studies and calculations, including dry lane calculations for all public streets. Calculations shall also be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of downstream drainage structures, pipes and inlets. (Engineering) 31. Stom~ drain design shall conform to the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the Grading Ordinance as may be amended from time to time. Any modification to the storm drain plans will require an updated Urban Runoff Management Plan to address said modification as required by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 32. Storm drain clean outs shall not be located on slopes or in inaccessible areas for maintenance equipment. Public storm drains shall be installed as close to perpendicular to the slope contours as possible but in no case greater than 15 degrees from perpendicular to the contours. (Engineering) 33. Brow ditches that cross over slopes greater than 10 feet in height and steeper than 3:1 gradient shall not be allowed. Drainage shall be collected in an inlet and carried via underground storm · drain to the bottom of the slope or a drain inlet connected to an underground stom~ drain. The Developer shall ensure that brow channels and ditches emanating from and/or running through City Open Space are not routed through private property. Brow ditches and channels from private property shall not be routed through City open space unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer· (Engineering) 34. Dry weather post-developed conditions shall be the same as pre-developed conditions. (Engineering) 35. Prior to approval of each Grading Permit for the Project, the Developer shall demonstrate that first flush flows will be diverted to detention/infiltration basins or otherwise treated prior to their discharge to existing drainage courses in accordance with the Water Quality Technical Report, and as may be an~ended from time to time. (Engineering) 36. Prior to the recordation of the first Final Map for the Project, the Developer shall develop apost construction water quality maintenance and monitoring plan acceptable to the City Engineer identifying thresholds for all pollutants, the frequency of monitoring, standards for record 12 keeping, procedures and frequency of maintenance and funding sources to implement the plan. (Engineering) 37. The developer shall design the storm drains and other drainage facilities to include BMP's to minimize non-point source pollution, satisfactory to the City Engineer. a. The Development shall comply with all applicable regulations established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System'(NPDES), permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge, the Clean Water Act, and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista, pursuant to the NPDES regulations or requirements. Further, the Developer shall file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both construction and post construction pollution prevention and pollution control measures and shall identify funding mechanisms for post construction control measures. b. The developer shall comply with all the provisions of the NPDES Permit during and after all phases of the development process, including, but not limited to, mass grading, rough grading, construction of street and landscaping improvements, and construction of dwelling units. The Developer shall incorporate in the project design water quality and watershed protection principal and post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) selected for the project, in compliance with the NPDES Permit, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. c. Prior to Final Map approval for the project, the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City where Developer agrees not to protest the formation of a facilities benefit district or any other funding mechanism approved by the City to finance the operation, maintenance, inspection, and monitoring of NPDES facilities. This agreement to not protest shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to challenge the amount of any assessment, which may be imposed due to the addition of these improvements and shall not interfere with the fight of any person to vote in a secret ballot election. The above noted agreement shall run with the entire land contained within the Project. d. Prior to approval of each final map, Developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City, where Developer agrees to operate, maintain and monitor in perpetuity all private permanent BMPs deemed necessary by the Director of Engineering to provide service to said final map: Prior to Final Map approval, building permits, or at such time as required by the City Engineer for the Project, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval from the City Engineer of a maintenance program for theproposedpost-constructionBMP's. The maintenance program shall 13 include, but not be limited to: 1) a manual describing the maintenance activities of said facilities, 2) an estimate of the cost of such maintenance schedule and activities, and 3) a funding mechanism for financing the maintenance program. e. Prior to approval of any grading, construction, and building permits for the project, the Developer shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer compliance with all of the applicable provisions of the municipal code, the City of Chula Vista Storm water Management Standards Requirement Manual (including the Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Permit 2001-0!) and the City of Chula Vista SUSMP. The Developer shall incorporate into the project planning and design effective post-construction BMP's and provide all necessary studies and reports demonstrating compliance with the applicable regulations and standards. BMP's shall be identified and implemented that specifically prevent pollution of storm drain systems to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) from certain project feature, land use, areas and activities. f. Indemnify, and hold harmless the City, it selected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all fines, costs, and expenses arising out of non- compliance with the requirements of the NPDES regulations, in connection with the execution of any construction and/or grading work for the Project, whether the non- compliance results from any action by the Developer, any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others. The Developer's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City. GRADING 38. Prior to issuance of any grading permit based on plans proposing the creation of down slopes adjacent to public or private streets, Developer shall obtain the City Engineer's approval of a study to determine the necessity of providing guardrail improvements at those locations. The Developer shall construct and secure any required guardrail improvements in conjunction with the associated grading and/or construction permit as determined by and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The guardrail study shall demonstrate adequate area exists for the installation of street trees along Duncan Ranch Road to the satisfaction of the Director of Plarming and Building. The guardrail shall be installed per Caltrans Traffic Manual and Roadside Design Guide requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 39. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit which impacts off-site property, the Developer shall deliver to the City, a notarized letter of permission to grade and drain for all off-site grading. (Engineering) 14 40. All grading and pad elevations shall be within 2 feet of the grades and elevations shown on the approved tentative map or as .otherwise subject to approval of the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building. (Engineering) 41. The Developer shall submit to and obtain approval from the City Engineer and Director of General Services for an erosion and sedimentation control plan as part of grading plans. (Engineering, Department of General Services) 42. Indicate on all affected grading plans that all walls, which are to be maintained by HOA, shall be constructed entirely within open space lots. (Engineering) 43. Prior to issuance of each grading permit, provide a study Showing that the proposed quantities of earthwork will balance for each phase. This study shall incorporate the most recent Project design information for said phase. (Engineering) 44. Locate lot lines at the top of slopes except as shown on the Tentative Map or as subject to approval of the City Engineer and Director of General Services. Lots shall be so graded as to drain to the street or an approved drainage system. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over slopes or onto adjacent property. (Engineering, General Services) 45. Provide a setback, as determined by the City Engineer based, on Developer's Soils Engineer recommendations, between the property lines of the proposed lots and the top or toe of any slope to be constructed where the proposed grading adjoins undeveloped property or property owned by others. The City Engineer will not approve the creation of any lot that does not meet the required setback. (Engineering) 46. Design and construct the inclination of each cut or fills surface resulting in a slope no steeper than 2:1 (two horizontal to one vertical) except for minor slopes as herein defined. All constructed minor slopes shall be designed for proper stability considering both geological and soil properties. A minor slope may be constructed no steeper than one and one-half horizontal to one vertical (1.5:1) contingent upon: a. Submission of reports by both a soils engineer and a certified engineering geologist containing the results of surface and subsurface exploration and analysis. These results should be sufficient for the soils engineer and engineehng geologist to certify that in their professional opinion, the underlying bedrock and soil supporting the slope have strength characteristics sufficient to provide a stable slope and will not pose a danger to persons of property; and, b. The installation of an approved special slope planting program and irrigation system; and, c. "Minor Slope" is defined as a slope four (4) feet or less in vertical dimension in either cut or fills, between single-family lots and not parallel to any roadway. (Engineering) 15 47. The Developer shall construct temporary de-silting basins at all discharge points adjacent to drainage courses or where substantial drainage alteration is proposed in the grading plan. The exact design and location of such facilities shall be based on hydrological modeling and determined pursuant to direction by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 48. The Developer shall obtain approval from all applicable permitting agencies, including but not limited to FEMA, prior to any work within each of the agencies jurisdiction. All mitigation requirements will be the responsibility of the Developer. (Engineering) 49. The Developer will submit a drainage study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer for each grading permit showing that the interim conditions do not adversely impact downstream flows. (Engineering) SEWER 50. Prior to approval of the first Final Map for the Project, the Developer shall demonstrate to the City Engineer that there is adequate capacity to handle projected sewage flows for the entire Project. (Engineering) 51. Sewer access points shall, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer: a. Be located at the centerline of streets or cul-de-sacs; and, b. Not be located on slopes or in inaccessible areas of maintenance equipment; and, c. Not be in the wheel tracks on Class I Collector Streets and above; and, d. Meet Regional Standard Drawing M-4 (Locking) if located within intersections of Class I Collectors and above; and, e. Have improved all-weather paved 12-foot wide minimum access to withstand a H-20 vehicle load or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer; and, f. Be provided at all changes of alignment of grade. (Engineering) 52. The Developer shall provide a sewer profile study for all deep sewer lines (15' in depth or greater), which indicates that no other feasible alternative exists. (Engineering) 53. Sewer lines, which are greater than 20 feet in depth, shall use C-900 or C-905 class pipe or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 54. The Developer shall construct at its own cost and expense all off-site and on-site sewer facilities as required by the City Engineer to serve the Project. (Engineering) 16 WATER 55. The Developer shall secure and agree with the Otay Water District to construct all water facilities (on and off-site) required per the Subarea Water Master Plan to serve the Project. (Engineering) 56. The Developer shall provide to the City a letter from Otay Municipal Water District indicating that the assessments/bonded indebtedness for all parcels dedicated or granted in fee to the City have been paid or that no assessments exist on the parcel(s). (Engineering) 57. Prior to approval of each Final Map, present verification to the City Engineer in the form ora letter from Otay Water District that the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long-term water storage facilities. The Developer shall phase and install water system improvements as required by the Otay Water District. (Engineering, Planning and BuiMing) 58. The Developer shall grant all necessary easements required to serve the Project and adjacent lands with water. (Otay Water, Engineering, Planning and Building) EASEMENTS 59. Prior to approval of the first Final Map, enter into a maintenance agreement and grant easements as necessary for landscaping and improvements including water quality facilities maintained by a Homeowners Association within City right-of-way or such other public areas required by the City. (Engineering) 60. The Developer shall indicate on all appropriate Final Maps a reservation of easements to the futura Homeowners Association for private storm drain, if any, within open space lots as directed by the City Engineer. Obtain, prior to approval of each Final Map, all off-site right- of-way necessary for the installation of the required improvements. The Developer shall also provide easements for all on-site and off-site public drainage facilities, sewers, maintenance roads, and any other public facilities necessary to provide service to the Project. (Engineering) 61. The Developer shall grant easements to subsequent owners pursuant to Section 18.20.150 of the City Code on any Final Map that proposes private utilities or drainage facilities crossing property lines as directed by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 62. Where a private storm drain easement will parallel a public sewer easement, the easements shall be delineated separately on the Final Map and on the grading and improvement plans. If any portion of the easements will overlap one another, the City shall have a superior right to the common portion of the easements. Prior to the approval of each Final Map, the City Engineer may require either the removal or the subordination of any easement, which may unreasonably interfere with the full and complete exemise of any required public easement or 17 right-of-way. (Engineering) 63. The Developer shall grant on the final maps minimum 15' wide easements to the City o£Chula Vista as required by the City Engineer for construction and maintenance of sewer facilities. (Engineering) AGREEMENTS/FINANCIAL 64. Prior to approval of the first Final Map for the Project, the Developer shall either enter into a Third Affordable Housing Agreement or amend an existing affordable housing agreement as directed by the City's Director of Community Development to provide a££ordabl¢ housing units as specified in the adopted Salt Creek Ranch SPA Plan and as modified, or otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development to include an additional requirement for two housing units for low income households or the equivalent thereof based upon five percent o£ the 43 residential lots created in Neighborhood 7C. (Community Development) 65. The Developer shall indcmni£y, protect, defend and hold thc City harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities and costs, including attorney's fees, arising from 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. (Planning and Building) 66. Any and all agreements that the Developer is required to enter into hereunder shall be in a form subject to approval o£the City Attorney. (City Attorney) 67. The Developer shall enter into a supplemental agreement with the City, prior to approval o£ each Final Map, where the Developer agrees to the following: a. Notwithstanding any provisions set forth elsewhere in these conditions, the City may withhold building permits for the subject subdivision if any of the following occur: i. Regional development threshold limits set by the City have been reached or in order to have the Project comply with the Growth Management Program as may be amended from time to time. ii. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services either exceed the adopted City threshold standards or fail to comply with then effective Growth Management Ordinance, and Growth Management Program and any amendments thereto. Public utilities shall include, but not be limited to, air quality, drainage, sewer and water. iii. The required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP, or as amended or otherwise conditioned have not been completed or constructed to the satisfaction of the City. The Developer may propose changes in the timing 18 and sequencing of development and the construction of improvements affected. In such case, the PFFP may be amended, as approved by the City's Director of Planning and Building and the Director of Engineering.. b. To defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City, including approval by its Planning Commission, City Council or any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision pursuant to Section 66499.37 of the State Map Act provided the City promptly notifies the Developer of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense. c. To ensure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable Company") are permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service to each lot within the subdivision. Developer agrees that the City of Chula Vista may grant access to cable companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista to place conduit within the City's easement situated within the Project. Developer shall restrict access to the conduit to only those franchised cable television companies who are, and remain in compliance with, all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same may have been, or may from time to time be issued by the City of Chula Vista. d. That the City may withhold the issuance of building permits for the Project, should the Developer be determined by the City to be in breach of any of the terms of the Tentative Map Conditions or any Supplemental Agreement. The City shall provide the Developer of notice of such determination and allow the Developer reasonable time to cure said breach. e. Hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting from this Project. (Engineering) 68. The Developer shall enter into an supplemental agreement with the City prior to approval of the first Final Map for the Project, where the Developer agrees to the following: a. Participate, on a fair share basis, in any deficiency plan or financial program adopted by SANDAG to comply with the Congestion Management Program (CMP). b. To not protest the formation of any future regional impact fee program or facilities benefit district to finance the construction of regional facilities. (Engineering) 69. Prior to approval of each Final Map, the Developer shall agree to contract with the City's current street sweeping franchisee, or other server approved by the City Engineer to provide public street sweeping, if any, for each phase of development on a frequency and level of service comparable to that provided for similar areas of the City. The Developer shall cause 19 street sweeping to commence immediately after the final residence, in each phase, is occupied and shall continue sweeping until such time that the City has accepted the street or 60 days after the completion of all punch list items, whichever is shorter. The Developer further agrees to provide the City Special Operations Manager with a copy of the memo requesting street sweeping service, which memo shall include a map of areas to be swept and the date the sweeping will begin. (Public Works) 70. The Developer shall be required to equitably participate in any future regional impact fee program for regional facilities should the region enact such a fee program to assist in the construction of such facilities. The Developer shall enter into an agreement, prior to approval of the first map, with the City which states that the Developer will not protest the formation of any potential future regional benefit assessment district formed to finance regional facilities. (Engineering) 71. The Developer agrees that the maintenance and demolition of all interim facilities (public facilities, utilities and improvements) is the Developer's responsibility, and that construction and demolition bonds will be required to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 72. Prior to the approval of any Final Map for the Project that contains open space, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement to construct and secure open space landscape improvements within the map area. All landscape improvements shall be secured in amounts as determined by the Director of General Services and approved in form by the City Attorney. (Engineering) PHASiNG 73. If the Developer proposes to modify the Salt Creek Ranch SPA Plan approved phasing plan, the Developer shall submit to the City a revised phasing plan for review and approval prior to approval of the first Final Map for the Project. Phasing approved with the precise plan may be amended subject to approval by the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer. (Planning and Building, Engineering) HOME OWNER ASSOCIATION (HOA) DECLARATION OF COVENANTS CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&R's) 74. Prior to the approval of the first Final Map for the Project, the Developer shall: a. Submit evidence, acceptable to the City Engineer and the Director of Plarming and Building of the formation of a Homeowner's Association (HOA), or another financial mechanism acceptable to the City Manager. The HOA shall be responsible for the maintenance of those landscaping improvements that are not to be included in the proposed financial mechanism. The City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building may require that some of those improvements shall be maintained by the Open Space District. The final determination of which improvements are to be 20 included in the Open Space District and those to be maintained by the HOA shall be made during the Open Space District Proceedings. The HOA shall be structured to allow annexation of future tentative map areas in the event the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building require such annexation of future tentative map areas. The HOA formation documents shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney; and, b. The. Developer shall submit for City's approval the CC&R's, grant of easements and maintenance standards and responsibility of the HOA's for the Open Space Areas within the Project area. Developer shall acknowledge that the HOA's maintenance of public open space, trails, etc. may expose the City to liability. Developer agrees to establish a HOA that will hold the City harmless from any actions of the HOA in the mmntenance of such areas; and, c. Submit and obtain approval of the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building of a list of all HOA facilities and other items to be maintained by the proposed district. Separate lists shall be submitted for the improvements and facilities to be maintained by the Open Space District and those to be maintained by a Homeowner's Association and shall include a description, quantity and cost per year for the perpetual maintenance of said improvements. These lists shall include but are not limited to all facilities located on open space lots including: walls, fences, water fountains, lighting structures, paths, trails, access roads, drainage structures and landscaping. Each open space lot shall also be identified by the number of acres off l) turf, 2) irrigated, and 3) non-irrigated open space to aid in the estimation of a maintenance budget thereo£ (Engineering, Planning and Building) 75. Prior to the approval of each Final Map, Declaration or Supplementary Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be submitted and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The CC&R's shall include the following obligations of the Homeowners Association: a. A requirement that the HOA shall maintain comprehensive general liability insurance against liability incident to ownership or use of the following areas: i. All open space lots that shall remain private, ii. Other Association maintained property. b. Before any revisions to provisions of the CC&R's that may particularly affect the City can become effective, said revisions shall be subject to approval of the City. The HOA shall not seek approval from the City of said revisions without the prior consent of 100 percent of the holders of first mortgages or property owners within the HOA. 21 c. The HOA shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claims, demands, causes of action liability or toss related to or arising from the maintenance activities of the HOA. d. The HOA shall not seek to be released by the City from the maintenance obligations described herein without the prior consent o f the City and 100 percent of the holders of first mortgages or property owners within the HOA. e. The HOA is required to procure and maintain a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance written on a per occurrence basis in an amount not less than one million dollars combined single limit. The policy shall be acceptable to the City, name the City as additionally insured to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, and shall not contain a cross party exclusion clause. f. The CC&R's shall incorporate restrictions for each lot adjoining open space lots containing walls maintained by the open space district to ensure that the property owners know that the walls may not be modified or supplemented nor may they encroach on City property. g. The CC&R's shall include provisions assuring maintenance of all streets, driveways, drainage and sewage systems which are private. h. The CC&R's shall include provisions assuring HOA membership in an advance notice service such as the USA Dig Alert Service in perpetuity. i. The CC&R' s shall include provisions that provide the City with the right but not the obligation to enforce the CC&R provisions the same as any owner in the Project. j. The CC&R provisions setting forth restrictions in these Tentative map conditions may not be revised at any time without prior written permission of the City. k. The CC&R's shall contain provisions assuring the implementation, maintenance and monitoring of post construction BMP's. (Engineering, Planning and Building) 76. Future property owners shall be notified during escrow, by a document to be initialed by the owners, of the maintenance responsibilities of the HOA and their estimated annual cost. Developer shall submit the document and obtain the approval of the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building prior to close of escrow. (Engineering, Planning and BuiMing) 77. Developer agrees that the HOA will be responsible for the maintenance of all brow ditches within Open Space Lot "A". PARKS AND LANDSCAPiNG 22 78. In addition to the requirements outlined in the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual, privately maintained slopes in excess of 25 feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated to soften their appearance as follows: one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 1,500 square feet of slope area, one 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 square feet of slope area, and appropriate groundcover. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary the slope plane. Landscape and irrigation plans for private slopes shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to approval of the corresponding final map. (Planning and Building) 79. The Developer shall enter into an agreement to install and shall install all street trees in accordance with Section 18.28.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. All street trees shall be selected from the list set forth i ' ' n the ProJect s Landscape Master Plan and shall be planted in parkways, or as otherwise approved by the Director of Planning and Building. The Developer will maintain street tree identification stakes in location as shown on approved preliminary plans until all dry utilities are in place. The Developer shall provide root control methods per the requirements of the Director of Planning and Building, and provide a deep watering irrigation system for the trees. a. Complete preliminary street improvement plans that show the location of all future street trees, which will be subject to the review and approval of the Director Of General Services and the Director of Planning & Building. b. Place wood stakes on site prior to utility installation according to approved preliminary street tree plans and shall be painted a bright color and labeled as future street tree location. c. Pr°vide the City documentation, acceptable by the Director Of General Services and the Director of Planning and Building, that all utility companies have been given notice that no dry utility line shall be located within five feet of the wood stake in any direction. d. Maintain street tree identification stakes in location as shown on approved preliminary plans until all dry utilities are in place. Submit final street tree improvement plans, including mailbox locations, for review and subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer prior to or concurrent with the second submittal of street improvement plans within the subdivision. Approval of the street tree improvement plans shall constitute final approval of the selection of street trees for the street parkways. (Engineering, Planning, Department of General Services) 80. Prior to approval of each Final Map, provide proof to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Director of General Services that all improvements located on open space lots will be 23 incorporated into and maintained by a Home Owner's Association~ (Engineering, Department of General Services) 81. Prior to approval of each Final Map, agree to have future property owners of lots adjacent to open space lots sign a statement at the time of property purchase, indicating that they are aware and acknowledge that the perimeter walls within open space lots are the property of the HOA, and that they may not modify or supplement the wall, or encroach onto open space property. These restrictions shall also be reflected in the CC&R's that are recorded against each property. (Engineering, Department of General Services) 82. Applicant shall keep any necessary retaining walls to a minimum and/or ifa grading solution can be found, retaining walls will not be used to gain additional space for the street corridor unless approved as shown on the Tentative Map. The retaining walls are to be located and detailed on all applicable grading plans for the Project, and subject to the approval of the Directors of Planning and Building, Public Works and General Services. Slopes gradients may be increased to the maximum permitted in the grading ordinance in limited locations to accommodate constraints such as maintenance access ways. Landform grading policies shall be observed and followed. If a combination of low retaining walls and modified landform grading cannot accommodate any constraints or maintenance access areas, the top of slope shall be adjusted, as City deems necessary. (Department of General Services) 83. Prior to approval of the first Final Map for the Project, in leiu of the preparation of a landscape master plan, the applicant shall prepare, submit and obtain the approval of the Directors of Planning and Building and General Services of an initial set of landscape and irrigation construction document plans at a minimumof 50% completion level, indicating all proposed plant materials and their locations as well as irrigation point of connection information (meters, backflows, controllers, mainline routing, etc). All proposed planting and irrigation shall be consistent with the Salt Creek Ranch SPA,_as amended, existing surrounding Rolling Hills Ranch neighborhoods as well as the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and standards to the satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and Building and General Services. The final landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted pursuant to the Subdivision Manual. (Department of General Services) 84. Prior to the issuance of each grading permit for the Project, the Applicant shall prepare, obtain the approval of and secure to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Building all landscape and irrigation slope erosion control plans. All plans shall be prepared in accordance with the current Chuta Vista Landscape Manual and Grading Ordinance, as may be amended from time to time. Applicant shall install landscape and irrigation slope erosion control in accordance with approved plans no later than six months from the date of issuance of the grading permit. If the work cannot be completed within the specified time, the Applicant may request an extension, which may be granted at the discretion of the Director of Planning & Building. Such a request shall be submitted for approval in writing to the Planning & Building Department sufficiently in advance of the end of the six-month 24 timeframe to allow processing of the extension. Notwithstanding the time of installation of landscape and irrigation slope erosion control; Applicant shall remain in compliance with NPDES. (Planning, Department of General Services) EMERGENCY SERVICF, S 85. The Developer shall comply with the Fire Department's codes and policies for Fire Prevention, as may be amended from time to time. Prior to the issuance of any building permit(s) for the Project, the Developer shall provide the following items prior to delivery of combustible materials on any construction site on the Project: a. Water supply consisting of fire hydrants as approved and indicated by the Fire Department during plan check to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. Any temporary water supply source is subject to prior approval by the Fire Marshal. b. Emergency vehicle access consisting of a minimum first layer ofhard asphalt surface or concrete surface, with a minimum standard width of 20 feet or acceptable alternative subject to approval of the Fire Marshall and in compliance with the U.F.C. c. Street signs installed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. Temporary street signs shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and Fire Department. Locations and identification of temporary street signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works and Fire Department. (Fire, Planning, Engineering) 86. The Developer shall obtain the approval of the City's Fire Marshal for the timing of construction of all internal streets in the Project. (Fire, Planning, Engineering) 87. In addition to those fire hydrants depicted on the tentative map, the Developer shall install additional fire hydrants upon request and to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. (Fire, Planning, Engineering) CODE REQUIREMENTS 88. The Developer shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map for the Project and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and thq City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code requirements. (Engineering) 89. The Developer shall pay the following fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy: 25 a. Signal Participation Fees. b. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees including the Recreation Development Impact Fees. c. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer connection fees. d. Interim SR-125 impact fee. e. Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF. Pay the amount of the above fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. Pumped Sewer DIF (If the Salt Creek Sewer Main Intemeptor up to the Olympic Parkway Pump Station is not accepted by the City prior to the Project's first Final Map). (Engineering) 90. The Developer shall comply with all relevant Federal, State, and Local regulations, including the Clean Water Act. The Developer shall be responsible for providing all required testing and documentation to demonstrate said compliance as required by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 91. The Developer shall ensure that prospective purchasers sign a "Notice of Special Taxes and Assessments" pursuant to Municipal Code Section 5.46.020 regarding projected taxes and assessments. Submit the disclosure form for approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval. (Engineering) 92. The Developer shall comply with Council Policy No. 522-02 regarding maintenance of natural channels within open spaces, if any. (Engineering) MISCELLANEOUS 93. Within thirty (30) days of the City Council approval of these map conditions, or prior to the submittal of the first Final Map for the Project, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall submit a digital drawing file of the tentative map in its approved form. The drawing projection shall be in California State Plane Coordinate System (NAD 83, Zone 6). The digital file shall combine all map sheets into a. single CADD drawing, in DXF, DWG or ArcView (GIS) format and shall contain the following individual layers: a. Subdivision Boundary (closed polygons) b. Lot Lines (closed polygons) c. Street Centerlines (polylines) d. Easements (polylines) e. Street Names (annotation) 26 f. Lot Numbers (annotation) g. NPDES facilities (annotation) The digital drawing file shall be submitted in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital Submittal on 3 5~" disks or CD, as an e-mail attachment to the City Engineer or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer· (Engineering) 94. Prior to Final Map approval, the Developer shall submit copies of all tentative maps, final maps, grading and improvement plans in a digital format. The drawing projection shall be in California State Plane Coordinate System (NAD 83, Zone 6). The digital file of the maps shall combine all map sheets into a single CADD drawing, in DXF, DWG or ArcView (GIS) format and shall contain the folio.wing individual layers: a. Subdivision Boundary (closed polygons) b. Lot Lines (closed polygons) c. Street Centerlines (polylines) d. Easements (polylines) e. Street Names (annotation) f. Lot Numbers (annotation) g. NPDES facilities (annotation) The final map, grading plan, improvement plan, and maintenance responsibility map digital files shall also conform to the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual requirements therefore. The digital drawing files shall be submitted in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital Submittal on 3 ½" disks or CD, as an e-mail attachment to the City Engineer or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer· (Engineering) 95. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System-Zone VI (1983). (Engineering) 96.Prior to approval of the first Final Map for the Project, the Developer shall provide evidence, satisfactory to the Director of Planning & Building that all school district requirements have · been satisfied. (Planning & Building). 97. The Developer shall comply with all provisions of the Project's Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP). The Developer hereby agrees to implement al! AQIP measures as approved by the City Council, and to comply and remain in compliance with the AQIP. (Planning and Building) 98. .The Developer acknowledges that the City Council may from time to time modify air quality Improvement and energy conservation measures related to new development as various technologies and/or programs change or become available. The Developer shall be required to modify the Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP) to incorporate those new measures, which are in effect at the time, prior to or concurrent with each Final Map approval within the Project. The new measures shall apply, as applicable, to development within all future 27 Final Map areas, but shall not be retroactive to those areas, which received Final Map approval prior to effect of the subject new measures. (Planning and BuiMing) 99. The Developer shall comply with all provisions of the Project's Water Conservation Plan (WCP). The Developer hereby agrees to implement al! WCP measures as approved by the City Council, and to comply and remain in compliance with the WCP. (Planning and Building) 100. The Developer acknowledges that the City Council may from time to time modify water conservation measures related to new development as various technologies and/or programs change or become available. The Developer shall be required to modify the Water Conservation Plan (WCP) to incorporate those new measures, which are in effect at the time, prior to or concurrent with each Final Map approval within the Project. The new measures shall apply to development within all future Final Map areas, but shall not be retroactive to those areas, which received Final Map approval prior to effect of the subject new measures. (Planning and Building) 101. Prior to approval of the first Final Map for the Project, submit to the Planning and Building Department 20 copies of the adopted Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan, SPA, Planned Community District Regulations and Public Facilities Financing Plan, all as mnended, in plastic binders. Specific document format, table ofcont~ts, binder size and titles shall be as determined by City staff. (Plan. ning & Building) XIII. 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, or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy 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. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Resolution. XIV. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provision, 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 fome and effect ab initio. 28 Presented by: Approved as to form by: Jim Sandoval A~n~~~ Acting Director of Planning & Building City Attorney 29 EXHIBIT A ROLLING HILLS RANCH LOCATION (NEIGHBORHO0[ ?) LOCATOR EXHIBIT B ~' ' J'~ .-~ I~l~l~I~l~l I I I I~o~ '"'a li a l ~z 0 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: ~ 0 Meeting Date: 8/26/03 ' ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Precise Plan including a Density Bonus to allow for 14- unit condominium project in the R2P zone at 815 Ada Street. Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista granting a Precise Plan to allow the development of 14 town homes in seven duplex buildings to be located at 815 Ada Street. Applicant: Jorge Sanchez for Jim Truesdale Developments (PCM-03-08). SUBMITTED BY: Acting Director of Planning and Building ~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~t~~ ~c~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes__No X~ The applicant proposes a condominium project with certain deviations from the R-2 development standards, and an increase from 12 to 14 dwellings units utilizing the provisions for a Precise Plan as outlined in the Zoning Code Sections 19.14.570 -580. The Montgomery Specific Plan provides that a net density bonus of 25 percent may be given to development projects ' ~ aractenzeo by outstanding planning or urban design," if approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Pursuant to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Environmental Division has reviewed the proposal and found that the project is a Class 32 exemption for infill developments (Section 15332). RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Precise Plan, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the attached Precise Plan Ordinance and grant a Density Bonus pursuant to Montgomery Specific Plan. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On June 25, 2003, the Planning Commission voted (5 - 0 - 0 - 2) to adopt Planning Commission Resolution PCM-03-08, recommending the City Council approve the Precise Plan Ordinance and grant a Density Bonus pursuant to Montgomery Specific Plan. The Design Review Committee approved the design of the project with conditions at their April 21, 2003 meeting, absent the finding that the proposed project was "ch .... planning or urban design" (Attachment No. 6). aractenzea ~y outstanding Page 2, Item: Meeting Date: 8/26/03 DISCUSSION: Background The applicant has been working on three separate town home developments on Ada Street. This application for a 14-townhome project at 815 Ada Street is known as the "Ada II Villas." It was submitted in August 2002 as a follow-up to the "Ada I Villas," a 12-townhome project currently under construction to the east at 777 Ada Street that was approved by the Design Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council in June, July, and August 2002 respectively. The Ada III Villas, like this application for the Ada II Villas, is scheduled for City Council review on August 26 2003 as part of the Redevelopment Agency agenda. The R2P zoning for the property allows for the Precise Plan (Two-Family Residential within a Precise Plan overlay-modifying district). Therefore, the Precise Plan proposed for this property is to allow or require the following: (1) An increase in density from 12 to 14-units above what the zoning would allow per the provisions for such density bonuses by the Montgomery Specific Plan; (2) Deviations to the underlying zoning with regards to required overall floor-area-ratio, yard setbacks, private usable open space, two-car garage dimensions, and guest parking spaces (a decrease from 14 to 8 on-site spaces). Ada II will rely on the same findings that were made in granting a 25 percent density increase to the first project. Ada I was allowed an increase from 10 to 12 town home units based on the project being "characterized by outstanding planning or urban design" per the provision found in the Montgomery Specific Plan. For Ada II, the request is to allow for an increase from 12 to 14 town home units. A hydrology/drainage study was provided to the City showing that the impact of the project on the existing drainage course at the rear of the property would be less than significant, and as a result, the Environmental Division was able to exempt the project from further review under CEQA (January 2003), clearing the way for the attached plans for discretionary review to be deemed complete in February 2003. Of note, the Design Review Committee did not believe the project represented "outstanding planning or urban design" when it was approved in April 2003. Essentially, they approved of the overall concept for the project but were concerned because of the reduced size of the common open spaces and the reduced number of guest parking spaces compared to Ada I (the minutes of their April 21 and June 2 2003 public hearings are attached). Therefore, in order to allow the density increase, the City Council will need to make the finding of "outstanding planning or urban design" for Ada II without the endorsement of the Design Review Committee. In June 2003, the Planning Commission approved both Ada II and III with the recommendation to the City Council that both projects were representative of "outstanding planning or urban design." Page 3, Item: ~ Meeting Date: 8/26/03 Site Characteristics The project site is a 43,430-sq. ft. vacant lot. located in an older residemial area described as "Harborside 'B'" in the Momgomery Specific Plan. The I-5 freeway to the west and the Industrial Boulevard/MTDB Trolley R-O-W to the east geographically define the neighborhood. A natural drainage course defines the rear property lines of the block, which is bounded by Ada Street, Frontage Road, Dorothy Street, and Industrial. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use Although the General Plan and Montgomery Specific Plan designate this area as single-family residential, there are existing and new two-family and multi-family developmems already located within the area. In addition, the redevelopment agency has located other higher density affordable housing in this area utilizing the density bonus provisions provided for by State Government Code. The project is located within a quarter mile radius of the Palomar MTDB Trolley Station, and as a result falls within a transit-oriented development (TOD) study area targeted by state legislation for smart growth. The General Plan Update has identified this as an "activity area" and is examining whether to change the land use designation to encourage higher density developments in this neighborhood. Existing land uses are: General Plan & Montgomery Specific Plan Zoning: Existing Land Use: Land Use Designations & Density: North: Residential Low Medium: R-2-P Single Family Home (3 - 6 dwelling units/acre) South: Residential Low Medium: R-2-P Dwelling Group (3 - 6 dwelling units/acre) (Two Homes) East: Residential Low Medium: R-2-P Dwelling Group (3 - 6 dwelling units/acre) (Two Homes) West: Residential Low Medium: R-2-P Single Family Home (3 - 6 dwelling units/acre) Proposal The applicant proposes to construct a 14-unit town home project, consisting of 7 duplex buildings. Each building would incorporate two-story "Unit A" and "Unit B" floor plans. "Unit A" would measure 1,560-sq. ft. with a 420-sq. ft. two-car garage, and "Unit B" would measure 1,352-sq. ft. with a 436-sq. ft. two-car garage Each unit will have three bedrooms and three baths with a vaulted ceiling living room creating a loft effect within the stairwells to the second floor hallways leading to the bedrooms. Each duplex building is 24 feet in height, and will be augmented by private fenced-in rear yard areas with patios. A 24-ft. wide access driveway through the center of the property will serve the complex, including sidewalk on both sides for both vehicular and pedestrian paths to the garage and condominium entrances. Recreation areas are located on both sides of the driveway, including playgrounds and BBQ picnic areas behind the guest parking spaces and the trash enclosure. Page 4, Item: ~ Meeting Date: 8/26/03 ANALYSIS: Zoning The Precise Plan provisions found in Section 19.56.040 of the Zoning Ordinance indicate that the purpose of the P precise plan modifying district is to allow diversification in the spatial relationship of land uses, density, buildings, structures, landscaping and open spaces, as well as design review of architecture and signs through the adoption of specific conditions of approval for development of property in the city. Further, Section 19.56.045 of the Zoning Ordinance indicates that Precise Plan modifying districts may not increase densities above the maximum range within the underlying zone. However, since there was no density established as expressed in a number following the P designator for the zoning of this property (R2P), the Montgomery Specific Plan (MSP) provision as noted above can be applied on a case by case basis for individual projects within the Montgomery Specific Plan area. The Precise Plan provisions of the Zoning Code allow for various standards to be modified if the required findings can be made. The Precise Plan must be reviewed and approved by the Plauning Commission and City Council. In this case, the Precise Plan process could allow the applicant to develop the proposed project with 14 instead of 12 dwelling units, for a net density increase of 25 percent as provided for in the Montgomery Specific Plan. In order to implement the increase from 12 to 14 dwellings units on the subject property on the subject property, deviations from the typical R2P zoning for the site plan layout will be required. The result is a two-family or R-2 development that resembles a multi-family development. However, the private and common usable yard areas are designed to a higher standard than most other multi-family developments. These units will function more like town homes with more usable open space areas than most multi-family units. The following two tables show the typical development standards of the R-2 (Two-Family) Residential Zone in relation to the proposed Precise Plan development standards: Typical R2P Zoning Development Standards: STANDARDS: REQUIRED: Front yard setback: 15-ft. Side yard setback: 5/1 O-ft. Rear yard setback: 15/20-ft. Building Height: 28 feet Two-Car Garage Parking: 28 spaces Guest Parking: 14 spaces Lot Coverage: 50 percent Floor Area Ratio: 55 percent Page 5, Item: ~ Meeting Date: 8/26/03 Proposed Precise Plan Development Standards: Development Standard for Townhomes: Lot Criteria Lot area per urdt (minimum): 3,000-sq. fi. Lot coverage (maximum): 50 percent Lot depth (minimum): 54-fi. Lot width (minimtan): 32-fi. Floor Area Ratio (maximum): 60 percent Unit A (7-units, includes garage): 1,980-sq. fi. Unit B (7-units, includes garage): 1,788-sq. fi. Setbacks from drives and perimeter lot lines Front yard (minimum): 4-ft. Exterior side yard (minimum): 4-ft. Interior side yard (minimum): 0-fi. Rear yard (minimum): 8-ft. Parking 2-car garages Units A (7-units): 420-sq. ft. Interior dimensions: 20'-6" x 19'-10" Minimum garage door opening: 16-ft. Minimum depth and width For one of two parallel vehicles: 17-ft. x 8-ft. Unit B (7-units): 436-sq. ft. Interior dimensions: 21 '-0" x 20'-0" Minimum garage door opening: 8'-4" & 8'-4" Minimum depth and width For one of two parallel vehicles: 17-ft. x 8-ft. Guest Parking (compact): 8 spaces Minimum dimensions: 7-fi. x 15-fi. Driveways: 20-ft. Open space 28,645-sq. ft. Private Usable (minimum): 385-sq. ft. Per unit Common Usable (two areas): 2,015-sq. ft. Fencing 6-ft. Perimeter: Stucco wall Interior: Wood fence Building Height 26-ft. No accessory structures are Patio covers must permitted on lots with rear yards be less than less than 10-fi. in depth: 300-sq. fi. Site Plan The site plan shows seven duplex buildings, three east of the access road, and four to the west of the access road. Identical recreation areas are shown on both sides, between units 10 and 11 to the east and between units 2 and 3 on the west side. The west area includes a trash enclosure. Page 6, Item: ~ Meeting Date: 8/26/03 The landscape plan only shows lawn and picnic/barbecue equipment in each open space area, but a recommended condition of approval isfor a children's "tot-lot" with play equipment to be located in the eastern open space area. In addition, staff believes the findings can be made in support of the deviations to the from, rear, and side setbacks, the reduction to the size of the private open space areas, and the maximum floor-area-ratio for the overall site. The central spine driveway will provide vehicular access to the two-car garages (for each duplex unit), which is consistent with the R-2 parking requirements. Pedestrian access will be provided along the edges of the driveway with stamped concrete. There is no fire hammerhead turnaround since all buildings will possess fire sprinkler systems in conformance with Fire Department requirements. A masonry retaining wall will be constructed along the east and west property lines in order to minimize fill slopes to the east and west. As seen on the site longitudinal sections, the building pads will be stepped down from the grade of the street down to the drainage channel. In addition, a 5-ft. rear retaining wall will be installed at the 100-year inundation line as shown in the rear wall elevation. A 6-ft. wood fence will be constructed on top of the retaining walls along the east and west property lines and in-between duplex buildings, to create private rear yard areas. The applicant will be required to remove and replace the two existing driveway aprons and install a new central driveway apron along the Ada Street frontage of the site pursuant to the requirements of the Engineering Department to process a Tentative Subdivision Map for 14 condominiums. Parking Two-car garages with a minimum depth of 17-ft. for one space are proposed in lieu of the typical 20-ft. dimension for a parking space. The reduction is to accommodate angled privacy entries and living room areas. Guest parking will be provided by 8 on-site compact (7-1/2-ft. x 15-fl.) spaces. A minimum of 6 off-site guest parking spaces would be available on the street in front of the complex. Staff believes the findings can be made in support of the deviations to the garage dimensions and compact guest parking for the overall site because the deviations will allow a better utilization of the available site. Architecture The duplex buildings incorporate two different floor plans. Each unit is designed to incorporate features found in some of the better designed single-family homes, such as angled privacy entries, open loft areas, raised ceilings, kitchens with bay windows, large bedrooms with bathrooms and walk-in closets, a bedroom/study or den option, laundry rooms, and ample storage space within the units adjacent to the two-car garages. Page 7, Item: ~ Meeting Date: 8/26/03 Landscaping The existing drainage channel directly impacts and significantly reduces the usable lot area where more usable common open space Could have been provided for children and families. However, the landscape treatment of the area adjacent to the drainage channel will provide a passive open space amenity and the visual appearance of larger lots, which will be beneficial to residents of the complex. The proposed landscape plan has been reviewed by the City Landscape Planner and found to be substantially consistent with the City's Landscape Guidelines. The proposed landscape plan calls for the placement of accent trees and turf along the driveway entrance and along the elevation facing the Ada Street elevation of the site. Trees and other significant landscaping will be placed throughout the site and around the guest parking. CONCLUSION: The Design Review Committee does not believe Ada II represents "outstanding planning or urban design" because the two common open space areas and the number of guest parking spaces were reduced. This was the result of the 100-year inundation line, which prevents full utilization of the southern portion of the property. However, as mentioned above, the landscape treatment of the area adjacent to the drainage channel will provide a passive open space amenity that should be considered beneficial to the complex. Therefore, staff believes that the finding of "outstanding planning and urban design" can be made. This project will be a catalyst for future redevelopment of this area, and the density bonus will allow for more affordable housing relative to the current housing market. In addition, Ada II is consistent with Ada I and Ada III in terms of building design. Therefore, staff believes that the project meets the minimum Precise Plan requirements and recommends approval. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed high quality residential development will generate significantly more property tax than the now vacant site, and the developer will pay all processing and impact fees. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Locator Map 2. Landscape/Floor Plans/Elevations/Site Sections/Rear Floodplain Elevation 3. a. Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2003 b. Plarming Commission Resolution PCM-03-08 4. Design Review Committee Minutes of April 21, 2003 5. Design Review Committee Minutes of June 2 2003 6. Notice of Decision PCM-03-08 with Conditions of Approval 7. Application Documents with Disclosure Statement J:\PLANNING\HAROLD\PCM-03 -08CCRDAREPORT.DOC COMMERCE CENTER TOTAL BEAUTY SALON o ~ "~ ~ MARSAT CT LOCATION CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANt: JORGE SANCHEZ PROJECT MISCELLANEOUS ADDRESS: 815 Ada Street Request: Proposal for the construction of 14-unit townhomes,enclosed garages and playground area. J:\home\planning\cherrylc\locators\pcm0308.cdr 09.10.02 Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - June 25, 2003 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 03-08; Precise Plan including a Density Bonus to allow for 14-unit condominium project in the R2P Zone at 815 Ada Street. Background: Harold Phelps reported that the proposal is to construct a 14-unit townhome project consisting of 7 duplex buildings each incorporating two-story Unit A and Unit B floor plans. Unit A would measure 1,560 sf with a 420 sf two-car garage, and Unit B would measure 1,352 sf with a 436 sf two car garage. Each building is 24 feet high and will be enclosed by private fenced~in rear yard areas with patios. A 24 ft. wide driveway through the center of the property will serve the complex, including sidewalks on both sides for both vehicular and pedestrian paths to the garage and condominium entrances. Recreation areas are located on both sides of the driveway, including playgrounds and BBQ picnic areas behind guest parking spaces and the trash enclosure. The project site is a vacant lot located in an older residential area (Harborside B) in the Montgomery Specific Plan. A Precise Plan is being requested to accomplish the following: · an increase in the allowable density from 12 to 14 units which the Montgomery Specific Plan provides that a net density bonus of 25% may be given to projects "characterized by outstanding planning or urban design"; · deviations from the underlying zoning with regards to the building set-backs, open space areas, two-car garage dimensions, guest parking spaces and floor area ratio. Although the DRC could not make the findings of "outstanding planning or urban design" because the two common open space areas and the number of guest parking spaces were reduced as a result of the 100 year inundation line over a large part of the southerly portion of the property prevented full utilization of the property. However, the landscape treatment of the area adjacent to the drainage channel will provide a passive open space amenity that should be considered beneficial to the complex, therefore, staff believes that the finding can be made. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM 03-08 recommending that the City Council approve the Precise Plan subject to the conditions and findings contained in the draft City Council Precise Plan Ordinance and grants the Density Bonus pursuant to the Montgomery Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - June 25, 2003 Commission Discussion: Cmr. Hom inquired if staff had addressed the concerns raised by a resident, Mr. Galbraith with regards to the run-off. Mr. Phelps stated that the applicant and architect met with Mr. Galbraith after the DRC meeting and his concerns were resolved because he didn't realize that there would be a retaining wall along the southern property line, which is adjacent to his property and all of the drainage would be controlled within the property lines. Public Hearing Opened and Closed 7:15. Cmr. Felber stated its unfortunate that some of the guest parking has been lost; expressed concern with the size of the small yards, and felt the layout is too closed in even with the two open space areas. MSC (Felber/ ) that the Planning Commission deny the density bonus and approve the project for 12 units instead of the 14. Motion failed for lack of a second. Jorge Sanchez, 345 Moss St., Chula Vista, CA, applicant, stated that he developed a 14- unit project on Moss St. practically identical to the proposed project with two open space areas and 6 parking spaces, which has been adequate. Cmr. Castaneda stated that he lived in a similar complex that was gated and didn't have the benefit of on-street parking as this project will have. He stated it takes enforcement of the CC&R's to ensure that residents use their garages. Cmr. Cortes stated that he supports this project not only on the merit of its design, but also because of the pedestrian-oriented elements and its close proximity to the trolley. MSC (Cortes/Hall) (5-0-0-2) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM 03-08 recommending that the City Council approve the Precise Plan subject to the conditions and findings contained in the draft City Council Precise Plan Ordinance and grants the Density Bonus pursuant to the Montgomery Specific Plan. Motion carried. R~SOLUT]ON NO, PC~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL GRANT PRECISE PLAN PCM-03-08, INCLUDING A DENSITY BONUS TO ALLOW FOR A 14-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT IN THE R2P ZONE LOCATED AT 815 ADA STREET. WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Precise Plan zoning permit was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on August 23, 2002 by Jorge Sanchez and Daniel Contreras for Jim Truesdale Developments, Applicant; and WHEREAS, said applicant requests permission to develop a 14 town house condominium development, consisting of 7-duplex buildings located at 774 Ada Street; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the project was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as a Class 32 exemption for infill developments on January 8, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said Precise Plan zoning permit 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 and residents within 500-ft. of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place advertised, June 25, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at the public hearing with respect to subject application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby recommend that the City Council approve Precise Plan PCM-03-08 in accordance with the findings and development standards of the draft Precise Plan Ordinance and subject to the conditions contained in the Design Review Committee's Notice of Decision. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 25m day of June, 2003, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Cortes, Hall, Castaneda, Hom, Felber NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Madrid, O'Neill AT~T.~.~xt~~ Russ Hall, Chair Diana Vargas, SecretaryO Design Review Committee -2 ~rTT"/q C H 44 t-- ~ ~- Minutes April 21, 2003 E. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. PCM-03-08 815 Ada Street Chula Vista, CA Precise Plan for a 14-unit town house condominium in 7 duplex build n.qs. Each unit will possess 3-bedrooms and 3 bathrooms, with a two car qara.qe Staff Presentation: Mr. Harold Phelps, Associate Planner reported that the applicant is proposing a 14-unit town home seven building project known as Ada II Villas. The project was submitted in August of 2002 as a follow up to Ada I Villas, which was approved in June of 2002 by the Design Review Committee for a 12 town home project which is just to the east of this property. Mr. Phelps stated that the project site is located in an older residential area described as Harborside or Fairfield, which was bisected by the I-5 freeway in the early 1950's. There are a variety of industrial users that can be seen from the west of the freeway but there is still a predominance of single-family homes, as well as a Mobilehome Park in the general areas. Mr. Phelps reported that a natural drainage course defines the rear property lines of the properties in this area located within this neighborhood and there are actually structures, which were built within the flood plain. Staff stated that the proposal is to construct the 14 town homes incorporating two different floor plans within each building, Each unit would either be 1,352 or 1,560 square feet with two car garages over 400 square feet. Each unit will have 3-bedrooms and 3-baths with vaulted ceiling living rooms creating a loft effect within the stairwells to the second floor hallways leading to the bedrooms. The elevations show variety in horizontal and vertical planes utilizing arched entries and varying rooflines and fenestrations. The exterior materials would consist of sandstone stucco with red tile roofing. Accent trim will include variations of beige and tan colors as shown on the material boards. Staff stated that a 24-foot driveway would serve the complex with sidewalks on both sides. Open spaced recreation areas are located on both sides adjacent to guest parking and a trash enclosure, A child's tot lot with play equipment will be required in the open space area that does not pose conflict with the trash enclosure. Each unit will also possess private yard areas and patios to the rear of the buildings. Mr, Phelps indicated that guest parking is required for units served by driveways where there is no street frontage. The original site plan submitted last year showed 14 compact guest spaces, but the current site plan shows only 8 guest spaces due to revisions needed to keep the buildable areas away from the 100-year flood plane. As a result, the larger common open space area shown on the original site plan was reduced to leave the southern portion of the property open, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that if the Design Review Committee determines that the project is consistent with the Chula Vista Design Guidelines and the Montgomery Specific Plan J:\HOME\PLANNING~ROSEMARIE\DRCWIIN4.21.03 ~O,~,~/~ Design Review Committee -3 Minutes April 21, 2003 provisions for a density bonus, then the committee recommend approval of the Precise Plan to the Planning Commission and City Council, subject to the conditions of approval. Resident's Concerns: Mr. George Galbreth (807 Ada Street, Chula Vista, CA) stated that he owned the property next door to the proposed project. Mr. Galbreth commented that there was an excessive slope next to his property and when it rained he experienced excessive run off from the slope on to his property. He was concerned that this project would only make the situation worse. Mr. Galbreth also expressed concerned about potential sewage problems with the addition of the condominium units. Mr. Schmitz stated that just for clarification of the audience's sake the Design Review Committee's responsibilities were to evaluate the overall design of the project and those elements of the project that are design related. There would be two more hearings on this project a Planning Commission Hearing and a City Council Hearing were some of the issues that are related to land use, such as the density bonus, would be addressed at that time. Chair Morion asked if there had been any research done on the slope problem indicated by the resident? Mr. Schmitz stated that he did not believe so, but any project that comes to the Planning Department will have to be reviewed and approved by the City's Engineering Department who will take care of grading and any sewer issues that arise. He felt that the resident's concerns were valid and they would have to check with the engineering department to make sure that the issue is addressed in the staff report to the Planning Commission. Chair Morion explained to the resident that the Design Review Committee dealt strictly with design issues so they wouldn't get involved with the engineering part of the project itself, however as Mr. Schmitz indicated, there was going to be some more research done and other hearings where it would give the applicant an idea of how the project would eventually be handled. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Vice Chair Araiza asked that staff clarify on the site plan Condition A which referred to relocating or eliminating the trash enclosure, and then providing stamped concrete to delineate the entrance crossing as well as the two open space crossing of the access driveway. Mr. Phelps responded that the trash enclosure may not be needed because there was sufficient space in the garages and there may be a potential for eliminating this trash enclosure, but the applicant would need to coordinate that with Pacific Waste to see if that was going to be feasible. However, the applicant might have to still provide a green waste location and a smaller enclosure than what was being shown on the site plan because the size of the trash enclosure could impede the trash pick up. With respect to the stamped concrete, in the case of "Ada r', Mr. Phelps stated that the applicant had shown stamped concrete across the driveway at the locations of the open space areas that would delineate pedestrian access and also at the front entrance. To j:\HOME\PLANNING\ROSEMARIE\DRC~llN4-21-03 ~ ,~,~ ~ Design Review Committee -4 Minutes April 2'1, 2003 keep it consistent with the "Ada I" project, that was located a few properties west of "Ada Il", Mr. Phelps thought it was impodant to include that element in this project because it was not actually shown on the site plan and had conditioned the project so that it would be included. Member Aguilar asked for clarification on page 3 of the staff report under Site Plan and Parking in the second paragraph where it refers that: The landscape plan only shows lawn and picnic/barbecue equipment in each open space area, but as a condition of approval a children's tot-lot and play equipment is being required to be located in the eastern open space area, where there are potential conflicts with a trash enclosure. Mr. Phelps stated that there was typographical error in that paragraph. The tot-lot was supposed to be in the eastern open space area because there were no potential conflicts with a trash enclosure. Member Aguilar asked if the neighborhood in general was both single-family homes and duplexes? Mr. Phelps replied that the neighborhood was a mixture of two family group dwellings, single-family homes and apartments. Member Aguilar asked if the zoning was single-family? Mr. Phelps explained that the General Plan land use designation is for single-family but the zoning is actually two family duplex (R2P) and it does allow for 2 units for every 7,000 square feet of lot area which is a little different than the General Plan. As part of the General Plan Update, staff was looking at making that consistent and even possibly increasing it to a higher density, multi-family, because it's within the transit radius of the Palomar Trolley Station. Member Aguilar commented about the density bonus mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Phelps stated that "Ada II' project was located a few properties to the west of "Ada I", and will rely on the same findings that were made in granting a 25 percent density increase to the first project. Because the property was within the Montgomery Specific Plan the applicant had to apply for a Precise Plan to allow for the addition of two more units above what the zoning would allow for. Member Aguilar remarked that in order to have that occur the Design Review Committee and subsequent groups that look at this project would have to make a finding that this project would be an example of outstanding planning or urban design. She noted that even staff had acknowledged in the staff report that it was a little difficult to do. Mr. Phelps stated that it was difficult to make that finding due to the setback restrictions, parking requirements and a drainage channel that cumulatively impacted and significantly reduced the usable lot area and guest parking where more usable common open space and guest parking could have been provided. J:\HOME\PLANNING\ROSEMARIE\DRCffVlIN4-21.03 ~'~0 Design Review Committee -5 Minutes , April 21, 2003 Member Aguilar remarked that in addition to. those issues the other project had sidewalks along the internal streets. She.asked how the side~Nalk situation was addressed in this project? Mr. Phelps replied that pedestrian access would be provided along the edges of the driveway with stamped concrete. T.he pedestrian would actually be walking on the driveway on the delineated area of stamped ;:one,Crete; this same approach was utilized and approved by the committee for the previous "Ada I, project at 777 Ada Street, as well as the Moss Street Townhomes near Third Avenue. In addition, the project would be conditioned to provide stamped concrete to delineate the entrance crossing, as well as the two open space crossings of the access driveway. Vice Chair Ariaza asked if the applicant was in agreement with the conditions as far as the paving and if the colors on the buildings would be varied because it was stated in the conditions. Mr. Daniel Contreras, Architect, (515 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA) stated that they were in agreement with the conditions requested by staff. With respect the building elevations their intent was to do a couple of variations of the stucco color as well as varying the rooflines with gabled or hipped roofs to give the elevations a contrasting appearance. Vice Chair Araiza thought that the volumes and the design of the buildings were good but if there was an additional play with color it would enhance the project. Member Aguilar commented that with respect to making a recommendation for the density bonus, in reading the staff report it was her understanding that the Design Review Committee had to make a finding that the project was characterized by outstanding planning or urban design in order to recommend it to the Planning Commission. Mr. Schmitz responded that the responsibility was not entirely on the DRC the fact that this application was a Precise Plan that was going up through to the Planning Commission and City Council levels didn't mean that the committee was obligated to make the final finding on outstanding design. The committee would obviously be making a recommendation to that body and if the committee did not feel that this project represents a sufficient amount of outstanding design to warrant the density bonus, then the DRC could make that recommendation up through the various levels that this Precise Plan is going to go through. Member Aguilar felt that this was the issue with the project. In her opinion, she felt it was a fine project but to say that it represents outstanding planning or urban design was a hard finding for her to make. Even in the staff report there was some question as to whether this project even meets the city's Design Guidelines. In the staff analysis, it stated that all buildings would be identical; therefore, there was little visual interest or individual unit identity. Member Aguilar felt that Vice Chair Araiza's concern with regard to the color of the units came from staff's comment concerning the lack of visual interest and unit identity. Member Aguilar remarked that even if the DRC agreed that there was visual interest and individual unit identity she would still have a problem with determining that this project Design Review Committee -6 Minutes April 2'1,200.3 represented outstanding planning and urban design, and would not feel comfortable making a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Chair Morion commented that he had the same problem. In looking at the units he noted that they were not individually significant. Vice Chair Araiza commented that although staff noted in their report that the units provided little visual interest, the applicant stated that they were willing to vary the colors and roof elevations in order to provide more interest. Vice Chair Araiza agreed with the committee that the project was more ordinary than high quality but he still felt that it was a good project. He was not clear if this finding for outstanding planning and urban design could be removed and the project could still be recommended. Mr. Schmitz responded that the committee could either suggest that the applicant improve the elevations to warrant the findings, and if the applicant were willing, they could continue the project so that the applicant could make the revisions, or the committee could recommend the approval to the Planning Commission but would have to modify the wording concerning the findings for urban design. In general, the Design Review Committee felt that the applicant had done a nice project and the building design was good considering the lot size. They did not feel that there was much left to improve on the project. The Committee was not sure if the City was demanding too much of the applicant and whether it was appropriate to apply the outstanding planning and urban design standard. Mr. Schmitz stated that the question for sta~s understanding because there are other under utilized lots in this area that will possibly be coming back with similar type development proposals, (and the DRC had already approved one of these projects on this street that was similar) is if the DRC could give staff some guidance as to where they feel this project fails to meet that same standard that was found a year ago, then they could advise developers for the next go around. Chair Morion felt that in the other project the "Ada I" the buildings were more staggered in the way that they were placed on the property itself. This project is restricted because of the lot size and the buildings are pretty much in a linear position. Member Aguilar commented that in the "Ada I" project she thought that the flood plane did not hamper the buildings and the buildings were not as tight and the open space areas were larger. It was easier to make a finding for outstanding planning and urban design for that project. Member Aguilar stated that the only other thing that they could ask of the applicant is if the applicant would provide a project without the density bonus, which would mean losing the two additional units and she felt that the applicant would not want to do SO. Vice Chair Araiza asked if it were possible to recommend the project even though the DRC did not feel that it was a great example of outstanding urban design but the committee still felt that it was a good project to be approved for this particular lot? Mr. Schmitz stated that their resolution could offer its recommendation and it would be up to the Planning Commission and the City Council Redevelopment Agency to review their resolution that would have to have its own findings. Design Review Committee -7 Minutes April 21, 2003 Mr. Jorge Sanchez, Project Developer, (7420 Covier Street, La Jolla, CA) stated that this was the third project that they were developing and that they were basically doing the same concept in this project that they had done in the "Ada r' project except they were adding one more building. He explained that on the building elevations the building on the left hand side had a pop out element in front of the garage. Mr. Sanchez stated that given the restrictions to the lot configuration they were doing the best that they could with the building design. Member Aguilar stated that on the "Ada r' project the alternative units were stepped back just a little. Mr. Sanchez commented that the same thing was done on this plan, however, the drawings were a bit light and it was hard to see that one of the units was a little larger than the other which broke up the linear appearance of the buildings. Member Aguilar commented that it was not very apparent on the plan. Mr. Contreras stated that building elevations were basically the same as the "Ada I" project. One of the front units had a 2-foot pop out in the front of the garage, an amh. It was hard to see on the plan but the buildings were staggered a bit. Mr. Contreras commented that in the "Ada I" project they experienced the same issue with the flood plane on the back of the site and had to move the buildings 25-feet away from the flood plane. The Committee commented that based on the architects comments and what they could see from the plans they would be willing to recommend approval but with the following conditions: MSC (AguilarlAraiza) (3-0-0-2) to recommend approval of PCM-03-08 project to the Planning Commission and City Council, subject to the conditions of approval with the following modification: Under Notice of Decision, Condition (1) beginning at the end of the second paragraph the following statement shall be added: The Design Review Committee has concerns about whether this project conforms with "Outstanding Urban Plan Design Criteria." Motion Carried. 2. DRC-03-49 Eastlake Commerce Park 821 Kuhn Drive, Eastlake Business Center, Lot 25 Northeast corner of Kuhn Dr. & Miller Dr,, Chula Vista, CA Site plan, architectural elevations and landscape concept plan for two multi-tenant commercial and industrial buildings for a total of 49,851 square feet. Staff Presentation: Ms. Dawn Van Boxtel, Associate Planner stated that the project that the DRC would be reviewing is the Eastlake Commerce Center, which is located at 821 Kuhn Drive in the Eastlake Business Center, Lot 25 and is situated on the northeast corner and Miller Drive and backs up to a pedestrian access leading to Scobee Park. The property is designated Design Review Committee -7 .,4 ~/'-~/- C. t'Y/1.4 ~' AJ 'T' ~ Minutes June 2~ 200~s 3. PCM-03-31 Jim Truesdale 774 Ada Street bebNeen Industrial Blvd. & Frontage Road, south of Palomar Street, Chula Vista, CA Precise plan for 14 town homes in 2 triplex buildin,qs and 4 duple:: buildin,qs. Each unit will possess 3-bedrooms and 3-bathrooms, with 2-car .qara~es. Staff Presentation: Mr. Harold Phelps, Associate Planner stated that this project was the third project in a series of three for a proposal of townhomes and was known as "Ada Iir'. The project is located in a residential area known as Harborside "B' in the Montgomery Specific Plan or East Faidield in the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. The I-5 freeway to the west and the Industrial Boulevard/MTDB Trolley Station to the east geographically define the neighborhood. There was an existing house on the property that is dilapidated and was slated for demolition. Mr. Phelps stated although the General Plan and Montgomery Specific Plan designate this area as single-family, there are pre-existing and two-family and multi-family developments already located within the area. In addition, the redevelopment agency has located other higher density affordable housing in this area utilizing the density bonus provisions provided for by State Government Code. Being that the project is within a quarter mile radius to the Palomar MTDB Trolley Station it also falls within a transit-oriented development study area targeted by state legislation for smart growth Mr. Phelps commented that the Precise Plan for "Ada IIr' is being requested to accomplish the following: 1. An increase in density above what the zoning would allow per the Montgomery Specific Plan provision for projects characterized by "outstanding planning or urban design" which in this case would allow for 14 instead of the 12 town home dwelling units; 2. Deviations to the underlying zoning with regards to required overall floor-area-ratio, yard setbacks, private usable open space, two-car garage dimensions, and guest parking spaces; 3. Provide one Iow-income rental or for sale condominium unit, in compliance with the project being located within the Southwest Redevelopment Area. Mr. Phelps reported that the elevations show that all the buildings are oriented to an access driveway for both vehicular and front pedestrian entrances. A setback front door area articulates the main entrances to each unit and thus the two car garages are designed so that the minimum depth for one car space is reduced to 17-ft. instead of 20-ft. Each unit has a private yard area, which varies in size, but all include a patio area to the back of the unit. Mr. Phelps stated that the proposed landscape plan has been reviewed and found to be substantially consistent with the City's Landscape Guidelines with conditions of approval. Accent trees and turf will mark the driveway entrances, guest parking areas and the elevation facing Ada Street. The common open space areas include picnic areas and as a J:\HOME~LANNING\ROSEMARIE~DRC'~IlN-6.02.03 ~ ~ Design Review Committee -8 Minutes June 2, 2003 condition of approval a tot-lot will be included in the portion shown as a lawn area. A decorative stucco wall will enclose the complex with wood fencing between the units. Mr. Phelps stated that staff believes that the findings can be made in support of the deviations of setbacks and private open space areas, as well as the minor alterations to the garage dimension, the compact guest parking, and the maximum floor area ratio for the overall site based upon the design of the buildings. Mr. Phelps commented that the applicant proposes to construct a 14-unit town home project consisting of four duplex and two triplex buildings. Each unit will have three bedrooms and three baths with a vaulted ceiling living room creating a loft effect within the stairwells to the second floor hallways leading to the bedrooms. Each triplex or duplex building will be a maximum 26-ft. in height, and will be enclosed by private fenced-in rear yard areas that include patios. Mr. Phelps reported that each of the elevations show a variety in horizontal and vertical planes that utilize varying rooflines and fenestrations for the areas such as the porch entries or bay windows. The roofing materials are mission style tile and the stucco treatment will include variations of beige and tan colors which are shown on the material board. The project will be consistent with "Ada I" and "Ada I1" in terms of the building design and open space amenities. The layout for the triplex and duplex buildings along with the site layout are more interesting, and therefore staff believes that the project meets the minimum Precise Plan requirements and recommends approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that if the Design Review Committee determines that the project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista Design Guidelines and the Montgomery Specific Plan provisions for a density bonus, then recommend approval of the Precise Plan to the Planning Commission and the City Council, subject to the conditions of approval. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Chair Morion asked Mr. Garry Williams, the City's Landscape Planner, if he felt comfortable with the landscape plans? Mr. Williams responded that he was satisfied with the landscaping plans and the conditions that were added to the report. Member Alberdi asked if the Fire Department had requested that the building provide a hammerhead or that it be sprinkled? Mr. Phelps responded that in this case the applicant had the option of either providing a hammerhead area or having the buildings sprinkled per the requirement of the Fire Department. Mr. Schmitz, Principal Planner, remarked that the applicant had been given these options because the distance of the private drive that goes past the open space area was approximately 100-feet, unlike the G Street Condominium project where the depth of the lot was 190-feet and the project was required to have a hammerhead area on site. Design Review Committee -9 Minutes June 2, 200,3 Member AIberdi commented that the G Street project was also a three-story building which automatically required that the building be sprinkled. Member Mestler stated that she had talked with Garry Edmonds, in the fire department and he had explained that if the lot were more than 150 feet deep a hammerhead would be required on site. Member Aguilar commented that she noted that this project, as well as the "Ada I" project, would be going for approval before the Planning Commission and the City Council together and she wanted to say that she felt comfortable in making the findings that these projects represented outstanding planning and urban design. Unlike the "Ada I1" project, these developments (Ada I and Ada III) have significant site amenities associated with them landscape areas, picnic areas, and there was also quite a bit of separation between the units themselves and they were oriented in different directions. Those features are not applicable with the Ada II project. Member Mestler understood that the density was zoned for 12-units, but wanted to clarify if the DRC was also being asked to approved the two additional units? Mr, Phelps stated that she was correct; the additional two units were over and above what the zoning would normally allow. The only way that staff can allow these additional two units is if the committee makes a finding through the Montgomery Specific Plan that the project meets the criteria for outstanding planning and urban design. Member Mesfler asked if staff felt that this project was in this category? Mr. Phelps responded that staff believed that this project was a lot more interesting in terms of the layout. In terms of the building design, it was the same as the other two projects. It was staff's feeling that this project does meet a higher level of design than some of the other duplexes that are on this street that have been developed strictly according to zoning but are not architecturally interesting. Chair Morion stated that he felt the applicant had taken the shape of the land and made it work for the project, so he would, therefore, make a motion that the DRC approve the project as presented by staff including the two additional units to the project. MSC (MorlonlMestler) (5-0-0-0) to recommend the approval of PCM-03-3'I project to the Planning Commission and the City Council with the recommendations by staff as stated in the staff report. Motion carried. J:\HOM E\PLANNING\ROSEMARIE\DRC*d~IN.6.02.03 ~ ~ ~ Design Review Committee ¢lw or NOTICE OF DECISION CHUI. A VIS1-A On PCM-03-08 Notice is hereby given that the City o£ Chula Vista Design Review Committee has considered PCM-03-08, a request to develop 14 town house condominiums in seven duplex buildings. The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 32 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15332 (in-fill developments) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Design Review Committee approved said request based upon the- following findings of facts: 1, That the proposed development is consistent with the development regulations of the R2P (Two-Family Residential with a Precise Plan) Zone, the Montgomery Specific Plan, and the Environmental Review. The two-family residential zoning allows for two units per 7,000-sq. fl. of lot area. A 25 percent density bonus above that may be warranted based upon the provisions for such an increase in density in the Montgomery Specific Plan because "outstanding planning or urban de' " ' sign characterizes the project. However, the Design Review Committee does not believe the project reflects "outstanding planning or urban design" and forwards the Precise Plan to the Planning Commission and City Council without a recommendation on that issue. If the Precise Plan is approved by City Council with 14 units, the development will conform to the zoning restrictions and development standards of the R2P zone and will be consistent with the regulations and the Montgomery Specific Plan. The project was deemed exempt from environmental review as a Class 32 (urban infill developments) exemption from CEQA. 2. The design features of the proposed renovations are consistent with, and are a cost effective method of satisfying, the City of Chula Vista Design Manual and Landscape Manual. The proposed development, which consists of 14 town home condominium units contained within seven duplex buildings, along with common open space recreation areas, 8 guest parking spaces, and private yard areas for each unit will be consistent with, and are a cost effective method of satisfying the multi-family residential design guidelines found in the Chula Vista Design Manual and Landscape Manual. ]NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 2 The Design Review Committee hereby approves the design of Precise Plan PCM-03-08, without thc finding of outstanding planning or urban design to allow thc 2-unit density bonus, unless approved as is by the City Council, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any permits required by thc City of Chula Vista for the use of the subject property in reliance on this approval, the applicant shall satisfy the following requirements: Planning and Building Department Conditions: A. The City Council must adopt Precise Plan PCM-03-08 for project depiction in Exhibit "A", and controlled by the Development Regulations in Exhibit "B." B. The following items shall be submitted for approval by the Director of Planning and Building and/or the City Landscape Planner: 1. A revised site plan and/or building elevations incorporating all conditions of approval including the following: a. Provide a "tot-lot," including playground apparatus to be incorporated within the common open space area shown as a lawn area adjacent to the barbeque area; b. Provide a paving plan showing the pattern, style and color of enhanced paving material, and label the guest parking as "compact" parking spaces; c. Details about the trash and recycling enclosure masonry walls and gate control system as required by Pacific Waste Company; d. Details about the proposed lighting in the common opens space areas and on each building elevation. 2. If necessitated by changes to the site plan, submit a revised Conceptual Landscape Plan for review and approval by the Landscape Planner: a. The retaining wall should be a planted keystone wall, and the rear slope should be planted with one-gallon tree or shrubs for every 100-sq. ft. of area; b. Provide concrete mow curbs per City standards separating turf areas from shrub areas, and expand the patio areas in lieu of turf in the private yard areas; c. The landscape plan plant palette must reflect indigenous plant material approximately 25 percent of the planting palette used on this project shall represent a "Southern California style;" d. Replace the palm species used at the project entry with specimen multi- trunk accent trees. The palms may be used in combination with the accent trees. Flowering and multi-trunk species are encouraged; e. Provide more layering of shrub masses and articulation in the entry landscape design; f. Provide street tree selection compatible with the existing street tree program on Ada Street approved by the City arborist. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 3 3. After approval of the revised Conceptual Landscape Plan, provide a detailed Planting and Irrigation plan for review and approval by the Landscape Planner: a. Provide a minimum palm height of 10-ft. to 12-fi. brown trunk; b. No roof drains shall empty into planter areas. All down spouts shall be connected to sewer and not cross any planted areas or driveways, as an incorporated design Best Management Practice (BMP). 4. A Water Management Plan and a Fencing Plan shall be provided in conjunction with either the Conceptual Landscape Plan or the Planting & Irrigation Plan: a. Provide a detailed trellis structure design for staff review and approval for the trash enclosure design; b. Fences and walls shall comply with the city's sight visibility requirements. All privacy fencing shall be 6~ft. in height. Walls and fences exposed to public view shall be painted to complement the buildings. This includes the automatic steel gate. All freestanding, walls and fences shall be a decorative type. Specify the wall type, color and materials to be used on a fencing plan to be submitted for final review and approval by the zoning administrator. 5. Lighting for the facility shown on the site plan shall be in conformance with Section 17.28.020 of the Municipal Code: a. A lighting plan shall be provided that includes details showing that the proposed lighting shall be shielded to remove any glare from adjacent properties. C. Comply with all requirements of the Building Division including the following: 1. Submit architectural plans that are stamped and signed by a licensed architect. Plans shall include a site plan and building elevations that are consistent with the precise plan's approval. 2. Structural plans and calculations must be stamped and signed by a California Reg/stered Civil/Structural Engineer. 3. Project shall comply with 2001 CBC, CMC, CPC, and CEC. 4. Project shall comply with 2001 ADA and Title 24 Energy requirements. 5. Plans shall indicate type of occupancy. D. A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all wall and building surfaces. This shall be noted for any building and wall plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning & Building prior to the issuance of building permits. Additionally, the project shall conform to Sections 9.20.055 and 9.20.035 of the CVMC regarding graffiti control. E. Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC & R's) shall be provided for review and approval by the Planning Department. The document shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director prior to recordation of the Precise Plan. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 4 Resource Recycling and Conservation Coordinator Conditions: F. The locations and orientation of trash enclosures must be approved by the franchise trash hauling company, with sufficient space for designated recyclables. The enclosures bins and/or containers must meet the design specifications of the City Conservation Coordinator. Please contact at 691-$122 for more in£ormation. Fire Department Conditions: G. Prior to issuance o£ building permits, provide a fire hydrant in front of the project. On building plans, show one fire extingnisher box with extinguisher for every building. Plans shall include an automatic fire sprinkler system for each unit, including a 6-in. exterior bell and separate control valves for the sprinklers, in conformance with Fire Department requirements. Engineering Department Conditions: H. The following fees will be required based on the final building plans submitted: 1. Sewer Capacity Fees; 2. Traffic Signal Fees; 3. Public Facilities Development Impact Fees; 4. All applicable School Fees. I. A Tentative Parcel Map and Final Parcel Map shall be required in order to create the 14- condominium unit/one lot condo map. The map shall clearly identify the limits of the 100-year flood boundaries of the drainage way immediately south of the property, with notation indicating that the construction of any improvements within the flood boundary will not be permitted. J. Grading plans shall be submitted and address all drainage issues. All retaining walls shall be noted on the grading plans and include a detailed wall profile. Structural wall calculations are required if walls are not built per City Standards and if fences are to be placed on top of retaining walls. The off-site drainage pattems shall be addressed for the adjacent parcels. All construction activities shall remain out of the 100-year flood plain. K. A drainage study and geotechnical/soils study are required with the first submittal of grading plans together with calculations for the proposed drainage system. L. Grading plans will demonstrate that vehicular access to adjacent properties to the east and west will not be affected by this development. M. The Engineering Division will require the applicant to obtain a construction permit to perform any work in the City's fight-of-way or fixture public sewer easements which may include, but not limited to: 1. The new driveway shall be designed and constructed in compliance with CVCS- lA. 2. Damaged curb, gutter or sidewalk along the Ada Street frontage shall be removed and replaced as required by the City Inspectors NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 5 3. A 150W HPSV streetlight shall be installed per City standards on the west property line on Ada Street. 4. /~stallation of an 8-inch public sewer with manholes built to City Standards along the main driveway. Improvement plans for the public onsite sewer system is required. 5. The private sewer force main shall terminate at a man_hole behind the sidewalk and the remaining lateral shall flow by gravity to the existing sewer main in Ada Street Construct a driveway for the public sewer to H20 wheel loading standards. 6. A six-inch thick PCC driveway over four-inch approved base material is an acceptable structural section. Grant a public sewer easement along said driveway on the Final Parcel Map. 7. Payment o£the current Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees is required prior to the Final Parcel Map approval in accordance with CVMC 17.10. 8. Additional conditions of approval may be required upon submittal of the Tentative Parcel Map. N. A two-foot right-of-way dedication is required along Ada Street, for a hal£street width of twenty-eight (28) feet prior to submittal of the Tentative Parcel Map. O. The onsite sewer system, including the sewer pump station, shall be private. The Developer/Owner shall establish a homeowners association to fund and oversee a contract for the maintenance of the sewer system. The frequency of maintenance of the sewer system shall be contained in the provisions of the Codes, Covenants & Restrictions (C C & R's). The Directors of Engineering and Public Works Operations shall approve the provisions of the C C & R's regarding the onsite sewer system. Plans for the sewer system are to be submitted to the Building Department for review and approval prior to construction and will require special inspection. P. Enter into an agreement with the City whereby the developer/owner agrees to: 1. Defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City of Chula Vista, including approval by its Planning Commission, City Council or any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision pursuant to Section 66499.37 of the Map Act provided the City promptly notifies the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense. 2. Agree to reserve, to the City, the right to place additional conditions for development during the Design Review process for the subject property prior to issuance of Building Permits. 3. Hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation, or increased flow of drainage from this project. Q. Project has an impact on both the Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) and the Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD). Therefore, prior to the approval of NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 6 the Final Parcel Map, the developer shall provide written verification of compliance with SUHSD and CVESD school requirements. R. Tie the boundaries of the proposed Final Parcel Map to the CA Coordinate System, Zone VI (NAD 1983). S. Submit a conformed copy of a recorded tax certificate covering the property prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map. T. Submit a copy of the Final Parcel Map in a digital format, such as (DXF) graphic file, on a duplicate 3-1/2"HD floppy disk based on accurate coordinate geometry calculations and in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital Submittal. U. Present verification to the City Engineer in the form of a letter from the Sweetwater Authority that the subdivision Will be provided with adequate water service and long- term water storage facilities prior to the Final Parcel Map approval. V. Notarized letter of permission to conduct off-site grading together with copies of signed grading plans from adjacent property owners for all offsite work is required prior to releasing grading permit. W. Development within thirty feet of the centefline of any water course or within 20 feet of the edge of any water course, whichever is the greater distance from the top of the creek bank is not permitted, unless a land development, building, or water course permit has first been obtained (CVMC Section 14.20.150). In addition, permits from appropriate environmental agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Game, or the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, etc. may be required. Development is defined under CVMC Section 14.20.030G, and includes but is not limited to grading. X. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit Order No. 2001-01, including but not limited to the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria. Structural and non-structural post-construction Best Management Practices (BMP's) shall be developed and implemented to prevent discharge of polluted water to storm water conveyance systems. Y. The applicant shall address the responsibility and funding mechanism for the maintenance of post-construction BMP's prior to issuance of a grading permit. Z. Prior to recordation of the parcel map for this planned unit development, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the Director of Engineering and the Director of Planning and Building of the Codes, Covenants & Restrictions (C C & R's) for this NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 7 project. Said C C & R's shall be consistent with Chapter 18.44 of the Subdivision 'Ordinance and shall be recorded concurrently with the parcel map. AA. The applicant is required to complete the applicable Forms (see Manual) and comply with the City of Chula Vista's Storm Water Management Standards Requirements Manual. BB. The applicant is required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent pollution of the storm water conveyance systems, both during and after construction. Permanent storm water requirements shall be incorporated into the project design, and shall be shown on the plans. Any construction and non-structural BMPs requirements that cannot be shown graphically must be either noted or stapled on the plans. CC. The City of Chula Vista requires that all new development and significant redevelopment projects comply with the requirements of the NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. 2001-01. According to said Permit, all projects falling under the Priority Development Project Categories are required to comply with the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria. DD. Development of the project shall comply with all applicable regulations, established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency CUSEPA), as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge, and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the NPDES regulations and requirements. Further, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOD with the State Water Resource Control Board to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both construction and post-construction pollution prevention and pollution control measures, and shall identify funding mechanisms for the maintenance of post- construction control measures. EE.The applicant is required to identify storm water pollutants that are potentially generated at the facility, and propose Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented to prevent such pollutants from entering the storm drainage systems. FF. A water quality study will be required to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction and Municipal Permits, including Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria requirements, with the first submittal of grading/improvement plans, in accordance with the City's Manual. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 8 GG. The applicant may be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Industrial Permit. The applicant is directed to contact the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region for any enquires in this respect. HH. The project shall meet the City of Chula Vista Floodplain Ordinance (Chapter 18.54) of the Municipal Code and FEMA requirements per FEMA FIRM panel No. 2152. Police Department Conditions: II. The proposed development shall participate in the Crime Free Multi-Family Housing Program prior to issuance of building permit. Contact the Crime Prevention Unit at 691- 5127 for more information. Outside Agency Conditions: JJ. Applicant shall contact the Chula Vista Fire Department about required fire flow requirements and submit a letter to the Sweetwater Authority stating the requirements. The Authority will determine if there is a need for new or substantial alteration to the existing water systems, as well as the availability of water for operational and fire protection purposes. All fees and deposits shall be provided at the building permit stage. KK. The applicant shall contact the Sweetwater Union High School District and the Chula Vista Elementary School District to determine the school fees and/or Community Facilities District (CFD's) that the project shall be included into in addition to the school fees that shall be paid prior to issuance of the building permit. 2. Prior to use or occupancy of the property in reliance on this approval, the following requirements shall be met: A. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Title 19, and the Montgomery Specific Plan. B. Prior to any use of the project site and/or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. C. All landscape and hardscape improvements shall be installed in accordance with the approved landscape plan and the comments of the City Landscape Planner. D. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 9 E. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded fi.om view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Director. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Details shall be included in building plans. F. A fire flow of 3,000 gallons per minute for duration of three (3) hours must be provided. The back flow preventor shall be screened fi.om view, and the Fire Department connection shall not be located with the back flow preventor. G. A fire hydrant shall be installed in the front of the proposed development. If at anytime a motorized gate is installed it must be provided with an Opticom system and Knox key switch for fire department entry. Provide a visible address to be seen from the main access road. H. A 150-watt streetlight shall be installed at the westerly side of the property frontage on Ada Street to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineering Section. I. All utilities serving the subject property and existing utilities located within or adjacent to the subject property shall be under grounded in accordance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Further, all new utilities serving the subject property shall be underground prior to the issuance of Building Permits. J. Specific method of handling site runoff/drainage is subject to the approval of the City Engineer at the time development plans are submitted. Grading plans shall be required and pad certification approved prior to issuance of any building permits. All slopes shall have a maximum slope ratio of2:1 maximum. K. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Parcel Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance, and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual. L. This preliminary approval does not constitute final approval of the Tentative Parcel Map. There is a fifteen (15) day appeal period during which any interested party can appeal this determination, in whole or in part. The City Planning Commission at the next available meeting will hear appeals that cannot be resolved by City staff. Final determination of the Tentative Parcel Map will be withheld pending the outcome of any appeals. If no appeals are received during the appeal period, the City will consider this notice a Notice of Final Approval. M. The expiration date of this Tentative Parcel Map shall be two years from the date the Notice of Final Approval is effective. The Tentative Parcel Map will expire at that time NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 10 unless the Final Parcel Map has been filed or an extension of time is requested and approved by the City according to Section 66452.6 of the State Subdivision Map Act. N. Applicant shall obtain a security survey from the Crime Prevention Unit of the Police Department for specific recommendations on access control, surveillance detection, and police response prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. O. The Precise Plan design approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or the approved use has not commenced within one year from the date of this approval, unless a written request for an extension is received prior to the expiration date. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The Developer 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 returned to the City Clerk and Planning Department. Failure to retum a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the property owner/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' Office and known as Document No. Signature of Property Owner 815 Ada Street Date Signature of Representative Date PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE DESIGN REV1EW COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, the 21st day of April, 2003, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 11 ATTEST: John Schmitz, Zoning Administrator Rosemarie Rice, Design Review Committee Secretary J:~PLANNING~IAROLD~.ESOLUTIONS~PCM-03-08NOD.I)OC · '~-%~'{~--"' cz~ OF c~6~^ WST^ Development Processing ~ ~l~.ing & B~]~g D~,cnt APplic~ion Form - T~e B ' ~- .~ 276 Fo~ Avenue ' ~' (619569:1L5101 ~ ~CS~EWT 7 Page One ~ ~ ~e~ ~n~,;~;~ T~e Su~Msion ~ Ran~r: · p ~ SP~ Plan '~ ~on ~}~: ~c._- ~PLIC~; ~O~TION. ~licant Na~ ~ ~. Phone No. ~plicanf A~e~ ~ ~¢iOu~ fi'~ I~ere~ in ~o~ E opCbo~ ~ not o~, o~¢s o~ho~on ~ ~ L~se ~ In Escrow ~ Option to purchose is r~uir~ to pr~e~ [~ue~. S~ signore on ~ Two. Engin~r/A~nt } Phone No. GENE~'PRO~. DESC~ON ~oj~t N~ ~o~d Lond Us~[s}: (i.e. C~cbl ~rol ~fiplion of Pro~s~ ~e use ~nd~ A to p~e ~ ~11 ~s~p~on o~j~o~ lot ~oj~tJ S~CT PROPERTY ~FO~TION L~io~S~t Address ~essor Porc~ No. l~n~ r~,yl fotoI Acr~ R~evelop~nt ~ (~ ~pplic2ble] Tu~enl ~ol Plan ~-sign~on. I Cugent Zone ~sig~on Planned Co~mun~ {if op~lico~e} I ~u~ent L~nd Use - Is this in Mo~me~ crn' oF chun Development Processing Plantin§ & ~ 276 Fo~ Avenue ~U~V~ (619)691-5101 P ge Two Cose No.: ~ENE~ DE~LOP~NT ~ral ~velop~nt Plan Name Total Acres ~o~sed Land U~8 Com~rcial: Acres Indu~al: Acres ~s: Acres Sch~ts: Acres Commun~ ~se: Acres Circul~on: Acres ~blioJQuasi: Acres O~n S~ce: Acres ~esidenfial Range Single Fami~ Detached: to Un~s Ac~es Single Fami~ Aflach~: to Un~s Acres Duplexes: ~ to /~' Un~s ~ Acres ~nts: to Un~s Acres Condominiums: to Un~s Acres Totals: / E to /~ Units ~ Acres GENE~ PL~ ~E~MENT ~o~sed Land Use ~sign~on Please state ~y the ~neral PJan should ~ chang~ ANNEXATION Prezoning LAFCO Ret. No. TENTATIVE SUBDMSION MAP I I SubdMsion Name CV Tract No, Minimum Lot Size J No. at Unr~s Average Lot Size Z, ONE CHANGi~. E] ,~Jf~:~ning I-I Setback j Proposed Zoning O'~r Slg'natL~re Dcfle / Print Owner Na/~ "-J _ lftl/1 /?cC, Uo%~ C~/~ ~ /o Z.- (Required if Applioont is not Owner} / ,~.~,~ o71oo Appendix A PRoJEoT DESOR,PT,ON ^ND JUST, F,C^T, ON PROJECT NAME: /~-~ ~(~f- ~..1//0.% ~ Please descd~ ~lly the proposed proje~, any and all const~ion that may be accomplished as a resuA of approval of this proje~ and the projeM's benefits to you~elf, the prope~, the neighbo~ood and the Ci~ of Chula ~sta. Include any details necessaw to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed proje~. You may include any background info~ation and supposing statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessa~. For all Conditional Use Pe~its or Variances, please address the required 'Findings" as listed in listed in the Application Pro.dural Guide. Description & Justification. THE CI;. OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, .payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will ~-equire discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the applica..tion or the contract, e..g., .~wner applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. 2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the p~,rtnership. ,~_0 3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. / 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City st~, Boards, commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s): 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contrcactors .who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed..-mere tha~$.t~00 to a Councilmember 'n the current or preceding elect,on penod? Yes/~ ~_ If yes, sta'tt, which Councilmember(s): * Person ~ defined ~: "~v i~ividua4 firm, co-partnership, joint venture, ~socia¢on, social club, ~eaternol organ~ation,-corporation, estate, t~t. receiver. ~ndicate, this and any other count, ci~ and count~ ci~ municipali~, district, or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." ~0 ~ ~ / ' APPENDIX C , , (1 of 3) DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PP./~C. ESSING AGREEMENT Applicant's Address: Type of Permit: ~ CI c~o Agreement Date: ~' -- Deposit Amount: This Agreement ("Agreement') between the City of Chula Vista, a chartered municipal corporation ("City") and the forenamed applicant for a development permit ("~,pplfcant"), effective as of the Agreement Date set forth above, is made with reference to the following facts: VVhereas, Applicant has applied to the City for a permit of the type aforereferenced ("Permit') which the City has required to be obtained as a condition to permitting Applicant to develop a parcel of property; and, Whereas, the City will incur expenses in order to process said permit through the vadous departments and before the vadous boards and commissions of the City ("Processing Services"); and, Whereas the purpose of this agreement is to reimburse the City for all expenses it will incur in connection with providing the Processing Services; Now, therefore, the parties do hereby agree, in exchange for the mutual promises herein contained, as follows: 1. Applicant's Duty to Pay. Applicant shall pay all of City's expenses incurred in providing Processing Services related to Applicant's Permit, including all of City's direct and overhead costs related thereto. This duty of Applicant shall be referred to herein as "Applicant's Duty to Pay." 1.1. Applicant's Deposit Duty. As partial performance of Applicant's Duty to Pay, Applicant shall deposit the amount aforereferenced ("Deposit"). 1.1.1. City shall charge its lawful expenses incurred in providing Processing Services against Applicant's Deposit. If, after the conclusion of processing Applicant's Permit, any portion of the Deposit remains, City shall return said balance to Applicant without interest thereon. If, dudng the processing of Applicant's Permit, the amount of the Deposit becomes exhausted, or is imminently likely to become exhausted in the · opinion of the e City, upon notice of same by City, Applicant shall forthwith provide such additional deposit as City shall calculate as reasonably necessary to continue Processing Services. The duty of Applicant to initially deposit and to supplement said deposit as herein required shall be known as "Applicant's Deposit Duty". 2. City's Duty. City shall, upon the condition that Applicant is no in breach of Applicant's Duty to Pay or Applicant's Deposit Duty, use good faith to provide processing services in relation to Applicant's Permit application. 2.1. City shall have no liability hereunder to Applicant for the failure to process Applicant's Permit application, or for failure to process Applicant's Permit within the time frame requested by ~,pplicant or estimated by City. APPENDIX C ' ' (2 of 3) 2.2. By execution of this agreement Applicant shall have no r~ght to the Permit for which Applicant has applied. City shall use its discretion in valuating Applicant's Permit Application without regard to Applicant's promise to pay for the Processing Services, or the execution of the Agreement. 3. Remedies. 3.1. Suspension of Processing In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall other,~ise have at law or equity, the City has the dght to suspend and/or withhold the processing of the Perrnii which is the subject matter of this Agreement, as well as the Permit which may be the subject matter of any other Permit which Applicant has before the City. 3.2. Civil Collection In addition to all other dghts and rem&dies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equity, the City has the dght to collect all sums which are or may become due hereunder by civil action, and upon instituting litigation to collect same, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 4. Miscellaneous. 4.1 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 adjacent to the signatures of the parties represented. 4.2 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. 4.3. Multiple Signatories. If there are multiple signatories to this agreement on behalf of Applicant, each of such signatories shall be jointly and severally liable for the performance of Applicant's duties herein set forth. 4.4. Signatory Authority. This signatory to this agreement hereby warrants and represents that he is the duly designated agent for the Applicant and has been duly authorized by the Applicant to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Applicant. Signatory shall be personally liable for Applicant's Duty to Pay and Applicant's Duty to Deposit in the event he has not been authorized to execute this Agreement by Applicant. APPENDIX C (3 of 3) 4.5 Hold Han-nless. Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against any claims, suits, actions or proceedings, judicial or administrative, for writs, orders, injunction or other relief, damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of City's actions in processing or issuing Applicant's Permit, or in exercising any discretion related thereto including but not limited to the giving of proper environmental review, the holding of public hearings, the extension of due process dghts, except only for those claims, suits, actions or proceedings arising from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the City, its offici~rs, or employees known to, but not objected to, by the Applicant. Applicant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgement or not. Further, Applicant, at its own expense, shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Applicant's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any pdor or subsequent declaration by the Applicant. At its sole discretion, the City may participate at its own expense in the defense of any such actin, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of any obligation imposed by this condition. 4.6 Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures. No suit or arbitration shall be brought adsing out of this agreement against the City unless a claim has first been presented in wdting and filed with the City of Chula Vista and acted upon by the City of Chula Vista in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set fodh 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. Now therefore, the parties hereto, having read and understood the terms and conditions of this agreement, d~o.J~ereb~s their consent to the terms date set f. ortf~ adjacent TE reto,~ hereof by setting their hand hereto on the / / ..J'/ ~ 276 Fourth Avenue . /..~_./~.~¢ .' Chula Vista, CA Dated: By: ADA Development Inc. 734 Jacinto Place Coronado, CA 92118 To: City of Chula Vista This letter is to advise that Jorge Sanehez has full authority to make any and all decisions concerning my properties in Chula Vista~ These properties includez//777 Ada Street. 774 435-8600.Ada Street and 815 Ada Street. Should you have any questions~ J / President of ADA - ~ ~ Development Inc. J~]N I! 2003 PI. ANNING ORDINANCE NO. ORDiNANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING PCM-03-08 TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND APPROVING A 25 PERCENT DENSITY BONUS TO ALLOW FOR A 14-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT IN THE R2P ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 815 ADA STREET. I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land, which is the subject of this Ordinance is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A' and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description herein consist of 14 town homes in seven duplex buildings, and located at 815 Ada Street ("Project Site"); and B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on August 23, 2002, Jorge Sanchez and Daniel Contreras for Jim Tmesdale Developments ("Developers") filed a Precise Plan application with the Planning and Building Department of the City of Chula Vista for a town home condominium project in the Residential Two Family zoning district ("Project"); and C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee meeting was scheduled and advertised for April 21, 2003, at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue at which time the Design Review Committee voted 3-0-0-2 recommending that the City Council approve the Precise Plan project based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed below, in accordance with the Notice of Decision (PCM-03-08); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on June 25, 2003, and, after considering all reports, evidence and testimony presented, voted 5-0-0-2 to recommend that the City Council adopt the ordinance approving the Project, in accordance with the Development regulations shown in Exhibit "B" based on the findings listed below; and in accordance with the Planning Commission Resolution (PCM-03-08); and D. Planning Commission Record on Applications WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the Project and to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the same; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Department 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 Ordinance Page 2 general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 fi. of the exterior boundary of the project, at least ten (10) days prior to the heating; and, WHEREAS, The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at the public hearing on this project held on June 25, 2003, and the minutes and resolution resulting there from, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceedings; and, E. City Council Record on Applications WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project applications and notices of said hearings, together xvith its purposes given by its publication in a newspaper of general cimulation in the city, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and, Il. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City Chula Vista does hereby find, determine and ordain as follows: A. Certification of Compliance With CEQA The Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the Project was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 32 exemption for infill developments on January 8, 2003. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution PCM-03-08 including the exemption from CEQA on June 25, 2003 recommending that the City Council approve the Project. B. Independent Judgment of City Council The City Council does hereby find that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Coordinator and the Planning Commission was reached in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. C. Precise Plan Findings 1. 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: The issuance of a precise plan will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare O~l?e~'sons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the wc~mty because the development of this 14-unit condominium project is characterized by outstanding planning or urban design that will significantly improve the adjacent neighborhood, surrounding community and general vicinity. The site plan layout provides for guest parking and common open space areas. The architecture of the individual buildings is exceptional and the individual units incorporate Ordinance Page 3 features found in well designed single-family homes, such as porch entries, open loft areas, raised ceilings, kitchens with bay windows, large bedrooms and bathrooms, walk-in closets, a study or den, laundry rooms, and ample storage space within the units adjacent to the two-car garages. 2. That such plan satisfies the principle for application of the P modifying district as set forth in CVMC 19.56.041: Based upon the facts presented, Section 19.56.041(C) would apply to this project because the basic or underlying zone regulations do not allow the property owner and/or the city appropriate control or flexibility needed to achieve an efficient use of the property and proper relationship of the project to the uses allowed in the adjacent zones. By strict interpretation, only six single-family dwelling units could be allowed on this property according to the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations of Residential Low Medium (3 - 6 dwelling units per acre). However, the adopted policy of the City Council for this area was that the R2P zoning overlay would be consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan, and therefore the Zoning of R2P would allow for up to six duplex buildings for a total of 12 units utilizing the P (Precise Plan) modifying district overlay zone. In addition, the Montgomery Specific Plan allows for an additional 25 percent density bonus for projects located within single-family designated areas if characterized by "outstanding planning or urban design." Therefore, in order to provide a 14-unit condominium project, flexible development standards (such as the reduced front, side, and rear yard setbacks, reduced common and private open space areas, reduced two-car garage dimensions, a reduced number of guest parking spaces, and an increase in floor-area-ratio) need to be applied to the project in order to achieve an efficient use of the property and a proper relationship of the project to the uses allowed in the adjacent zones. 3. That any exceptions granted which may deviate from the underlying zoning requirements shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose and application of the Precise Plan: Exceptions to be granted which would deviate from the underlying zoning requirements are the building setbacks, common and private open space areas, the allowable floor-area-ratio, the two-car garage dimensions, and the number of guest parking spaces. These deviations are appropriate because the proposed site plan and the design of the seven two-story duplex buildings exterior architecture are exceptional and the individual units incorporate features found in well-designed single-family homes. Ordinance Page 4 The Design Review Committee approved the architecture, and the City Council and/or the Planning Commission finds that outstanding planning and urban design characterize the project as proposed. 4. The approval of this plan will conform to the General Plan and the adopted policies of the City Of Chula Vista: Approval of the Precise Plan will be in substantial conformance with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Medium Residential (3 - 6 dwelling units per acre) in that the same land use designation was provided for on the Montgomery Specific Plan Land Use Map, and the adopted policy of the City Council for this area was that the R2P zoning overlay would be consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan. 5. The approval of this plan will conform to the applicable sections of the Montgomery Specific Plan The 25 percent net density bonus as allowed by the Montgomery Specific Plan will add 2 units where only 12 units would normally be permitted, thereby providing mom affordable housing relative to the current housing market. The development will include two-car garages for each unit, private yards and patios, sufficient guest parking and common open space recreation areas, and may also be a catalyst for the potential redevelopment of this area in the future. The City Council concurs with the finding of the Director of Planning and Building that the project reflects outstanding planning and urban design and therefore is entitled to a density bonus per the provision set forth in Montgomery Specific Plan. D. Temps of Grant of Precise Plan The City Council hereby grants Precise Plan PCM-03-08 for project depiction in Exhibit and controlled by the Development and Operational Standards in Exhibit "B" and subject to the conditions of approval found in the Design Review Committee Notice of Decision, which are incorporated herein by reference. E. Execution and Recordation of Resolution of Approval The Developer 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 returned to the City Clerk and Planning Department. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the property owner/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' Office and known as Document No. Ordinance Page 5 Signature of Property Owner of 815 Ada Street Date Signature of Authorized Representative Date III. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC RI~VOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Ordinance is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. IV. APPROVAL OF PRECISE PLAN The City Council does hereby approve the Precise Plan as depicted in Exhibit "A", and including the property Development and Operational Standards for Ada II Town homes, as represented in Exhibit "B," which is incorporated herein by reference. V. 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 James D. Sandoval ',Sm~/Moore ' /) · ' Planning and Building Director City Attorney Ordinance Page 6 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this the 19th day of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NAYS: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Steve Padilla, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. had its first reading at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of August 2003 and its second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the __ day of 2003. Executed this day of__ 2003. Susan Bigelow, City Clerk J:\PLANNiNG\HAROLD\RESOLIITIONS\PCM-03-08CCORD.DOC COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM ~,~ ~ NIFEETING DATE: August 19, 2003 ITEM TITLE: Resolution accepting a preliminary conceptual right-of way improvement plan for F Street from its intersection with Fourth Avenue to its terminus at the Bayfront, and directing staff to incorporate the proposal in future planning documents for final City Council consideration. SUBMITTED BY: Director of General Services~.~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/Sths Vote: YES NO X ) RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept a preliminary conceptual fight-of way improvement plan for F Street from its intersection with Fourth Avenue to its terminus at the Bayfront, and direct staff to incorporate the proposal in future planning documents for final City Council consideration. This report is simply intended to identify this corridor ofF Street as an area that has the potential for cohesive street improvements at an undetermined time in the future. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION: As part of the construction of thc new Police Facility and thc impending start of construction of thc renovations to the Civic Center, the adjoining streets, particularly Fourth Avenue and F Street will be enhanced within thc project areas with new paving and new or enhanced landscaping. As these projects move forward, discussions among City staff and with members of the community, more specifically, Pat Aguilar, member of thc Cty s Design Rewcw Committee and Crossroads II, a concerned group of City residents focused on land development and related issues in western Chula Vista, ensued regarding efforts that could be undertaken to develop a .conceptual plan for future improvements to the fight-of-way of F Street from Fourth Avenue to its terminus at the Bayfront. Thc general nature of these discussions were to attempt to develop a strategy that ties together the Bayfront with thc Civic Center complex and thc historic commercial core on Third Avenue. Thc Project Architect for the Police Facility and Civic Center Complex Renovation, Carrier Johnson, graciously agreed to donate some of its resources to develop a preliminary conceptual plan or strategy to make future improvements to thc F Street right-of-way corridor. After several weeks of work, Carrier Johnson developed some sccnafios as to how improvements could be made. It should bc noted that the F Street corridor is a particularly challenging street as thc fight-of-way and actual width of the street varies throughout the study area. · The F Street corridor, while presenting some interesting obstacles, offers great opportunities for improvement, particularly from a non-vehicular perspective. Since there are no off ramps servicing F Street firom Interstate 5, the street will act as more of a local connector from the downtown area to the Bayfi-ont as opposed to the more arterial or regional connections that E Street and H Street provide. F Street also offers views of the San Diego Bay fi:om several blocks inland from Interstate 5 and this lack of regional vehicular traffic and more scenic potential lends F Street to a more pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment. It also starts to develop a connection and cohesion from the Bayfront to the downtown area that could provide significant redevelopment opportunities along F Street. It is expected that with Council acceptance of the preliminary conceptual plan, it will be incorporated in other more comprehensive planning documents addressing the western portion of the City. These documents include the City's current General Plan Update and the Urban Core Specific Planning Document effort that was initiated in Spring of 2003. These comprehensive planning efforts would provide details for enhancing the F Street corridor. City Council's action does not constitute approval of a project, but does constitute a direction to staff to further study the project proposal as part o f the City's current comprehensive planning process. FISCAL IMPACT: The costs to date to develop the preliminary conceptual plan have been negligible in that professional services were donated by Carder Johnson. There is no funding proposed for the implementation of the plan at this time with the exception of the area immediately adjacent to the Civic Center complex between Fourth Avenue and Fire Station No. 1. It is expected that details of the plan could be developed and implemented as part of future development or redevelopment activities along F Street or should a future funding source become available. RESOLUTION NO. 2003- RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING STAFF'S SUBMITTAL OF A PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR F STREET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH FOURTH AVENUE TO ITS TERMINUS AT THE BAYFRONT AND DIRECTING STAFF TO INCORPORATE THE PROPOSAL IN FUTURE PLANNING DOCUMENTS FOR FINAL CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION WHEREAS, as part of construction of the new Police Facility and the impending start of construction of the renovations to the Civic Center, the adjoining streets, particularly Fourth Avenue and F Street wilI be enhanced within the project areas with new paving and new or enhanced landscaping; and WHEREAS, the Project Architect for the Police Facility and Civic Center Complex Renovation, Carrier Johnson, agrees to donate some of its resources to develop a preliminary conceptual plan or strategy to make future improvements to the F Street right-of-way corridor; and WHEREAS, the F Street corridor is a particularly challenging street as the right-of-way and actual width of the street varies throughout the study area; and WHEREAS, offers great opportunities for improvement, particularly from a non-vehicular perspective; and WHEREAS, as there are no off-ramps servicing F Street from Interstate 5, the street will act as more ora local connector from the downtown area to the Bayfront as opposed to the more arterial or regional coanections that E Street and H Street provide; and WHEREAS, F Street also offers a view of the San Diego Bay from several blocks inland from Interstate 5 and this lack of regional vehicular traffic and more scenic potential lends F Street to a more pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment; and WHEREAS, F Street further offers a connection and cohesion from the Bayfront to the downtown area that could provide significant redevelopment opportunities along F Street; and WHEREAS, City Council's action does not constitute approval of a project, but does constitute a direction to staff to further study the project proposal as part of the City's current comprehensive planning process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept stafffs submittal of a preliminary conceptual right-of-way improvement plan for F Street from its intersection with Fourth Avenue to its terminus at the Bayfront and direct staff to incorporate the proposal in future planning documents for final City Council consideration. Presented by Approved as to form by Andy Campbell nn oore t~ Director of General Services COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ Meeting Date 8/26/03 ITEM TITLE: Report on future transportation projects submitted to SANDAG for the proposed TransNet extension SUBMITTED BY: Director of Engineeringl,~0 Manager%~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes __ No X _) REVIEWED BY: City SANDAG is currently in the process of working on a ballot measure to extend the TransNet program. The TransNet program is based on a 1/2 cent sales tax and funds a variety of important transportation projects throughout the region. The current program expires in 2008. As part of the process, SANDAG has requested each local agency to submit proposed projects to be included in the extended program. RECOMMENDATION: That CounCil accept staff's report on future transportation projects submitted to SANDAG for the proposed TransNet program extension. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The current TransNet Program was enacted as Proposition 'A' by the voters of San Diego County on November 3, 1987. Proposition 'A' enacted a 2 percent increase in the Countyqwide sales tax lasting 20 years for specified transportation programs and projects. However, the TransNet program will expire in 2008. In order for the TransNet program to continue, voters would have to approve a ballot measure for the extension of the program. In order to raise public awareness regarding the TransNet program in advance of the extension becoming a ballot measure, SANDAG has requested all local agencies to help educate the public in support of the extension and to submit proposed projects which could be included in the future program. The current TransNet program is primarily used to fund transportation improvement projects. One third of the TransNet revenues are specified for allocation to the local agencies for local street and road purposes. The other two thirds are split between two additional primary purposes: Regional Highway and Public Transit improvements. SANDAG administers the program County-wide. The Proposition 'A' Ordinance and Expenditure Plan states that the revenue generated by the sales tax measure will be used solely for transportation improvement projects in accordance with the following priorities: 1. To repair and rehabilitate existing roadways. 2. To reduce congestion and improve safety. 3. To provide for the construction of needed facilities. The process for the proposed extension of the TransNet program consists of current on-going discussions/meetings with the various committees/working groups in order to define the proposed extension and ballot measure. Some of the parties involved in this process include: the ADHOC Committee, Cities/County Transportation Advisory Conmaittee (CTAC), and the Regional Task Force. Page 2, Item ~ Meeting Date 8/26/03 Once the ballot measure and the proposed TransNet extension are established, the approval of the extension is determined by the voter population. The main objective at this time is to increase public awareness of the benefits of the TransNet program. In order to increase public awareness of the TransNet program, SANDAG staff requested local agencies to submit any possible future TransNet-funded projects and present the information to each agency's governing board (i.e. City Council). In accordance with said request, City staff submitted the proposed project information forms (Attached) for future TransNet funds to SANDAG to be included in the proposed ballot measure. Chula Vista's total revenues in TransNet as projected by SANDAG for Fiscal Year 03/04 are estimated to be $4,367,852. Anticipated revenues for FY 04/05, 05/06, and 07/08 are anticipated to be approximately the same. The proposed projects for TransNet funding and their corresponding amounts were submitted to SANDAG as follows: PROJECT AMOUNT 1. Broadway Pavement Rehabilitation (C Street to D Street) $1,000,000 2. Broadway Pavement Rehabilitation (D Street to E Street) $1,000,000 3. Broadway Pavement Rehabilitation (E Street to F Street) $1,000,000 4. Trolley Crossing at Industrial Blvd. and Palomar Street $25,000,000 5. Trolley Crossing at I-5/E Street and I-5/H Street $60,000,000 6. Otay Lakes Road (East H Street to Canyon Drive) $1,045,000 7. Interchange at I-5 and Palomar Street $20,000,000 8. Main Street Widening (Broadway to 1-805) $29,996,000 9. Fourth Avenue Widening (E Street to Brisbane Street) $700,000 TOTAL $139~741,000 The projects as listed involve widening and reconstruction, including but not limited to: installation of asphalt concrete (A.C.) pavements, retaining walls, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, drainage facilities, and other appurtenant facilities. The proposed projects potentially can be partially funded by TransNet funds, should the extension be made available. Should the TransNet program not be extended, the possibility of construction of the aforementioned projects may be deemed financially non- feasible. In addition to the aforementioned proposed projects, our existing Pavement Rehabilitation project for this fiscal year and future fiscal years are programmed in our CIP using TransNet funds. Impacts to our CIP would be significant due to funding from the TransNet program. As a result of the potential lost of projects in our CIP caused by the removal of the TransNet program, City staff recommends support for the TransNet program extension. Removal of the TransNet program would also impact other regional local agencies. Attached is the TransNet Fact Sheet of local projects funded by the TransNet program. City staff encourages City Council to provide suggestions for potential TransNet funded projects. Page 3, Item Meeting Date 8/26/03 FISCAL IMPACT: TransNet revenues totaling approximately $4,000,000 each year to fund significant transportation projects could be lost if the TransNet program is not extended. Attachments - Sandag information sheet regarding TransNet Future TransNet submittal sheets File No. 0390-50-KY174 J:\Eng~neer\AGENDA\Transnet Extension Aug 2003.jcm. DOC CHULA VISI'A TransNet Fact Sheet H Street Pavement Reconstruction Broadway Pavement Reconstruction Year Proiect TransNet fundin.q 1 988 San Diego County voters approve Proposition A authorizing TransNet Bicycle Rest Stop - Bonita Road at E Street ($52,200) Street Widening - Orange Ave, between 3~d Ave and 4th Ave ($340,700) 1989 street Reconstruction - Naples Street, between 1st Ave and 2nd Ave ($251,300) Street Reconstruction - Broadway, from Moss Street to the southern City limits ($2,058,700) 1990 Street Reconstruction - Broadway, from L Street to Naples Street ($1,204,100) 1991 Street Improvements - 5= Avenue, from L Street to Orange Avenue ($2,133,300) Street Improvements - 4th Avenue, from Kittiwake to Del Rey High School ($119,200) Street/Bridge Widening - Main Street and Industrial Boulevard ($750,000) Street Widening - Main Street, from I-5 to Industrial Boulevard ($148,000) 1992 Street Widening - Broadway, from F Street to I Street ($2,243,300) 1993 street Reconstruction - Broadway, from I Street to L Street ($2,970,200) 1994 street Reconstruction - Broadway, Naples Street to Anita Street ($230,500) Street Widening - Orange Avenue ($412,600) Pavement Overlay ($908,650) Street Reconstruction - Otay Valley Road ($150,000) Street Reconstruction - Main Street, from Industrial Boulevard to Fourth Avenue ($440,000) 1995 Street Reconstruction - Main Street, from Industrial Boulevard to Fourth Avenue ($60,000) Street Reconstruction - Otay Valley Road, Phase III ($800,000) 1996 Street Reconstruction - Broadway, from Naples Street to Anita Street , ($2,108,000) Street Reconstruction - Main Street, from Industrial Boulevard to Fourth Avenue ($550,000) 1997 Street Reconstruction - Main Street, from Industrial Boulevard to Broadway ($2,039,000) Street Reconstruction - Broadway, from Naples Street to Anita Street ($336,000) Street Widening - Otay Valley Road ($200,788) 1998 Street Reconstruction - Main Street, from Industrial Boulevard to Broadway ($2,786,000) Street Reconstruction - E Street, from I-5 to Broadway ($200,000) 1999 Street Reconstruction - E Street, from MTDB ROW to Broadway ($1,161,000) Street Widening - Palomar Street, from I-5 to Industrial Bird, Phase I ($551,000) Street Improvements - Otay Recreation Center Street Improvements ($300,000) Street Reconstruction - H Street, from I-5 to Broadway ($125,000) Street Reconstruction - Main Street ($85,000) 2000 Street Reconstruction - Main Street ($315,000) Street Reconstruction - H Street, from I-5 to Broadway ($1,000,000) Street Reconstruction - E Street, from I-5 to Broadway ($280,000) 2001 Street Reconstruction - Pavement Rehabilitation ($774,000) Street Reconstruction - Main Street Pavement Rehabilitation ($1,600,000) Street Reconstruction - H Street ($321,000) 2002 Street Reconstruction - Pavement Rehabilitation ($1,800,000) Street Widening - Palomar Street, from I-5 to Industrial ($718,000) Street Reconstruction - Main Street ($1,800,000) Main Street Reconstruction Project Total Cost TransNet State/Federal/ Completion (in millions) Other Date Coaster 242.5 89.5 153.0 1995 Mission Valley West Trolley 223.6 116.8 106.8 1997 Oceanside-Escondido Rail 351.5 26.8 324.7 2005 Other Capital Improvements 241.7 94.1 147.6 Various Note: Cost estimates are as of December 2002. Not all projects are fully funded. Funding and completion dates could change based on future budget allocations. TransNet dollars also are used to obtain more federal and state transportation revenues. T he Regional Transit Vision is the long-range plan for Design work is wrapping up on the Oceanside to Escondido Light integrating public transit into communities throughout the Rail Project. The new commuter rail line will serve 15 stations along San Diego region. A number of transit projects funded in pad the route from Oceanside to Vista, San Marcos, and Escondido, by TransNet, are vital to the implementation of this strategy to including stol~s at MiraCosta College, Palomar College, and revolutionize public transit in the region. The R'rv is a cornerstone California State University San Marcos. Phase 1 of the Inland Rail of the Regional Transportation Plan, MOBILITY 2030. Trail for cyclists and pedestrians also will be constructed as part of A major expansion of the Trolley system is underway with the this project. The new rail line will open to passengers in 2005. six-mile extension of the San Diego Trolley east through Mission TransNet funding is contributing to other light rail projects in the Valley to La Mesa via San Diego State University (SDSU). The region. The Mid-Coast Trolley is being designed from the Old Town bridge over I-8 for the Trolley line is taking shape with the main Station to Balboa Avenue. Design work also is underway on a new pillars now constructed on the north and south Coaster Station at Nobel Ddve in University City. This project is sides of the f~eeway. At SDSU, the scheduled for completion in 2004. tunnel is making its way under The region's transit operators also have received TransNet !~mpus and major funding to add to their bus fleets, increase the number of bus activity continues. The shelters, and expand maintenance facilities. $46i :~iiiio~ ~ect is being developed by And, TransNet continues to fund reduced-price transit passes for MTDBl~onju~ctJon with the Cities of San Diego and La Mesa. seniors, disabled, and student passengers. A number of transit-oriented developments are planned along lhe route that will concentrate houses and jobs around trolley stops. The Mission Valley East Trolley line is expected to open in 2005. Rail New Freeway Mid-Coast Projects i Completed '~ , ~ Project Under Construction ~ Project Under Development ~ -' Walkable Community Bikeway ~"~ M ore than 200 projects are completed each year ~I,~t~'~e. ts_~,~'~?:~'_:F~ii~l'[~i'tt:~:l~A~'AT~_; throughout the region to fix, improve, and expand (in millions) our local streets and roads. Over the life of the program, Carlsbad $21.3 more than one billion dollars in TransNet funding is Ch ula Vista 34.3 dedicated to local streets and roads for jurisdictions to makeCoronado 6.1 repairs, construct and widen roads, install tra~c signals, andDel Mar 2.2 improve interchanges. El Cajon 20.8 TransNet also contributes one million dollars each year to Encinitas 16.4 support and expand the nearly 1,000 miles of bikeways in Escondido 28.2 the San Diego region. Projects are ongoing to provide Imperial Beach 6.3 build more and better bikeways, and La Mesa 14.5 Lemon Grove 6.8 National City 12.5 ~ on the El Capitan Bike of San Oceanside 33.8 Path Phase III from Poway 12.7 San Diego City 267.3 to Rose recently was completed. San Marcos 11.8 Making the streets more pedestrian-friendly is another Santee 12.7 SANDAG goal. One million dollars in TransNet funds is Solana Beach 4.5 financing seven innovative Walkable Communities Vista 20.0 E)emonstration Programs. Design and construction of the projects are underway. In Encinitas, sidewalk redesigns and County of San Diego 125.5 landscape changes make walking safer for pedestrians Bikeways 16.3 Walkable Communities 1.0 along Coast Highway. And in San Marcos, a new lighted Note: TransNet funds allocated as of December 2002. crosswalk helps guide children across a busy street to their elementary school. TransNet funds strengthen the region's infrastructure by funneling needed dollars to maintain and improve streets, boost traffic flow, promote pedestrian safety, and open the roads to bicyclists. More than $650 million in TransNet funding has been including Grossmont College to Navajo Road, Elkelton Boulevard allocated to improve, expand, and better manage our to Jamacha Road, and Troy S~'ee!to SR 94. These improvement well-traveled highways dudng the last decade. These funds are and expansion projects on SR 125 are scheduled for completion combined with state and federal dollars to maximize the use in 2003. of transpodation funding to better link and maintain our SR 125 South is now being constructed to link SR 54 and the transpodation network, future SR 905 freeway at the U.S./l~exico border. This project Progress continues on SR 52 to extend that freeway east also includes completion of SR 54 at SR 125 that will provide a through Santee to SR 67. Current activity on this $400 million direct link between the South Bay and East County areas. The highway project includes design and right-of-way work for the final new section of the SR 54 project will include six lanes with two two phases of the project from SR 125 to Cuyamaca Street, and carpool lanes. from Cuyamaca Street to SR 67. In the Nodh County, construction and design work TransNet dollars ~nanced the flrst two sections of State Route continues on State Route 78 to widen the freeway eastbound 56 bel,,veen Interstates 5 and 15. The entire stretch of this Eom El Camino Real to College Boulevard. This project is essential east-west highway connection is scheduled for scheduled for completion in 2006. And State Route 76 will be completion in 2004. widened from Melrose Drive to Mission Road, and other slretches In the East County, progress continues on SR 125 to extend it of the expressway are being improved with landscaping and from Spring Valley through Lemon Grove to La Mesa and connect interchange modifications. at SR 52 in Santee. Final construction projects are underway ~ ....~ Project Cost Estimate Agency: City of Chula Vista Type of Estimate: Preliminary Arterial or Interchange: Arterial Limits: Broadway Pavement Rehabilitation (C Street to D Street) Length: 0.25 miles Added Lane Miles: None Project Description: The project consists of reconstructing the existing structural pavement section in order to meet current City design requirements. Roadway $781,000 Structures $0 Sul~total Construction Costs $781,000 Right of Way $0 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $78t,000 Preliminary Engineering (6% of Construction Costs) $47,000 Design Engineering (10% of Construction Costs) $78,000 Construction Engineering (12% of Construction Costs) $94,000 TOTAL SUPPORT COST $219,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,000,000 AMOUNT PROGRAMMED $0 COST TO COMPLETE $1,000,000 Project Manager: Jim Holmes 4/30/03 (6191 397-6068 Name Date Phone Project Cost Estimate CAPITAL COST Roadway Earthwork $25,000 Structural Section $580,000 Drainage $0 Noise Berm $0 Hazardous Waste Removal $10,000 Slope Stabilization $0 Landscaping $0 Habitat Creation $0 Traffic Electrical $10,000 Traffic Signing & Striping $10,000 Traffic Management Plan $16,000 Detours $0 Subtotal Roadway Cost $651,000 Contingencies (20% of Roadway Cost) $130,000 Total Roadway Cost $781,000 Structures Bridge $0 Retaining Wall $0 Sound Wall $0 Subtotal Structures Cost $0 Contingencies (20% of Structures Cost) $0 Total Structures Cost $0 Right of Way Residential Acquisition $0 Relocation Assistance $0 Commemial Acquisition $0 Goodwill Losses $0 Mitigation Property Acquisition $0 Utility Relocation $0 Subtotal Right of Way $0 Contingencies (20% of Right of Way Cost) $0 Total Right of Way Cost $0 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $781,000 Project Cost Estimate Agency: City of Chula Vista Type of Estimate: Preliminary Arterial or Interchange: Arterial Limits: Broadway Pavement Rehabilitation (D Street to E Street) Length: 0.25 miles Added Lane Miles: None Project Description: The project consists of reconstructing the existing structural pavement section in order to meet current City design requirements. Roadway $781,000 Structures $0 Subtotal Construction Costs $781,000 Right of Way $0 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $781,000 Preliminary Engineering (6% of Construction Costs) $47,000 Design Engineering (10% of Construction Costs) $78,000 Construction Engineering (12% of Construction Costs) $94,000 TOTAL SUPPORT COST $219,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,000,000 AMOUNT PROGRAMMED $0 COST TO COMPLETE $1,000,000 Project Manager: Jim Holmes 4/30/03 (619/ 397-6068 Name Date Phone Project Cost Estimate CAPITAL COST Roadway Earthwork $25,000 Structural Section $580,000 Drainage $0 Noise Berm $0 Hazardous Waste Removal $10,000 Slope Stabilization $0 Landscaping $0 Habitat Creation $0 Traffic Electrical $10,000 Traffic Signing & Striping $10,000 Traffic Management Plan $16,000 Detours $0 Subtotal Roadway Cost $651,000 Contingencies (20% of Roadway Cost) $130,000 Total Roadway Cost $781,000 Structures Bridge $0 Retaining Wall $0 Sound Wall $0 Subtotal Structures Cost $0 Contingencies (20% of Structures Cost) $0 Total Structures Cost $0 Right of Way Residential Acquisition $0 Relocation Assistance $0 Commemial Acquisition $0 Goodwill Losses $0 Mitigation Property Acquisition $0 Utility Relocation $0 Subtotal Right of Way $0 Contingencies (20% of Right of Way Cost) $0 Total Right of Way Cost $0 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $781,000 Project Cost Estimate Agency: City of Chula Vista Type of Estimate: Preliminary Arterial or Interchange: Arterial Limits: Broadway Pavement Rehabilitation (E Street to F Street) Length: 0.25 miles Added Lane Miles: None Project Description: The project consists of reconstructing the existing structural pavement section in order to meet current City design requirements. Roadway $781,000 Structures $0 Subtotal Construction Costs $781,000 Right of Way $0 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $781,000 Preliminary Engineering (6% of Construction Costs) $47,000 Design Engineering (10% of Construction Costs) $78,000 Construction Engineering (12% of Construction Costs) $94,000 TOTAL SUPPORT COST $219,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,000,000 AMOUNT PROGRAMMED $0 COST TO COMPLETE $t,000,000 Project Manager: Jim Holmes 4/30/03 (619/ 397-6068 Name Date Phone Project Cost Estimate CAPITAL COST Roadway Earthwork $25,000 Structura~ Section $580,000 Drainage $0 Noise Berm $0 Hazardous Waste Removal $10,000 Slope Stabilization $0 Landscaping $0 Habitat Creation $0 Traffic Electrical $10,000 Traffic Signing & Striping $10,000 Traffic Management Plan $16,000 Detours $0 Subtotal Roadway Cost $651,000 Contingencies (20% of Roadway Cost) $130,000 Total Roadway Cost $781,000 Structures Bridge $0 Retaining Wall $0 Sound Waif $0 Subtotal Structures Cost $0 Contingencies (20% of Structures Cost) $0 Total Structures Cost $0 Right of Way Residential Acquisition $0 Relocation Assistance $0 Commercial Acquisition $0 Goodwill Losses $0 Mitigation Property Acquisition $0 Utility Relocation $0 Subtotal Right of Way $0 Contingencies (20% of Right of Way Cost) $0 Total Right of Way Cost $0 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $781,000 Project Cost Estimate Agency: City of Chula Vista Type of Estimate: Preliminary Arterial or Interchange: Arterial Limits: Trolley Crossing at Industrial Blvd. and Palomar Street Length: N/A Added Lane Miles: None Project Description: The project consists of constructing a grade-separated trolley crossing along I-5 and Palomar Street Roadway $11,196,000 Structures $8,100,000 Subtotal Construction Costs $19,296,000 Right of Way $300,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $19,596,000 Preliminary Engineering (6% of Construction Costs) $1,158,000 Design Engineering (10% of Construction Costs) $1,930,000 Construction Engineering (12% of Construction Costs) $2,316,000 TOTAL SUPPORT COST $5,404,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $25,000,000 AMOUNT PROGRAMMED $0 COST TO COMPLETE $25,000,000 Project Manager: Frank Rivera 5/6/03 (619) 397-6118 Name Date Phone Project Cost Estimate CAPITAL COST Roadway Earthwork $3,000,000 Structural Section $5,000,000 Drainage $700,000 Noise Berm $0 Hazardous Waste Removal $100,000 Slope Stabilization $100,000 Landscaping $100,000 Habitat Creation $0 Traffic Electrical $250,000 Traffic Signing & Striping $40,000 Traffic Management P~an $20,000 Detours $20,000 Subtotal Roadway Cost $9,330,000 Contingencies (20% of Roadway Cost) $1,866,000 Total Roadway Cost $11,196,000 Structures Bridge $5,000,000 Retaining Wall $1,750,000 Sound Wall $0 Subtotal Structures Cost $6,750,000 Contingencies (20% of Structures Cost) $1,350,000 Total Structures Cost $8,100,000 Right of Way Residential Acquisition $0 Relocation Assistance $0 Commercial Acquisition $0 Goodwill Losses $0 Mitigation Property Acquisition $0 Utility Relocation $250,000 Subtotal Right of Way $250,000 Contingencies (20% of Right of Way Cost) $50,000 Total Right of Way Cost $300,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $19,596,000 Project Cost Estimate Agency: City of Chula Vista Type of Estimate: Preliminary Arterial or Interchange: Arterial Limits: Trolley Crossing at I-5/E Street and I-5/H Street Length: N/A Added Lane Miles: None Project Description: The project consists of constructing a grade-separated trolley crossing along 1-51E Street and I-5/H Street Roadway $22,406,000 Structures $24,000,000 Subtotal Construction Costs $46,406,000 Right of Way $600,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $47,006,000 Preliminary Engineering (6% of Construction Costs) $2,784,000 Design Engineering (10% of Construction Costs) $4,641,000 Construction Engineering (12% of Construction Costs) $5,569,000 TOTAL SUPPORT COST $12,994,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $60,000,000 AMOUNT PROGRAMMED $0 COST TO COMPLETE $60,000,000 Project Manager: Frank Rivera 5/6/03 (619) 397-6118 Name Date Phone Project Cost Estimate CAPITAL COST Roadway Earthwork $5,800,000 Structural Section $10,000,000 Drainage $1,500,000 Noise Berm $0 Hazardous Waste Removal $200,000 Slope Stabilization $200,000 Landscaping $300,000 Habitat Creation $0 Traffic Electrical $500,000 Traffic Signing & Striping $100,000 Traffic Management Plan $30,000 Detours. $42,000 Subtotal Roadway Cost $18,672,000 Contingencies (20% of Roadway Cost) $3,734,000 Total Roadway Cost $22,406,000 Structures Bridge $15,000,000 Retaining Wail $5,000,000 Sound Wall $0 Subtotal Structures Cost $20,000,000 Contingencies (20% of Structures Cost) $4,000,000 Total Structures Cost $24,000,000 Right of Way Residential Acquisition $0 Relocation Assistance $0 Commemial Acquisition $0 Goodwill Losses $0 Mitigation Property Acquisition $0 Utility Relocation $500,000 Subtotal Right of Way $500,000 Contingencies (20% of Right of Way Cost) $100,000 Total Right of Way Cost $600,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $47,006,000 Project Cost Estimate Agency: City of Chula Vista Type of Estimate: Preliminary Arterial or Interchange: Arterial Limits: Otay Lakes Road (East H Street to Canyon Drive) Length: 0.3 Added Lane Miles: 0.3 Project Description: The project consists of widening Otay Lakes Road to the east to add an additional northbound lane. Roadway $304,000 Structures $180,000 Subtotal Construction Costs $484,000 Right of Way $426,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $910,000 Preliminary Engineering (6% of Construction Costs) $29,000 Design Engineering (10% of Construction Costs) $48,000 Construction Engineering (12% of Construction Costs) $58,000 TOTAL SUPPORT COST $135,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,045,000 AMOUNT PROGRAMMED $0 COST TO COMPLETE $1,045,000 Project Manager: Sohaib AI-A~lha 4/30/03 (619) 691-5028 Name Date Phone Project Cost Estimate CAPITAL COST Roadway Earthwork $33,000 Structural Section $120,000 Drainage $0 Noise Berm $0 Hazardous Waste Removal $0 Slope Stabilization $10,000 Landscaping $10,000 Habitat Creation $0 Traffic Electrical $50,000 Traffic Signing & Striping $10,000 Traffic Management Plan $20,000 Detours $0 Subtotal Roadway Cost $253,000 Contingencies (20% of Roadway Cost) $51,000 Total Roadway Cost $304,000 Structures Bridge $0 Retaining Wall $150,000 Sound Wall $0 Subtotal Structures Cost $150,000 Contingencies (20% of Structures Cost) $30,000 Total Structu res Cost $180,000 Right of Way Residential Acquisition $0 Relocation Assistance $0 Commercial Acquisition $0 Goodwill Losses $100,000 Mitigation Property Acquisition $255,000 Utility Relocation $0 Subtotal Right of Way $355,000 Contingencies (20% of Right of Way Cost) $71,000 Total Right of Way Cost $426,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $910,000 Project Cost Estimate Agency: City of Chula Vista Type of Estimate: Preliminary Arterial or Interchange: Arterial Limits: Interchange at I-5 and Palomar Street Length: N/A Added Lane Miles: None Project Description: The project consists of constructing an interchange at I-5 and Palomar Street Roadway $9,000,000 Structures $6,000,000 Subtotal Construction Costs $16,000,000 Right of Way $800,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $15,800,000 Preliminary Engineering (6% of Construction Costs) $900,000 Design Engineering (10% of Construction Costs) $1,500,000 Construction Engineering (12% of Construction Costs) $1,800,000 TOTAL SUPPORT COST $4,200,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $20,000,000 AMOUNT PROGRAMMED $0 COST TO COMPLETE $20,000,000 Project Manager: Frank Rivera 5/6/03 (619) 397-6118 Name Date Phone Project Cost Estimate CAPITAL COST Roadway Earthwork $3,000,000 Structural Section $3,170,000 Drainage $700,000 Noise Berm $0 Hazardous Waste Removal $100,000 Slope Stabilization $100,000 Landscaping $100,000 Habitat Creation $0 Traffic Electrical $250,000 Traffic Signing & Striping $40,000 Traffic Management Plan $20,000 Detours $20,000 Subtotal Roadway Cost $7,500,000 Contingencies (20% of Roadway Cost) $1,500,000 Total Roadway Cost $9,000,000 Structures Bridge $3,000,000 Retaining Wall $2,000,000 Sound Wall $0 Subtotal Structures Cost $5,000,000 Contingencies (20% of Structures Cost) $1,000,000 Total Structures Cost $6,000,000 Right of Way Residential Acquisition $0 Relocation Assistance $0 Commercial Acquisition $0 Goodwill Losses $0 Mftigation Property Acquisition $0 Utility Relocation $667,000 Subtotal Right of Way $667,000 Contingencies (20% of Right of Way Cost) $133,000 Total Right of Way Cost $800,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $15,800,000 Project Cost Estimate Agency: City of Chula Vista Type of Estimate: Preliminary Arterial or Interchange: Arterial Limits: Broadway to 1-805 Length: N/A Added Lane Miles: None Project Description: The project consists of constructing the widening of Main Street from Broadway to 1-805 Roadway $13,422,000 Structures $7,200,000 Subtotal Construction Costs $20,622,000 Right of Way $3,600,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $24,222,000 Preliminary Engineering (6% of Construction Costs) $1,237,000 Design Engineering (10% of Construction Costs) $2,062,000 Construction Engineering (12% of Construction Costs) $2,475,000 TOTAL SUPPORT COST $5,774,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $29,996,000 AMOUNT PROGRAMMED $0 COST TO COMPLETE $29,996,000 Project Manager: Frank Rivera 5/6/03 (619/ 397-6118 Name Date Phone Project Cost Estimate CAPITAL COST Roadway Earthwork $1,400,000 Structural Section $8,000,000 Drainage $1,000,000 Noise Berm $0 Hazardous Waste Removal $100,000 Slope Stabilization $100,000 Landscaping $135,000 Habitat Creation $0 Traffic Electrical $250,000 Traffic Signing & Striping $100,000 Traffic Management Plan $50,000 Detours $50,000 Subtotal Roadway Cost $11,185,000 Contingencies (20% of Roadway Cost) $2,237,000 Total Roadway Cost $13,422,000 Structures Bridge $0 Retaining Wall $1,000,000 Sound Wall $5,000,000 Subtotal Structures Cost $6,000,000 Contingencies (20% of Structures Cost) $1,200,000 Total Structures Cost $7,200,000 Right of Way Residential Acquisition $1,000,000 Relocation Assistance $0 Commercial Acquisition $2,000,000 Goodwill Losses $0 Mitigation Property Acquisition $0 Utility Relocation $0 Subtotal Right of Way $3,000,000 Contingencies (20% of Right of Way Cost) $600,000 Total Right of Way Coat $3,600,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $24,222,000 Project Cost Estimate Agency: City of Chula Vista Type of Estimate: Preliminary Arterial or Interchange: Arterial Limits: E Street to Brisbane Street Length: N/A Added Lane Miles: None Project Description: The project consists of constructing the widening of Fourth Avenue from E Street to Brisbane Street Roadway $546,000 Structures $0 Subtotal Construction Costs $546,000 Right of Way $0 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $546,000 Preliminary Engineering (6% of Construction Costs) $33,000 Design Engineering (10% of Construction Costs) $55,000 Construction Engineering (12% of Construction Costs) $66,000 TOTAL SUPPORT COST $154,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $700,000 AMOUNT PROGRAMMED $0 COST TO COMPLETE $700,000 Project Manager: Frank Rivera 5/6/03 (6191 397-6118 Name Date Phone Project Cost Estimate CAPITAL COST Roadway Earthwork Structural Section Drainage Noise Berm Hazardous Waste Removal Slope Stabilization Landscaping Habitat Creation Traffic Electrical Traffic Signing & Striping Traffic Management Plan Detours Subtotal Roadway Cost Contingencies (20% of Roadway Cost) Total Roadway Cost Structures Bridge Retaining Wall Sound Wall Subtotal Structures Cost Contingencies (20% of Structures Cost) Total Structures Cost Right of Way Residential Acquisition Relocation Assistance Commercial Acquisition Goodwill Losses Mitigation Property Acquisition Utility Relocation Subtotal Right of Way Contingencies (20% of Right of Way Cost) Total Right of Way Cost TOTAL CAPITAL COST .-ì~-~7 $100,000 $200,000 $50,000 $0 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $10,000 $455,000 $91,000 $546,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $546,000 RECEIVED ..\\ '-----~------:~:_:_--~_~---·ì " :.1 n ¡';::¡ ,- ."\ i \'JI I;'" 1,-·., I , \} ,,- I·, .' -" - ......... , I.. -- -.----.---, , - _ i, '03 AtJ) 26 P 4 :47 McMillin Land Development A Corky McMillin Company AUG 2 6 2003 ì\ Ii ì"'0 .. L___.__ ____J , : J L___..~.··_··___·__·_ ~II,( OF :~LA ~T i tny,et..£RI\'SOFFICE August 26, 2002 Honorable Mayor Steve Padilla City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: Council Agenda Item No. 22: Future transportation projects submitted to SANDAG for the proposed TransNet program extension Dear Mayor Padilla: The Corky McMillin Companies strongly supports the TransNet program, and its reauthorization efforts. This broad-based approach to funding inrrastructure improvements is critically important to the continued functioning and improvement of our regional transportation network. We appreciate staffs report to you tonight regarding proposed projects to be included in the measure's reauthorization plan. However, we believe that additional important road improvements should be included in the request. Specifically, 1. La Media Road from future Rock Mountain Road to Lone Star Road: this is a critical inrrastructure link to connect Chula Vista's vibrant housing and future employment centers to the job centers of Otay Mesa and East Otay Mesa. With the deletion of Alta Road for environmental considerations, this north-south link becomes even more essential. As a road facility that crosses multiple jurisdictions (City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego), it will be constructed rrom a variety of sources. TransNet funds should be included in this mix. 2. Transit Network Improvements. Eastern Urban Center: The Otay Ranch GDP made an unprecedented commitment to "smart growth" and transit-oriented development long before these ideas were popular. We believe that TransNet funding is an important element toward funding components of the future transit network within Chula Vista and the Otay Ranch that will benefit workers and residents throughout the region. Funding options may include: structured park- and-ride facilities, transfer stations and amenities, and grade-separations or other right-of-way improvements. À\. À\. McMillin Realty McMillin Mongage ..\\. ..\\ ..\\ McMillin Land Development McMillin Homes McMillin Commercial CORPORATE OFFICE 2727 HOOVER AVENUE NATIONAL CITY, CA 91950 TEL (619) 477-4117 FAX (619) 336-3112 W'NW,mcmillin.com We hereby request that you direct staff to augment its request for future TransNet funding to include these facilities, and look forward to working with you to make these projects a reality. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, ~ÿ~ Dave Gatzke Vice President cc: Councilmember Patty Davis Councilmember John McCann Councilmember Jerry Rindone Councilmember Mary Salas Dave Rowlands, City Manager George Krempl, Assistant City Manager Cliff Swanson, Director of Engineering Ken Baumgartner Todd Galarneau Tom Tomlinson Constance Clover