HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1998/08/11
"I declare Mndar penalty of parJury tl1et 1 am
employed by t~,e (:ity of Chula Vista in the
Office of the (,it: Clerk and that I posted
this Agen1a!No;ice on the Bulletin Board at
Tuesday, August 11, 1998 the Public serVic~uildin~ . at ity Hall on Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. DATED. '1-1- 9 SIGNED Public Services Building
R ular Meetin of the Cit of Chula
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL: Couneilmembers Moot_, Padilla_, Rindone_, Salas_, and Mayor Horton_.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. MOMENT OF SILENCE
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None submitted.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
A. Presentation by Donna Hale, Chair of the Chula Vista Yacht Club, regarding the fourth annual
Bayfair Chula Vista Yaeht Harbnr Day to be held August 30, 1998 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
at the Chula Vista Marina Parkway Pier.
B. Presentation by Fran Larson of the International Friendship Commission of the following Japanese
Exchange Students from our Sister City in Odawara, Japan: Oikawa Kenichi, Yumi Tanaka,
Satoko Ishizawa, and Yukiko Imamura.
C. Proclamation commending Pat Barnes upon her retirement from SDG&E on September 1, 1998.
The proclamation will be presented by Mayor Horton to Pat Barnes.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through /2)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by
the CoullciL by one motion without discussion unless a CounciLmember, a member of the public, or City staff
requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fiLL out a
"Request to Speak Fonn" 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 Board and Commission Recommendations and Action Items.
Items pulled by the public wiLL be the first items of business.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
A. Letter from the City Attorney stating that to the hest of his knowledge from actions taken
in Closed Session on Angust 4, 1998, there were no actions taken which are required under
the Brown Act to be reported. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed.
6.A. ORDINANCE 2740 AMENDING CHAPTERS 8.23, 8.24 AND 8.25 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
TO MOVE THE SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING FRANCHISE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
OUT OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE INTO A SEPARATE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, AND
MAKING TECHNICAL CHANGES (second readin~ and adoDtion) - This is to approve the agreement
for solid waste collection, processing and disposal services, and to establish a rate schedule for services
provided under the agreement to be effective September 1, 1998 which: (1) includes a freeze on current
rates through June 30, 1999; (2) provides a reduction in rates for commercial tiber recycling and multi-
family recycling for dwellings of nine units and under; and (3) establishes fixed rates for industrial "roll-
off," compactor and optional services. Staff is further requesting the amendment of Chapter 8.23 of the
Municipal Code to retlect the adjustments made into the franchise agreement. Staff œcoITImends Council
place the ordinances on second reading and adoption and approve the resolution. (Deputy City Manager
and Conservation Coordinator)
Agenda -2- August 11, 1998
B. ORDINANCE 2741 GRANTING A WASTE MANAGEMENT FRANCHISE RENEWAL TO
PACIFIC WASTE SERVICES THROUGH SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME (second readinl! and adoDtion)
C. RESOLUTION 19131 ADOPTING THE SCHEDULE OF MAXIMUM RATES FOR SOLID
WASTE, RECYCLING, AND GREEN WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OR PROCESSING
SERVICES AS SUBMITTED BY THE CITY'S SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE AGENT (PACIFIC
WASTE SERVICES) EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1,1998
7. RESOLUTION 19136 AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR A REPLACEMENT
1500 GALLON PER MINUTE (G.P.M.) TRIPLE COMBINATION FIRE APPARATUS TO SOUTH
COAST FIRE EQUIPMENT, INCORPORATED, THROUGH A COOPERATIVE PURCHASE
WITH THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES - The tïseal year 1998/99 Equipmeot Replacement Budget
provides for the replacement of a Fire Department 1500 G.P.M Triple Combination Fire Apparatus (fire
pumper). The Municipal Code Section 2.56.270 and Resolutioo Number 6132 authorizes the Purchasing
Agent to participate in cooperative bids with other government agencies for the purchase of materials of
common usage. The City, therefore, is participating in a current City of Los Angeles bid from South
Coast Fire Equipment for purchase of a 1500 G.P.M. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Public Works)
8. RESOLUTION 19137 APPROVING A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO CONSIDER
GRANTING A FIVE-YEAR GAS AND ELECTRIC FRANCHISE TO SDG&E AND SETTING A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER SAME FOR SEPTEMBER I, 1998 - The City's gas and eleetric
utility franchise with San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) expired on November 30,1997. The Couocil
approved two extensions of the franchise, most recently until June 30, 1998. City and SDG&E staff have
now concluded negotiations for a tïve-year renewal of the franchise. This item requests that Council set
a public hearing to consider the proposed franchise on the terms and conditions described. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (City Attorney)
9. RESOLUTION 19138 WAIVING IMMATERIAL DEFECT, ACCEPTING BIDS, AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR "STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT -HILL TOP DRIVE AT SDG&E EASEMENT
IN THE CITY (DR-130)" - 00 July 8, 1998, sealed bids for "Storm Drain Replacement-Hilltop Drive
at SDG&E Easement." The work includes removing and replacing deteriorated pipes. Shoreline
Contractors was the lowest responsible bidder at $24,499.97. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Public Works Director)
10. RESOLUTION 19139 ACCEPTING BIDS, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR "BAYFRONT
TROLLEY STATION PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY (DS-038)" - On May 20,
1998, sealed, informal bids were received for the Bayfront Trolley Station Parking Lot Improvements.
The work includes removal and replacement of alligatored asphalt concrete pavement and striping.
American Asphalt and Concrete, Inc. was the lowest responsible bidder in the amount of $34,459.20. Staff
reconnnends approval of the resolution. (Public Works Director)
11. RESOLUTION 19140 ESTABLISHING THE KENNETH LEE MEMORIAL AWARD FOR
COMMUNITY PLANNING - The City has established an annual Beautification Awards Program to
recognize projects completed during the prior year which retlect exceptional architectural and site planning
solutions. It is n::commended that the City Council establish the Kenneth Lee Memorial Award, in memory
of the recently deceased Assistant Planning Director, to he given for a project which reflects excellence
in community planning. Staff reconunends approval of the resolution. (Planning Director)
Agenda -3- August 11, 1998
12. RESOLUTION 19141 APPROPRIATING $600,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED GENERAL
FUND BALANCE TO THE INSURANCE BUDGET FOR THE PAYMENT OF PREVIOUSLY
AUTHORIZED CLAIM SETTLEMENTS AND RELATED EXPENSES - This action will appropriate
funding for payment of previously authorized claim settlements. Staff reconnnends approval of the
resolution. (Risk Manager) 4/5th's vote required
* * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * *
ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR AND/OR JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject matter within the
Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda for public discussion. (State law, however, generally
prohibits the City CounciLfrom taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to
address the Council on such a subject, please complete the "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications
Fonu" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak,
please give your name and address for record purposes and foLLow up action.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by Law. If you wish to
speak to any item, please fiLL out the "Request to Speak Fonu" available in the lobby and submit it to the City
Clerk prior to the meeting.
13. PUBLIC HEARING PCZ-98-01, AN APPLICATION TO REZONE FROM R-l (RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY) TO CT (COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE), PART OF THE PARCEL AT
619 EAST MANOR PRIOR TO A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - The City was approached by the
applicant with a lot line adjustment in January 1998. It was recommended by staff that the applicant apply
for a rezone to bring the parcel into land use and zoning conformance. Since 1989, the parcel has been
split zoned along with others in the 600 block of Broadway as R-l and CT. The land use activities are a
combination of conunercial and residential land uses. The subject parcel has been a single family
residential home facing onto East Manor and a commercial parking lot for Discount Tires facing Broadway.
The northwest portion of the parking lot is in the R-l Zone, so it is practical and concise to include the
whole parking lot in the CT Zone through a rezone action prior to the processing of the lot line adjustment.
Staff recommends placing the ordinance on first reading. (Planning Director)
ORDINANCE 2742 AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION
19.18.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY REZONING PART OF PARCEL LOCATED AT 619
EAST MANOR AVENUE AND 600 BROADWAY AVENUE FROM R-l (SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL) TO CT (COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE) (first readin~)
14. PUBLIC HEARING PCA-98-06, APPLICATION TO AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION
19.62.100 TO CHANGE "TEMPORARY" PARKING FROM SIX MONTHS TO TWELVE
MONTHS AND INCLUDE PARKING AREA PAVEMENT STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE
VEHICULAR AREAS INTO THE ZONING ORDINANCE - Nearly a deeade ago, the City developed
standards for paving of temporary and permanent parking lots, which were adopted by policy resolution
of the Planning Commission. Staff has recently updated these standards to bring them into conformance
with current environmental and design standards, and to revise the time limits for temporary installations.
Staff is recommending that these updated standards be adopted as part of the Municipal Code at this time.
Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading. (Planning Director)
ORDINANCE 2743 AMENDING THE I\fiJNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 19, CHAPTER 19.62.100 OF
CHANGING THE TIME PERIOD FOR "TEMPORARY" PARKING FROM SIX MONTHS TO
TWELVEMONTHS AND ADDING THE PA VEMENT ST ANDARDS FOR PRIVATE VEffiCULAR
AREAS (tïrst re"din~)
Agenda -4- August 11, 1998
15. PUBLIC HEARING DRC-98-16A, APPEAL OF THE DECISION MADE BY THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE AND UPHELD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION - HYUN/JVP,
LTD/AUTOPLEX, APPELLANT - On April 3, 1998, the appellant tìled an appeal to the Design Review
Committee's conditional site plan and architectural approval of a 1,677 square foot, two story office
building loeated at 1450 Broadway. At its meeting of May 13, 1998, the Plaoning Commission held a
public hearing to consider the appeal and voted to uphold the Design Review Committee's approval of
DRC-98-16 and denied the appeal. The appellant subsequently appealed the Planning Commission's
decision on May 29, 1998 to the City Council. Staff recommends approval of the resolutioo. (Planning
Director)
RESOLUTION 19142 UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING AN APPEAL TO DESIGN REVIEW CASE
NUMBER DRC-98-I6
16. PUBLIC HEARING REVIEW AND CONSIDER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE HUD SECTION
108 LOAN GUARANTEE APPLICATION FOR $125,000 TO FUND A PORTION OF THE OTAY
RECREATION CENTER - The City Council approved a Master Plan for the Otay Park on May 24,
1994. On October 21, 1997, the City Council approved the purchase of the land for the project site at
3554 Main Street. Couneil adopted both the Capital Improvement Program and the 1998/99 CDBG
Consolidated Annual Plan whieh directed staff to pursue a Seetion 108 loan guarantee to tìll the funding
gap for the construction of Phase I. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community
Development Director).
RESOLUTION 19143 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE HUD SECTION 108
LOAN APPLICATION FOR $215,000 TO FUND A PORTION OF THE OTAY RECREATION
CENTER
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council will conswer items which have been forwarded to themfor consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions, and/or Committees.
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
The items Listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by
the Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council
and staffrecommendl1tions may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please
fiLL out a "Request to Speak" fomt available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
17. REPORT CONSOLIDATION OF PLANNING AND BUILDING AND HOUSING
DEPARTMENTS - The City Manager recently consolidated the Planning and Building and Housing
Departments following the resignation of the Building and Housing Director. Staff has provided a report
regarding this consolidation including identitications of necessary changes to the Municipal Code. Staff
recommends that Council receive and tïle the report and place the ordinance on first reading. (Planning
Director)
ORDINANCE 2744 AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 2.17
ESTABLISHING THE PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT (first readin~)
Agenda -5- August 11, 1998
18. RESOLUTION 19144 AMENDING THE 1998/99 BUDGET TO ADD THREE ASSISTANT
ENGINEER II, ONE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR II, ONE ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II
POSITION AND RELATED EQUIPMENT, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR - The
additional staffing needed to respond to the unprecedented surge in land development activities has been
brought before Council twice since March 31 of this year. Working with the Human Resources
Department, the Engineering Division was recently able to hire one Civil Engineer and two Assistant
Engineers to fill aU currently budgeted positions in the Land Development Section. Staff has looked at
several options to solve the staffing needs and believes that the best option is to hire additional permanent
staff. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar.
Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers.
OTHER BUSINESS
19. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTlS)
A. Scheduling of meetings.
20. MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
21. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the regular City Council meeting on September 1, 1998
at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A special meeting of the Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City Council meeting.
'" declare ~n"er penalty of perjury that I am
emc¡loe:' b' t',e City of Chuia Vista in the
O¡-;'¡ce C f; ¡-./ ¡"·Is;-:, ;:mJ that I posted
this A ~n ' :{:,; ,'J Ul the Bulletin Board at
the pu:)~ :'clv,ces bulciin;:; a(j at y Hall ...
Tuesday, August 11, 1998 DATED, . 7, tl SIGNED .. Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. Public Services Building
(immediately following the City Council Meeting)
Citv of Chula Vista Citv Council
CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. Unless the City Attorney, the City
Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council wiLL discuss and deliberate on the following
items of business which are pennitted by lnw to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the
Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Council is
required by lnw to return to open session, issue any reports of final action taken in closed session, and the votes
taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be tenninated
at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from closed session, reports of final action taken,
and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report of final action taken will be recorded in the
minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office.
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
. Fritsch v. City of Chula Vista
. Emily Busalacchi v. City of Chula Vista
2. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
--...---.---
August 5, 1998
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council ~
FROM: David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager -r:R ~ ...---.
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting of August II, 1998
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council meeting ofTuesday,
August 11, 1998. Comments regarding the Written Communications are as follows:
5a. This is a letter ITom the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge ITom
observance of actions taken in Closed Session on 8/4/98, there were no actions taken which
are required under the Brown Act to be reported.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED.
DDR:mab
-
~--... ~--.._.
~~~
:.....-=
~~~~
-;;::
CllY OF
CHUlA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Date: August 5, 1998
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: John M. Kaheny, City Attorney rV
Re: Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session
for the Meeting of 8/4/98
The City Council met in Closed Session on 8/4/98 to discuss:
Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9: In
Re: Whitewater Canyon LLC, Case No. 98-08520-All and Fritsch v.
City of Chula Vista.
The Redevelopment Agency met in Closed Session on 8/4/98 to
discuss:
Conference 'wi th Legal Counsel regarding Anticipated Litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (c) , Initiation of
Litigation: One Case.
Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.8:
Property: 340-368 Bay Boulevard (5 parcels totaling 3.65 acres)
Negotiating Parties: Redevelopment Agency (Chris Salomone) , San
Diego Unified Port District; B. F. Goodrich
Under Negotiations: Purchase/lease terms and conditions
The City Attorney hereby reports to the best of his knowledge from
observance of actions taken in the Closed Session in which the City
Attorney participated, that there were no reportable actions which
are required under the Brown Act to be reported.
JMK: 19k
C:\lt\clossess.rio
S'A-/
276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA· CALIFORNIA g1g10 . (11g) 6g1-5037 . FAX (619) 585-5612
'i; PrII~Alt)œllp..
.-.-- .. -"------- ---".~._.. -.-"".- -. .. --.- . ~.._- ,,"-,-."'.----.--
~OJ\tD
ORDINANCE NO. 2740 . Ii'~DI.
Wq~D
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~Doþ
AMENDING CHAPTERS 8.23, 8.24 AND 8.25 OF THE~OI\'
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO MOVE THE SOLID
WASTE AND RECYCLING FRANCHISE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OUT OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE INTO A
SEPARATE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, AND MAKING
TECHNICAL CHANGES
WHEREAS, previous City Council actions had approved
codification of various Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling
Franchise provisions into Chapters 8.23, 8.24 and 8.25 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, concurrently herewith the City is considering
granting a five year Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling Franchise
to Pacific Waste Industries; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the grant of the Franchise,
City staff recommends that the codified franchise provisions be
moved into a Franchise Agreement in order to consolidate such
provisions in a single, more appropriate, location; and
WHEREAS, in connection with such action, City staff
recommended certain changes to governing definitions, along with
additional minor and technical corrections to Chapters 8.23, 8.24
and 8.25 to conform with the negotiated terms of the Franchise
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and approved all
such proposed changes.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Chapter 8.23 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read! in its entirety, as
follows:
Chapter 8.23
SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING CONTRACT OR FRANCHISE
Sections:
8.23.010 Contract or franchise authority.
8.23.020 Prerequisites to authorization.
8.23.030 Bonding of contractor or grantee.
8.23.040 Written Acceptance.
8.23.050 Publication Costs.
8.23.060 Contract or Franchise Ter.ms and Conditions.
,
INFORMATION PACKET
SCANNED AT FIRST READING
0./1. -/ OF THIS ORDINANCE ON:
/!VG- CJ q 1><1 c¡ 'Õ
"---.-_....-,_.._- ._....._._-.--~,-_.- ~-----.-
ORDINANCE NO.~ ~~\~
Rtp>.O\~G ~O .
:'::'CO~O
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GRANTING A WASTE MANAGEMENT FRANCHISE RENEWAL
TO PACIFIC WASTE SERVICES THROUGH SEPTEMBER 4,
2002 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, AND
AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
WHEREAS, City is a chartered city within the meaning of
California Constitution Article 11, Sections 3 and 5 and has
reserved its powers pursuant to California Public Resources Code
Section 40000 et seq. to grant an exclusive solid waste and
recyclable franchise; and
WHEREAS, in 1982, pursuant to Article XII of the City
Charter and Chapter 8.24 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, City
granted a solid waste disposal franchise ("Original Franchise") to
Chula Vista Sanitary Service ("CVSS") ; and
WHEREAS, since 1982, the Original Franchise has been
amended as follows: (1) Ordinance No. 2104, adopted February 28,
1985: (2) Ordinance No. 2332, adopted September 12, 1989; (3)
Ordinance No. 2427, adopted December 4, 1990; (4) Ordinance No.,
2429, adopted December 11, 1990; (5) Ordinance No. 2475, adopted
September 3, 1991; (6) Ordinance No. 2562, adopted July 20 1993;
and (7) Ordinance No. 2569, adopted September 21, 1993; and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 1987, pursuant to City Council
Resolution No. 13019, City approved an assignment of the Original
Franchise to Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. (" Laidlaw") ; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 1997, pursuant to City Counc il
Resolution No. 18705, City conditionally approved Laidlaw's
assignment of the Original Franchise, as amended, to Pacific. One
of the conditions of approval was that Pacific enter into
negotiations with City staff regarding various City issues with the
franchise prior to September, 1997 when the City was scheduled to
consider Pacific's request for a five year renewal; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 1997, pursuant to City Council
Resolution No. 18763, City approved a month to month extension of
the Original Franchise pending further City review and
consideration of Pacific's requested five year renewal; and
WHEREAS, City staff and Pacific have negotiated and
presented to the City Council a new franchise (" Franchise") which
provides for a five-year renewal of the Original Franchise on
revised terms and conditions; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 1998, pursuant to City Council
Resolution No. 19074, City approved a resolution of intention to
INFORMATION PACKET
SCANNED AT FIRST READING
OF THIS ORDINANCE ON:
/ (p tj. -I ~ O~ /9' 9 g
-- ~'.'..~_..~.- -- _.,-~- _.~,_.--~.-.. ,--- --.. ---.---..--
RESOLUTION No.~1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE SCHEDULE OF MAXIMUM
RATES FOR SOLID WASTE, RECYCLING, AND GREEN
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OR PROCESSING
SERVICES AS SUBMITTED BY THE CITY'S SOLID
WASTE FRANCHISE AGENT (PACIFIC WASTE SERVICES)
EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
WHEREAS, concurrently herewith the City is granting
Pacific Waste Industries ("Pacific") a five year Solid Waste
Disposal and Recycling Franchise renewal; and
WHEREAS, Section 7.2 of the Franchise Agreement
contemplates the establishment of "Initial Maximum Rates" for
various franchise services; and
WHEREAS, this proposal represents a change in the
calculation of City fees; and
WHEREAS, franchise, AB 939 and household hazardous waste
fees will be based on gross revenue excluding other City imposed
fees; and
WHEREAS, this change will reduce the total revenue per
customer generated by the fee and will be applied more accurately
than it has in the past which will make it easier for the City and
Pacific to calculate and audit the amounts owed the City in the
future.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt the Schedule of Maximum Rates
for solid waste, recycling, and green waste collection and disposal
or processing services as submitted by the City's solid waste
franchise agent (Pacific Waste Services) effective September 1,
1998 as set forth in Exhibit E to the Franchise Agreement, a copy
of which is attached hereto and shall be kept on file in the office
of the City Clerk.
Presented by Approved as to form by
6r-
Michael Meacham, Conservation ttorney
Coordinator
H:\home\lorraine\cdrive\rs\rates.trs
/6 (! - /
- --..-- _........ U._ ___ _n _.__ ._.__________.._.___,..__._._~_ "._._ 0'._.__...
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item-Z
Meeting Date 08/11/98
/f/.3/r.>
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Awarding the Purchase Agreement for a
Replacement 1500 Gallon Per Minute (G.P.M.) Triple
Combination Fire Apparatus to South Coast Fire Equipment,
Incorporated, through a cooperative purchase with the City
of Los Angeles.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public worki f
Director of Finance tV
REVIEWED BY' C"" M""ag,,~ ~ $ (415"" Vote' Yes_ No -1LJ
The FY 1998-99 Fleet Maintenance Budge provides for the replacement of a Fire
Department 1500 G.P.M. Triple Combination Fire Apparatus (fire pumper). The City of
Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.270 and Council Resolution No. 6132
authorize the Purchasing Agent to participate in cooperative bids with other government
agencies for the purchase of materials of common usage. The City, therefore, is
participating in a current City of Los Angeles bid from South Coast Fire Equipment for
purchase of a 1500 G.P.M. Triple Combination Fire Apparatus at a total cost of
$280,220.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Resolution awarding the
Purchase Agreement for a 1500 G.P.M. Triple Combination Fire Apparatus to South
Coast Fire Equipment.
DISCUSSION: The FY1998-99 Fleet Maintenance budget provides for the
replacement purchase of a fire pumper. In 1996, the City of Chula Vista entered into a
purchasing consortium with thirty other cities led by the County of Los Angeles. The
purpose of the consortium was to develop a standard specification in each apparatus
application that would meet the National Fire Protection Association published
requirements and to reduce purchase costs through volume buying. The application of
interest to Chula Vista was the 1500 G.P.M. Triple Combination Fire Apparatus. The
City of Los Angeles used these specifications and awarded a purchasing agreement in
May,1998, for eighteen pumpers to Pierce Manufacturing of Wisconsin, the lowest
responsible bidder. Pierce Manufacturing, represented in Southern California by South
Coast Fire Equipment, has extended the Los Angeles pricing agreement to the City of
Chula Vista. The expected delivery date is about seven to nine months from the time
the order is placed.
'),,/
Item~
Meeting Date 08/11/98
FISCAL IMPACT: The FY98-99 Fleet Maintenance budget contains $275,000 for
replacement of a fire pumper. Of that, $150,000 was to come from the Fleet
Maintenance Fund and $125,000 in revenue from the McMillin Companies (per the
Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Rancho del Rey SPA III). The
actual amount to be received from McMillin will be the principal plus interest accruing at
the City's Pooled Investment Rate from February 1, 1998. This revenue is due to the
City on or before December 15, 1998 and is estimated at $131,400 ($6,400 more than
budgeted). The total cost of the fire pumper including sales tax is $280,220, or $5,220
more than was budgeted for this item. Since this is the beginning of the replacement
cycle for this fiscal year, staff does not know how actual expenditures will compare to
budgeted funds. However, total purchases usually total less than what is budgeted,
including emergency replacement items. Consequently, staff recommends that rather
than appropriating the additional $5,220 from the interest from McMillin, that the funds
be taken from the available Fleet Maintenance monies. The interest that was not
appropriated will be placed into the Fleet Maintenance Fund unappropriated Fund
Balance and will be available later in the fiscal year if needed.
D:IWlNWORDIBUDGET\A113 FY98-99 Fire Apparatus.wpd
File 1320-50-DD
7-';¿
------..-...--."-
RESOLUTION NO. 19/;J¿,
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
FOR A REPLACEMENT 1500 GALLON PER MINUTE
(G.P.M.) TRIPLE COMBINATION FIRE APPARATUS TO
SOUTH COAST FIRE EQUIPMENT, INCORPORATED,
THROUGH A COOPERATIVE PURCHASE WITH THE CITY
OF LOS ANGELES
WHEREAS, the 1998-99 Fleet Maintenance Budget provides
for the replacement of a Fire Department 1500 G.P.M. Triple
Combination Fire Apparatus (fire pumper) ; and
WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.270 and
Council Resolution No. 6132 authorize the Purchasing Agent to
participate in cooperative bids with other government agencies for
the purchase of materials of common usage; and
WHEREAS, the City, therefore, is participating in a
current City of Los Angeles bid from South Coast Fire Equipment
for purchase of a 1500 G.P.M. Triple Combination Fire Apparatus at
a total cost of $280,220.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby aware the Purchase Agreement for a
replacement 1500 G.P.M. triple combination fire apparatus to South
Coast Fire Equipment, Incorporated, through a cooperative purchase
with the City of Los Angeles at a total cost of $280,220.
Presented by Approved as to form by
James Hardiman, Fire Chief
H:\home\lorraine\cdrive\rs\fire.trk
7-:]
.... .__... ._._'U.~__ _...__..__.__.._.~_.__._---_..,----._._--
council Agenda statement
Item: --ª-
Meeting Date: August 11, 1998
Item Title: Resolution It! /37 - Approving a Resolution of
Intention to Consider Granting a Five-Year Gas and
Electric Franchise to SDG&E and setting a Public
Hearing to Consider Same for September 1, 1998
Submitted by: Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager ~
Glen R. Googins, Assistant City Attorney
4/Sths Vote: Yes_No-L)
The City's gas and electric utility franchise with San Diego Gas
and Electric (SDG&E) expired on November 30, 1997. The city
Council approved two extensions of the franchise, most recently
until June 30, 1998. city and SDG&E staff have now concluded
negotiations for a five-year renewal of the franchise. This item
requests that the City Council set a public hearing to consider
the proposed franchise on the terms and conditions described
herein, below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council approve the resolution and set a public hearing for
September 1, 1998 to consider granting a five year gas and
electric utilities franchise to SDG&E.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
N/A
DISCUSSION:
SDG&E has held the City's gas and electric franchise since 1972.
The initial 25 year term has now expired. city staff and SDG&E
representatives have negotiated the terms for an extension of the
gas and electric franchise through June 30, 2003.
A summary of the proposed terms and conditions follows:
1. Franchise Fee: Franchise fees will remain at their present
levels of 1.1% of gross receipts for electricity and 2% of
gross receipts for gas.
These rates are comparable to those charged by other cities
in SDG&E's service area, with the exception of the city of
~-I
San Diego which charges 3% of gross receipts for its
electric franchise. Notably, however the PUC requires that
1.9% of such fee be passed through directly to City of San
Diego ratepayers as a surcharge on their electric bills.
2. Term: From July 1, 1998 through June 30, 2003.
A five year term was agreed to by the parties as a "bridge"
through the time period during which deregulation of the
electric industry will be fully implemented. This
relatively short term will allow both parties to better
evaluate the impacts of deregulation on franchise agreements
while at the same time afford some stability to the parties
and the city's ratepayers. In 2003, when the impacts of
deregulation will be more clear, City staff believes we will
be in a better position to evaluate what additional
substantive changes or extensions would be appropriate, who
else might better provide such services, or even whether or
not the city itself should consider taking over the
distribution of gas and/or electricity within its territory.
3. utility Users Tax (UUT): To the extent allowed by law,
SDG&E shall agree to collect UUT from other electricity
providers, for remittance to the city.
4. System Enhancements: SDG&E shall include Chula vista in
early implementation of system-wide enhancements (e.g.
metering improvements, infrastructure upgrades, ancillary
services) to the extent it is consistent with SDG&E's policy
to prioritize and construct such system enhancements based
on need.
5. Franchise Fee Applicability: SDG&E shall not take a
position to oppose the applicability of franchise fees to
"direct access" electric or gas sales. SDG&E shall
implement the state mandated surcharge provisions and remit
surcharges collected to the city.
This provision is intended to assure that the city collects
a franchise fee equivalent "in lieu" payment from gross
revenues of "direct access" energy provider's using SDG&E's
distribution system in the city's right of way.
6. Customer Service: SDG&E shall provide customers with
education materials regarding utility restructuring, options
for selection of an energy retailer, service options,
"slamming" (i.e. unauthorized switching of energy service
providers), default provider regulations, the city's role in
the deregulated industry and related energy issues.
7. Rule 20A - Underqroundinq:
SDG&E commits to spend, over the next 6 years, at least
$13.141 million dollars towards the completion of specific
<6-~
pending and proposed overhead utility undergrounding
projects. (These projects are identified on Exhibits A and
B to the attached draft franchise agreements.) In addition,
new allocations of monies, that may be drawn down by the
City for future undergrounding projects, shall be made at
the rate of $2 million per year.
This item became the focus of franchise negotiations. The
City felt that SDG&E had not been as committed as they
should have been to utility undergrounding projects within
the city. This provision commits SDG&E to at least spend
the City's existing "allocation balance" (accrued over the
previous 10 years) to complete high priority undergrounding
projects over the next 6 years. The usefulness of the new
allocations of $2 million per year is unclear at this point.
However, the city hopes to work with SDG&E during the
Franchise term to use these monies to further accelerate the
agreed upon undergrounding program, or to convert unspent
monies to cash at some agreed upon rate. SDG&E has
previously approved an approach where cities could "cash
out" unused undergrounding allocations at the rate of 8
cents on the dollar.
8. Economic Development: SDG&E shall agree, to the extent
recovery of the expense through rates is allowed by CPUC
Regulations, to cooperate in good faith on reasonable
economic development activities which may include, but not
be limited to: deferral or waiver of hook-up fees,
assistance in the financing of upgraded infrastructure, or
offering of power incentives to companies that meet city-
defined economic development or employment criteria.
Drafts of the proposed Franchises are attached hereto as
Attachment A. Final versions will be presented prior to the
public hearing on September 1.
Side Aqreement Reqardinq IDBs. Another agreement to be
considered concurrent with the Franchise extension is an
exclusive right for the city to process SDG&E's industrial
development bond ("IDB") issues and refinancings. Under this
agreement, through June 30, 2013 the City would have the
exclusive right to issue (or refund) SDG&E IDBs provided that (a)
they are completed in a timely manner; (b) City's issuance charge
is no more than 25 basis points up front (plus City's
administrative costs related to bond issuance); (c) city charges
no annual fee or costs; and (d) City's Bond Counsel indicates
that City's involvement is permissible under the current tax laws
and that it is not necessary to obtain a Superior Court judgment
in a validation action.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There will be no net impact to the General Fund as a result of
Council's approval of staff's recommendation as it merely sets a
<a-3
hearing to consider the Franchise. If the city council elects to
approve the proposed franchise, there will be the following
projected fiscal impacts:
1. Franchise Fees. The City currently receives approximately $1
million per year in gas/electric franchise fees. Under the
proposed franchise, the City's franchise fee rate will remain the
same. However, due to the reduced prices brought on by
deregulation, based on a recent regional government study, it is
projected that through 2002, the City's franchise fees may
decrease by 4% ($40,000) per year. After 2002, due to additional
price reductions, these revenues may decrease by up to 27% per
year. Fortunately, as the City is also a substantial energy
consumer ($1.7 million in 1997), the savings that the city
expects to receive itself from deregulation are currently
projected to more than offset the franchise fee revenue
reductions. This analysis will be updated and presented in more
detail at the September 1st meeting.
2. IDB Revenues. SDG&E has estimated that during the 15 year
term of the City's side letter agreement, SDG&E may issue or
refinance as much as $357 million of industrial development
bonds. At the proposed issue fee of 25 basis points, using
SDG&E's estimate, the City may earn up to $900,000 in issuer fees
and staff cost reimbursements. Of course, this is based on
SDG&E's own estimate, and the actual amount of debt issues or
refinancings will depend on interest rates, other market factors,
and SDG&E policy decisions at the time that outstanding debts
mature.
H: \bome \lorraine\cdrive\rs\sdge. roi
'3-1./
RESOLUTION NO. /9/37
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A RESOLUTION OF
INTENTION TO CONSIDER GRANTING A FIVE-YEAR GAS
AND ELECTRIC FRANCHISE TO SDG&E AND SETTING A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER SAME FOR SEPTEMBER
1, 1998
WHEREAS, the City's existing gas and electric franchise
("Franchise") with San Diego Gas & Electric ("SDG&E") has expired¡
and
WHEREAS, City staff and SDG&E have negotiated the terms
and conditions for the extension of the Franchise through June 30,
2003¡ and
WHEREAS, the following represents a summary of the terms
and conditions for the Franchise extension with SDG&E:
1. Franchise Fee: Franchise fees will remain at their present
levels of 1.1% of gross receipts for electricity and 2% of
gross receipts for gas.
2. Term: The term shall be from July 1, 1998 through June 30,
2003.
3. utilitv Users Tax (UUT): To the extent allowed by law, SDG&E
shall agree to collect UUT from other electricity providers
for remittance to the city.
4. System Enhancements: SDG&E shall include Chula vista in early
implementation of system-wide enhancements (e.g. metering
improvements, infrastructure upgrades, ancillary services) to
the extent it is consistent with SDG&E's policy to prioritize
and construct such system enhancements based on need.
5. Franchise Fee Applicabilitv: SDG&E shall not take a position
to oppose the applicability of franchise fees to retail
electric or retail gas sales. SDG&E shall, furthermore,
support some baseline protection for franchise fees from all
providers. SDG&E shall implement state mandated surcharge
provisions and remit surcharges collected to the City.
6. Customer Service: SDG&E shall provide educational information
to customers regarding utility restructuring, options for
selection of an energy retailer, service options, slamming and
defaul t provider regulations, and the City's role in the
deregulated industry.
fJ,-5
7. Rule 20A - Underqroundinq:
SDG&E commits to spend, over the next 6 years, at least
$13.141 million dollars towards the completion of specific
pending and proposed overhead utility undergrounding projects.
In addition, new allocations of monies that may be drawn down
for future undergrounding projects shall be made at the rate
of $2 million per year.
8. Economic Development: SDG&E shall agree, to the extent
recovery of the expense through rates is allowed by CPUC
Regulations, to cooperate in good faith on reasonable economic
development activities which may include, but not be limited
to: deferral or waiver of hook-up fees, assistance in the
financing of upgraded infrastructure, or offering of power
incentives to companies that meet city-defined economic
development or employment criteria.
WHEREAS, in accordance with section 1201 of the City
Charter, the City council shall adopt a resolution declaring its
intention to grant a franchise and shall schedule a public hearing
for the consideration of such grant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby set a public hearing for September
I, 1998 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, Ca. at which the City Council intends to consider
granting a Gas and Electric Franchise to San Diego Gas & Electric
on the terms and conditions set forth above.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Clerk is hereby
authorized and directed to publish, at least once within fifteen
days after the passage of this resolution, and at least ten days
prior to the date of the hearing, appropriate notice of such
hearing.
Presented and Approved as to form by
~
~-"
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO. ~
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO SAN DIEGO GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY,
ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, THE FRANCIDSE TO INSTALL,
MAINTAIN AND USE PIPES AND APPURTENANCES FOR TRANSMITTING
AND DISTRIBUTING GAS FOR ANY AND ALL PURPOSES UNDER, ALONG,
ACROSS, OR UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS AND PLACES AS THE SAME
NOW OR MAY HEREAFTER EXIST WITIßN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
The City Council ofthe City ofChula Vista does hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.
Whenever in this ordinance the words or phrases hereinafter in this section defined
are used, they shall have the respective meanings assigned to them in the following definitions
(UIÙess, in the given instance, the context wherein they are used shall clearly import a different
meaning):
(a) The word "grantee" shall mean San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and
its lawful successors or assigns;
(b) The word "city" shall mean the City of Chula Vista, a municipal
corporation of the State of CalifoTlÚa, in its present incorporated fonn or in any later reorganized,
consolidated, enlarged, or reincorporated fonn;
(c) The word "streets" shall mean the public streets, ways, alleys and places as
the same now or may hereafter exist within said city, including state highways, now or hereafter
established within said city, and ITeeways hereafter established within said city;
(d) The word "gas" shall mean natural or artificial gas, or a mixture of natural
and artificial gas;
(e) The phrase "pipes and appurtenances" shall mean pipes, pipelines, mains,
services, traps, vents, vaults, manholes, meters, gauges, regulators, valves, conduits, appliances,
attachments, appurtenances, and any other property located or to be located in, upon, along,
across, under, or over the streets of the city, and used or useful in the transmitting and/or
distributing of gas;
(f) The phrase "install, maintain and use" shall mean to lay, construct, erect,
install, operate, maintain, use, repair or replace;
(g) The phrase "gross receipts" shall mean all gross operating revenues
received by grantee ITom the sale of gas to grantee's customers with points of service within the
corporate limits of the city (including, but not limited to, sales to military reservations with points
44914 ,- ~-7
DRAFT
of service within the City's corporate limits) which are credited in Account Numbers 480, 481 and
482 of the current Uniform System of Accounts of the Federal Power Commission as adopted by
the California Public Utilities Commission, or similar superseding accounts, less uncollectible
amounts and less any refunds or rebates made by graniee to such Customers pursuant to orders or
decisions of the California Public Utilities Commission.
SECTION 2. PURPOSE.
The fumchise to install, maintain and use in the streets of said city all pipes and
appurtenances for transmitting and distributing gas to the public for any and all purposes within
said city is hereby granted to San Diego Gas & Electric Company, its successors and assigns.
SECTION 3. TERM.
Said iTanchise shall be for the term offive (5) years iTom and after the effective
date herein, that is to say, said iTanchise shall endure in full force and effect until the same shall,
with the consent of the Public utilities Commission of the State of California, be voluntarily
surrendered or abandoned by the grantee, or until the state or some municipal or public
corporation thereunto duly authorized by law shall purchase by voluntary agreement or shall
condemn and take under the power of eminent domain, all property actually used and useful in the
exercise of said iTanchise and situate in the territorial limits of the state, municipal or public
corporation purchasing or condemning such property, or until said iTanchise shall be forfeited for
non-compliance with its terms by the grantee
SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION.
(a) The grantee of said fi'anchise shall during the term thereof pay to the City
2% of the gross annual receipts of said grantee, which amount has been held by Decision No.
80432 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California to be the normal level paid to
other political subdivisions within the utility's territory. It is understood that any administrative,
legislative or judicial modification of said iTanchise fee or the basis of calculating said fee pursuant
to Decision No. 80432 shall be cause for review and renegotiation of this amount ofiTanchise fee
at any time within the term ofthis fumchise.
(b) Grantee agrees to reiTain iTom opposing the applicability ofiTanchise fees
to retail gas sales. Grantee agrees to support some baseline protection for iTanchise fees (e.g. via
legislation) to ensure that municipalities will continue to receive such fees iTom all utility
providers within their respective municipal boundaries.
SECTION 5. REPORTS. DATES OF PAYMENT. AND CITY AUDITS.
The grantee shall file with the Clerk of said city, within three months after the
expiration of the calendar year, or iTactional calendar year, following the date of the granting
hereof, and within three months after the expiration of each and every calendar year thereafter, a
44914 2 ~-~
DRAFT
duly verified statement showing in detail the total gross receipts of such grantee during the
preceding calendar year, or such rractional calendar year, rrom the sale of gas within said city.
Such grantee shall pay to said city within fifteen days after the time for filing such statement, in
lawful money of the United States, the aforesaid percentage ofits gross receipts for such calendar
year, or such rractional calendar year, covered by such statement. Any neglect, oßÛssion or
refusal by said grantee to file such verified statement, or to pay said percentage at the time and in
the manner specified, shall be grounds for the declaration of a forfeiture of this franchise and all
rights of grantee hereunder.
SECTION 6. COMPLIANCE WITII LAWS.
All facilities or equipment of grantee that grantee shall construct, maintain and use
or remove, pursuant to the provisions of the rranchise granted herein shall be accomplished in
accordance with the ordinances, rules and regulations of city or as hereafter adopted or
prescribed, and such rules or regulations as are promulgated under state law, or orders of the
Public Utilities Commission or other governmental authority having jurisdiction in the preßÛses.
SECTION 7. ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES.
Grantee is herewith charged with the responsibility of cooperating with city in
preparing a manual of administrative practices which shall govern the installation and removal of
grantee's facilities in the streets of city which shall include, but not be limited to, cathodic
protection practices. Once each year, commencing with the first full calendar year of the rranchise
granted herein, it is to be the joint responsibility of grantee and city to review and update such
administrative practices. Both grantee and city are charged with the duty to prepare, review and
update such administrative practices by a method of mutual cooperation which shall take into
consideration the reasonable needs and convenience of each party; provided that said
administrative practices and the terms and conditions thereof shall be at all times subject to
approval of the City Council as expressed by appropriate legislative action.
Following the preparation of said manual, and its approval by the City Council, it
shall govern the practices of the grantee in its installation and removal of grantee's facilities in the
streets of city.
SECTION 8. CITY RESERVED POWERS.
(a) City reserves the right for itself to lay, construct, erect, install, use, operate,
repair, replace, remove, relocate, regrade or maintain below surface or above surface
improvements of any type or description in, upon, along, across, under or over the streets of the
city. City further reserves the right to relocate, remove, vacate or replace the streets themselves.
If the necessary exercise of the aforementioned reserve rights conflicts with any pipes and
appurtenances of grantee constructed, maintained and used pursuant to the provisions of the
rranchise granted hereby, whether previously constructed, maintained and used or not, grantee
shall, without cost or expense to city within ninety (90) days after written notice rrom the City
44914 3 ?; ~c¡
DRAFT
Manager, or his designated representative, and request so to do, begin the physical field
construction of changing the location of all facilities or equipment so conflicting. Grantee shall
proceed promptly to complete such required work.
(b) Irrespective of any other provision of this ordinance, grantee's right to
construct, maintain and use, or remove pipes and appurtenances thereto shall be subject at all
times to the right of the city, in the exercise ofits police power, to require the removal or
relocation, to underground locations, of said pipes and appurtenances thereto at the sole cost and
expense of grantee.
SECTION 9. HOLD HARMLESS.
Except for such losses or damages caused by the negligence or willful misconduct
of city and any officers and employees thereof; grantee of the fumchise granted hereby shall
indemnify, save, and hold harmless, city and any officers and employees thereof against and fÌ'om
all damages,judgments, decrees, costs, and expenditures which city, or such officer or employee,
may suffer, or which may be recovered ftom, or obtainable against city, or such officer or
employee, for, or by reason of; or growing out of or resulting ftom the exercising by grantee of
any or all of the rights or privileges granted hereby, or by reason of any act or acts of grantee or
its servants or agents in exercising the fumchise granted hereby and grantee shall defend any suit
that may be instituted against city, or any officer or employee thereof; by reason of or growing
out of or resulting fÌ'om the exercise by grantee of any or all of the rights or privileges granted
hereby, or by reason of any act or acts of grantee, or its servants or agents, in exercising the
fÌ'anchise granted hereby.
SECTION 10. REPAIR COSTS.
Grantee shall pay to city on demand the cost of all repairs to city property made
necessary by any of the operations of grantee under the fumchise granted hereby, provided,
however, that grantee may make repairs to streets, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters itself at its own
cost in accordance with city specifications if the same can be done without undue inconvenience
to the public use of the streets.
SECTION 11. FORFEITURE.
This fÌ'anchise is granted upon each and every condition herein contained, and shall
ever be strictly construed against grantee. Nothing shall pass by the fumchise granted hereby to
grantee unless it be granted in plain and unambiguous terms. Each of said conditions is a material
and essential condition to the granting of the fÌ'anchise. If grantee shall fail, neglect or refuse to
comply with any of the conditions of the ftanchise granted hereby, and if such failure, neglect or
refusal shall continue for more than thirty (30) days after written demand by the City Manager for
compliance therewith, then City, by the City Council, in addition to all rights and remedies
allowed by law, thereupon may tenninate the right, privilege and ftanchise granted in and by this
ordinance, and all the rights, privileges and the fumchise of grantee granted hereby shall thereupon
be at an end. Thereupon and immediately, grantee shall surrender all rights and privileges in and
44914 4- '?5 - /Ó
DRAFT
to the franchise granted hereby. No provision herein made for the purpose of securing the
enforcement of the terms and conditions of the fi-anchise granted hereby shall be deemed an
exclusive remedy or to afford the exclusive procedure for the enforcement of said tenns and
conditions, but the remedies and procedure outlined herein or proVided, including forfeiture, shall
be deemed to be cumulative.
SECTION 12. ACOUlSmON AND VALUATION.
Nothing in this ordinance or in the franchise granted hereby shall be construed as in
any way impairing city's rights to acquire property of grantee through the exercise of city's power
of eminent domain, or through voluntary agreement between city and grantee. In the event that
city chooses to exercise its power of eminent domain, it shall do so in accordance with the
procedures provided by the genera1law of the State of California for the condemnation of public
utility property. The valuation of such property for condemnation purposes shall be made in
accordance with such genera1law.
SECTION 13. AUTHORITY FOR GRANT.
Notwithstanding any other provision herein contained, this franchise is granted
solely and exclusively under Sections 1400, 1401, 1402, 1403, 1404, 1405 and 1406 of Article
XIV of the Charter of the City ofChula Vista and no other authority.
SECTION 14. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall become effective July 1, 1998.
SECTION IS. PUBLICATION COSTS.
The grantee of said franchise shall pay to the city a sum of money sufficient to
reimburse it for all publication expenses incurred by it in connection with the granting thereof;
such payment to be made within thirty (30) days after the city shall have furnished such grantee
with a written statement of such expenses.
SECTION 16. WRITIEN ACCEPTANCE.
The franchise granted hereby shall not become effective until written acceptance
thereof shall have been filed by the grantee with the City Clerk.
SECTION 17. PUBLICATION.
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15)
days after its passage in the Chula Vista Star News, a newspaper of general circulation published
and circulated in said city.
44914 5 '6-11
------- -------.--,
DRAFT
SECTION 18. MISCELLANEOUS.
Grantee agrees to provide as much reasonable advance notice as is legally
pemússible to the City regarding any mergers, buyouts, spin-oft's or other transactions materially
affecting the nature of the entity to which the city grants this ftanchise. Such notice shall be
consistent with grantee's obligations under the law relating to disclosures and the limitations
placed upon grantee.
Presented by: Approved as to fonn by:
John M. Kaheny, City Attorney John M. Kaheny, City Attorney
ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the CITY COUNCil. of the CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this day of 19_, by the following vote,
to-wit:
AYES: Councilmen
NAYES: Councilmen
ABSENT: Councilmen
Mayor of the City of Chula Vista
ATIEST:
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
L . City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the above is a full, true, and correct copy of Ordinance No. 1426, and
th8.i the same has not been amended or repealed.
Dated:
City Clerk
44914 6- ~ - /Ä.
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO. - .
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
COMPANY, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, THE FRANCmSE TO
CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND USE POLES, WIRES, CONDUITS AND
APPURTENANCES, INCLUDING COMMUNICATION CIRCUITS,
NECESSARY OR PROPER FOR TRANSMITI1NG AND DISTRIBUTING
ELECTRICITY TO THE PUBLIC FOR ANY AND ALL PURPOSES IN,
ALONG, ACROSS, UPON, UNDER, AND OVER THE PUBLIC STREETS
AND PLACES WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA.
The City Council of the City ofChula Vista does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.
Whenever in this ordinance the words or phrases hereinafter in this section
defined are used, they shall have the respective mealÚng assigned to them in the following
definitions (unless, in the given instance, the context wherein they are used shall clearly import a
different meaning).
(a) The word "grantee" shall mean San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and
its lawful successors or assigns;
(b) The word "city" shall mean the City ofChula Vista, a municipal
corporation of the State of California, in its present incorporated fonn or in any later reorganized,
consolidated, enlarged or reincorporated fonn;
(c) The word "streets" shall mean the public streets, ways, alleys and places
as the same now or may hereafter exist within said city, including state highways, now or
hereafter established within said city, and fTeeways hereafter established within said city.
(d) The phrase "poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances" shall mean poles,
towers, supports, wires, conductors, cables, guys, stubs, platfonns, crossanns, braces,
transfonners, insulators, conduits, ducts, vaults, manholes, meters, cut -outs, switches,
communication circuits, appliances, attaclunents, appurtenances and any other property located or
to be located in, upon, along, across, under or over the streets of the city, and used or useful in
the transmitting and/or distributing of electricity.
(e) The phrase "construct, maintain, and use" shall mean to construct, erect,
install, lay, operate, maintain, use, repair, or replace.
(f) The phrase "gross receipts" shall mean all gross operating revenues
receíved by grantee fTom the sale of electricity to grantee's customers with points of service
44624.02 - c¡; - 13
I
DRAFT
within the corporate limits of the City (including, but not limited to, sales to military reservations
with points of service within the city's corporate limits) which are credited in Account Nos. 440,
442,444,445 and 446 of the current Unifonn System of Accounts of the Federal Power
Commission as adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") or similar
superseding accounts less the following:
1. the ten percent (10%) reduction in utility bills mandated by
the California Public Utilities Commission commencing in 1998;
and
2. any uncollectible amounts; and
3. any refunds or rebates made by grantee to such customers
pursuant to California Public Utilities Commission orders or
decisions.
(g) The phrase "total system gross receipts" shall mean all gross operating
revenues received by grantee from the sale of electricity to grantee's customers within its entire
service territory which are credited in Account Nos. 440, 442, 444, 445 and 446 of the current
Unifonn System of Accounts of the Federal Power Commission as adopted by the California
Public Utilities Commission or similar superseding accounts, less the ten percent (10%) reduction
in rates referenced in Section (f) above, less uncollectible amounts and less any refunds or rebates
made by grantee to such customers pursuant to California Public Utilities Commission orders or
decisions.
(h) The phrase "allocation ratio" shall, unless and until otherwise modified by
the California Public Utilities Commission, mean a numerical ratio detennined by the proportion
which the number of grantee's electric customers in the City bears to all of grantee's electric
customers throughout its entire electric service tenitory.
(i) The phrase "Utility Users' Tax" shall mean the local taxes added to utility
bills of residential and commercial utility customers as defined in Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Chapter 3.44 entitled "Utility Users' Tax".
SECTION 2. PURPOSE.
(a) The franchise to construct, maintain and use poles, wires, conduits and
appurtenances, including communication circuits, necessary or proper for transmitting and
distributing electricity to the public for any and all purposes in, along, across, upon, under, and
over the public streets, ways and places within said City is hereby granted to San Diego Gas &
Electric Company, its successors and assigns.
SECTION 3. TERM.
(a) Said franchise shall be for the tenn offive (5) years from and after the
effective date herein, that is to say, said franchise shall endure in full force and effect until the
same shall, with the consent of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, be
44624.02 2 CV~Ff
--'"---..--....- ------------'"_.~-_._... ---~._-
DRAFT
voluntarily surrendered or abandoned by the grantee, or until the state or some municipal or
public corporation thereunto duly authorized by law shall purchase by voluntary agreement or
shall condemn and take under the power of enùnent domain, all property actually used and useful
in the exercise of said ftanchise and situate in the territorial limits òf the state, municipal, or public
corporation purchasing or condemning such property, or until said fTanchise shall be forfeited for
non-compliance with its terms by the grantee.
SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION.
(a) The grantee of said fTanchise shall, during the tenn thereof; pay to the
City one and one-tenth percent (1.1%) of the gross annual receipts of said grantee, which amount
has been held by Decision Nos. 80432 and 80494 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State
of Califonúa to be the normal level paid to other political subdivisions within the utility's.
(b) To the extent pennitted by law and solely for those customers within the
corporate limits of the city billed directly by grantee, grantee agrees to collect Utility Users'Tax
fTom other electricity providers for remittance to the City.
(c) Grantee agrees to refuùn fTom opposing the applicability of ftanchise fees
to retail electric sales. Grantee agrees to support some baseline protection for ftanchise fees (e.g.
via legislation) to ensure that municipalities will continue to receive such fees fTom all utility
providers within their respective municipal boundaries.
SECTION 5. REPORTS. DATES OF PAYMENT AND CITY AUDITS.
(a) The grantee shall file with the Clerk of said city, within three months
after the expiration of the calendar year, or fTactional calendar year, following the date of the
granting hereof; and within three months after the expiration of each and every calendar year
thereafter, a duly verified statement showing in detail the total gross receipts of such grantee
during the preceding calendar year, or such fTactional calendar year, fTom the sale of electricity
within said City. Such grantee shall pay to said city within fifteen (15) days after the time for
filing such statement, in lawful money of the United States, the aforesaid percentage of its gross
receipts for such calendar year, or such fTactional calendar year, covered by such statement. Any
neglect, omission, or refusal by said grantee to file such verified statement, or to pay said
percentage at the time and in the manner specified, shall be grounds for the declaration of a
forfeiture of this fTanchise and all rights of grantee hereunder.
SECTION 6. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS.
(a) All facilities or equipment of grantee that grantee shall construe to
maintain and use or remove, pursuant to the provisions of the fTanchise granted herein shall be
accomplished in accordance with the ordinances, rules and regulations of City now or as hereafter
adopted or prescribed, and such rules and regulations as are promulgated under state law, or
orders of the Public Utilities Commission or other governmental authority having jurisdiction in
the premises.
(S-/~
44624.02 3
DRAFT
(b) Grantee shall provide infonnation to its customers, upon request,
regarding uûlity restructuring, options for selection of an energy retailer, service options,
slamming and default provider regulations as well as the city's rolè in the deregulated industry.
SECTION 7. ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES.
(a) Grantee is herewith charged with the responsibility of cooperating with
City in preparing a manua1 of administrative practices which shall govern the installation and
removal of grantee's facilities in the streets of City which shall include, but not be limited to,
cathodic protection practices. Once each year, commencing with the first full calendar year of the
franchise granted herein, it is to be the joint responsibility of grantee and City to review and
update such administrative practices. Both grantee and city are charged with the duty to prepare,
review, and update such administrative practices by a method of mutual cooperation which shall
take into consideration the reasonable needs and convenience of each party; provided that said
administrative practices and the terms and conditions thereof shall be at all times subject to
approval of the City Council as expressed by appropriate legislative action.
Following the preparation of said manual, and its approval by the City
Council, it shall govern the practices of the grantee in its installation and removal of grantee's
facilities in the streets of City.
(b) Grantee agrees to include the city in the early implementation of system-
wide enhancements (e.g. infrastructure upgrades and ancillary services) to the extent such
inclusion is consistent with grantee's then policy to prioritize and construct such system
enhancements based on need.
SECTION 8. CITY RESERVED POWERS.
(a) City reserves the right for itself to lay, construct, erect, install, use,
operate, repair, replace, remove, relocate, regrade or maintain below surface or above surface
improvements of any type or description in, upon, along, across, under or over the streets of the
City. City further reserves the right to relocate, remove, vacate, or replace the streets themselves.
If the necessary exercise of the aforementioned reserve rights conflicts with any poles, wires,
conduits, and appurtenances of grantee constructed, maintained, and used pursuant to the
provisions of the fÌ'anchise granted hereby, whether previously constructed, maintained and used
or not, grantee shall, without cost or expense to City within ninety (90) days after written notice
fÌ'om the City Manager, or his designated representative, and request so to do, begin the physical
field construction of changing the location of all facilities or equipment so conflicting. Grantee
shall proceed promptly to complete such required work.
(b) Irrespective of any other provision of this ordinance, grantee's right to
construct, maintain, and use, or remove poles, wires, conduits, and appurtenances thereto shall be
subject at all times to the right of the city, in the exercise of its police power, to require the
ð-)~
44624.02 4
DRAFT
rernovaJ or relocation, to either overhead or underground locations, of said poles, wires, conduits
and appurtenances thereto at the sole cost and expense of grantee.
(c) Notwithstanding anything else in tlús agrèement to the contrary, the
city's right to be a power generator or power retailer, to the extent permitted by law, shall not be
Iimited in any manner by the execution oftlús fumclúse agreement.
SECTION 9. UNDERGROUNDING OF FACILITIES.
(a) Presently grantee is engaged in a program of converting to underground
certain of its facilities in accordance with Decision No. 73078 of the California Public Utilities
Commission. At tlús time, such decision requires grantee to budget prior to the end of each
calendar year certain sums of money for said program for the next succeeding year and allocate
these sums to undergrounding projects in the various govenunental jurisdictions throughout
grantee's entire electric service territory on the basis of the number of electric customers in each
governmental jurisdiction.
(b) This section shall not be deemed in any way to be an impairment of city's
rights as set forth in Section 8 of this ordinance. Notlúng contained herein is intended to prevent
grantee ttom infonning City and the California Public Utilities Commission of then existing or
foreseeable economic conditions or other factors wlúch in the opinion of grantee make unwise the
granting in whole or in part, of the particular annuaJ application.
(c) This section is intended only to be a measure of portion of the
consideration to be paid by grantee to City for the rights and privileges granted herein and
therefore it does not create or confer any rights or obligations to anyone other than City or
grantee.
(d) Grantee acknowledges and agrees that i) as of January 1, 1998 the
city's CPUC Rule 20AFund allocation baJance was $12,926,914.00; ii) $3,141,000.00 of the
$12,926,914.00 has been allocated and is available for expenditure to complete the
undergrounding projects described in Exhibit A, Chart 1, a copy of wlúch is attached hereto
(''Utility Undergrounding Projects to be Completed by the end of 1999") and incorporated herein
by reference; and iii) the remaining baJance of$9,785,914.00 ofCPUC Rule 20A funds has been
allocated and is available for expenditure on undergrounding projects as set forth in Exhibit A,
Charts 2 through 6 ("Future Utility Undergrounding Projects to be Completed in 2000 - 2004").
grantee agrees to spend Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) per year to complete those
undergrounding projects set forth in Exhibit A, Charts 2 through 6 in accordance with the
$chedulc set forth on Exhibit A, Charts 2 through 6, as long as no third-party influence impedes
the schedule. In the event that in anyone year, the project(s) come in under budget, additionaJ
projects ttom Exhibit B ("Utility Undergrounding Program, New Projects to add to the Utility
Undergrounding List" attached hereto), attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,
may be proposed by the City up to an amount not to exceed said annuaJ budget, and both parties
will use their best efforts to schedule and implement those projects. In years where less than
.$2,000,000 ( $2 million) is spent, the baJance will be rolled over and spent in the next year if
44624.02 5 ~~17
DRAFT
grantee is the reason for the underspending. In any other circumstance, the balance will be rolled
over, however, it may not necessarily be spent the next year. Grantee commits to complete all of
the projects listed in Exhibit A or spend Thirteen Million, One Hundred Forty One Thousand
Dollars ($13,141,000.00) by December 31,2004, whichever is greater.
The City must create the undergrounding districts in a timely manner to give all
participants sufficient time to design and build on schedule as designated in Exhibit A Changes
in the order of project development or the projects listed on Exhibit A, Charts 2 through 6, must
be mutually agreed upon at least 12 months in advance, unless the change in schedule or
substitute project has already been identified and designated as a part of the additional list of
projects in Exhibit B. The City must take an active role in requiring customers to complete their
work and to involve telephone and cable companies in the projects. If right- of-way becomes an
issue with any project, grantee may seek help ftom the City to resolve the issues.
Grantee is responsible for its own actions and those things within its control.
grantee will not be held liable for nonperformance by telephone, cable, City or customer.
(e) During the five (5) year renewal period of this fÌ1Inchise, grantee agrees
to allocate CPUC 20A funds to the City as follows:
1998 - $2,166,750.00
1999 - $2,000.000.00
2000 - $2,000,000.00
2001 - 2,000,000.00
2002 - $2,000,000.00
2003 - $2,000,000.00
SECTION 10. HOLD HARMLESS.
Except for such losses or damages caused by the negligence or wi11fu1
misconduct of city and any officers and employees, grantee of the fÌ1Inchise granted hereby shall
indemnify, save, and hold harmless, City and any officers and employees thereof against and ITom
all damages, judgments, decrees, costs and expenditures which city, or such officer or employee,
may suffer, or which may be recovered ftom, or obtainable against city, or such officer or
employee, for, or by reason of; or growing out of or resulting ITom the exercising by grantee of
any or all of the rights or privileges granted hereby, or by reason of any act or acts of grantee or
its servants or agents in exercising the ITanchise granted hereby, and grantee shall defend any suit
that may be instituted against city, or any officer or employee thereof; by reason of or growing
out of or resulting ITom the exercise by grantee of any or all of the rights or privileges granted
hereby, or by reason of any act or acts of grantee, or its servants or agents, in exercising the
ITanchise granted hereby.
~-l?
-
44624.02 6
DRAFT
SECTION 11. REPAIR COSTS.
Grantee shall pay to City on demand the cost of all repairs to City property
made necessary by any of the operations of grantee under the franchise granted hereby, provided,
however, that grantee may make repairs to streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters itself at its own
cost in accordance with City specifications if the same can be done without undue inconvenience
to the public use of the streets.
SECTION 12. FORFEITURE.
This ITanchise is granted upon each and every condition herein contained, and
shall ever be strictly construed against grantee. Nothing shall pass by the fÌ'anchise granted hereby
to grantee unless it be granted in plain and unambiguous tenns. Each of said conditions is a
material and essential condition to the granting of the ITanchise. If grantee shall fail, neglect or
refuse to comply with any of the conditions of the fÌ'anchise granted hereby, and if such failure,
neglect or rèfusal shall continue for more than thirty (30) days after written demand by the City
Manager for compliance therewith, then city, by the City Council, in addition to all rights and
remedies allowed by law, thereupon may temúnate the rights, privilege, and fÌ'anchise granted in
and by this ordinance, and all the rights, privileges and the fÌ'anchise of grantee granted hereby
shall thereupon be at an end. Thereupon and immediately, grantee shall surrender all rights and
privileges in and to the fÌ'anchise granted hereby. No provision herein made for the purpose of
securing the enforcement of the terms and conditions of the fÌ'anchise granted hereby shall be
deemed an exclusive remedy or to afford the exclusive procedure for the enforcement of said
terms and conditions, but the remedies and procedure outlined herein or provided, including
forfeiture, shall be deemed to be cumulative.
SECTION 13. ACOUISmON AND VALUATION.
Nothing in this ordinance or in the fÌ'anchise granted hereby shall be construed
as in any way impairing city's rights to acquire property of grantee through the exercise of city's
power of eminent domain, or through voluntary agreement between city and grantee. In the event
that City chooses to exercise its power of eminent domain, it shall do so in accordance with the
procedures provided by the general law of the State of California for the condemnation of public
utility property. The valuation of such property for condemnation purposes shall be made in
accordance with such general law.
SECTION 14. AUTHORITY FOR GRANT.
Notwithstanding any other provision herein contained, this fÌ'anchise is granted
solely and exclusively under Section 1400, 1401, 1402, 1403, 1404, 1405 and 1406 of Article
XIV of the Charter ofthe City ofChula Vista and no other authority.
- (j"-Icr
44624.02 7
DRAFT
SECTION 15. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Tlús ordinance shall become effective July 1, 1998.
SECTION 16. PUBLICATION COSTS.
The grantee of said ftanclúse shall pay to the City a sum of money sufficient to
reimburse it for all publication expenses incurred by it in connection with the granting thereof;
such payment to be made within thirty (30) days after the City shall have furnished such grantee
with a written statement of such expenses.
SECTION 17. WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE.
The ftanclúse granted hereby shall not become effective until written
acceptance thereof shall have been filed by the grantee with the City Clerk.
SECTION 18. PUBLICATION.
The City Clerk shall cause tlús ordinance to be published once within fifteen
(15) days after its passage in the Chula Vista Star News, a newspaper of general circulation
published and circulated in said City.
SECTION 19. MISCELLANEOUS.
(a) Grantee agrees to provide as much reasonable advance notice as is legally
pennissible to the City regarding any mergers, buyouts, spin-offs or other transactions materially
affecting the nature of the entity to wlúch the City grants tlús ftanclúse. Such notice shall be
consistent with grantee's obligations under the law relating to disclosures and the limitations
placed upon grantee.
(b) To the extent recovery of the expense through rates is allowed by the
CPUC regulations, grantee agrees to cooperate, in good faith, on reasonable econonùc
development activities wlúch may include, but not be limited to, deferral or waiver of hook-up
fees, assistance in the financing of upgraded infj-astructure and! or offering of power incentives to
companies that meet city-defined econonùc development or employment criteria
Presented by: Approved as to fonn by:
John M. Kaheny, City Attorney John M. Kaheny, City Attorney
"?f - oX)
-
44624.02 8
-
C~~,61+- A
CITY DF CHULA VISTA
UTlUTY UNDERGRDUNDING PROGRAM
UTILITY UND:::RGRDUNDlNG PRDJ::CTS TO E: COMPL:ï=D BY END OF 1995':
I 1 plSïRlCT
STREE UMITS NUMBER
:; S1reeI Broadway II> T oyon Lane 123
Main Street Industrial Boulevard II> Third Avenue 126
O!ay Lakes Rœd Ridgeba::k 10 Apa<:he Drive 129
Þalomar Street ~51o Induslrial Boulevard 127
FUTURE UTlLJïY UND::RGROUNDING PRO£CTS TO BE COMPLETED IN 2000:
I I :::STIMATED
S~I LIMITS COST
~~ ~ Streetlo "E" Street :£513,ODD
A""""" "H" Street1c"l." S1reeI - $' ,DDD,DDD
~aeA_ Palomar Street 1c I'ourIh Avenue S44D.DOD
TOTAL $1,953.DOO
FUTURE UTlUTY UNDERGROUNDING PROJ:::CTS TO BE COMPlETED IN 2001:
I I :5IIMAïED
SïREEl LIMITS COST
:- $1,150,000 ,
;'Urth AV".JUI!! "1." Street1c Orange Avenue
" Street Monseraœ Avenue 1c Nadon Avenue 5340.000
~" Street Broadway 1c Third Avenue S7DO.DOO
TOTAL $2,190.000 .,
FUTURE UTlUTY UND::RGROUNDlNG PROJ::CTS TO BE COMPLE I ED IN 2002:
,-------
I I =STIMA T =D
S"fREE, LIMITS COST
Y.ay Lakes Read ¡Bonita Road to Camino Del Cerro G;ande I $2.250.000
TOTAL $2.250:000
FUTURE UTlUTY UND=RGROUNDING PRO£CTS TO B= COM?LEi'ED IN 2003:
I I I =STIMAT=D
SïR=Eï' LIMITS COST
Y.ay Lakes Road I Camino Del Gerro G;ande to Ri:j~eba:k Road I S2.10D.00D
TOTAL 52,100.000
FUTUR= UTILITY UND=RGROUNDING PRO£CTS TO B= COM?L:ï::D IN 2D04:
I SïR=Eï' I LIMITS I =S~~~ =D
~J" Stree: :25t c: Broa::iv.'a)' to Tnird Avenu~ I S700.00D
J" Street :2s1. of Na:::i:tn Avenue to Wes~ ~: Lori Lane $290.000
r.j Street Tnird Avenue to First Avenue S475.00D
TOTAL S1.455.000
(:-c~L.\a::i~.,u.J:i:s1.\UUDS:::H£D.W2') - ~~¿;¿)
t:.ay 1,1996
.- Ex. r-;¡ b ¡'f- ß
UTJUTY UNDERGROUNDING PROGRAM
.
NEW PROJECTS TO ADD TO THE UTfUTY UNDERGROUNDING LIST
I LENGTH ESTIMATED
STREET UMITS (Miles) COST ,
... J" Street First Avenue to elo Nolan Avenue I 1.08 $950,000
"'C" Street Broadway to Fourth Avenue I 0.50 $625.000
roo Street West End to Second Avenue I 1.34 $1,680,871
";:- Street Second Avenue to Hilltop Drive 0.50 $525,000
~G" Street West End to Hilltop Drive 1.86 $2,324,811
lor Street West End to Elm Avenue I 1.50 $1,870.265
First Avenœ to East End . . 0.64 $804.924
rK" street West End to CI>Untry Club Drive 1,55 $1,941,288
i.." Street . I 0.38 $473,485
FIrstAvenue to Evans Avenue
Moss Street Industrial Blvd. to eIo Second Avenue 1.42 $1,775.568
Naples Street . Industrial Blvd. to elo Oleander Avenue I 325/ $4.071.970
.Oxiord Street West End to Broadway I 0.32 $402,452
wlo FdIh Avenue to NeptIJne Drive I 220 I S2.745.212
'FdIh Avenue North End to "W Street , 1.40 $1.751.894
-. "r Street to Orange Avenue 1.89 $2.367,424
Second Avenue 010 Bayview Way to "L" Street I 2.56 $3,195,023
Naples Street to Orange Avenue I 0.971 $1.207.385
First Avenue I Flower Street to "L" Street , 1.93/ S2,414,ï73
I Naples Street to South End I I
1.00 $1.254,ì35 ¡
I TOTAL I 26.31 £32,484.031 '
NOTE: VERI~JCATION OF COST ESTIMATES TO 3= APPROY::D BY SDG&E AT A
lATER DATE OUR COST ESTIMA¡ ::S ARE BASED ON 51,250.000 PER MILE.
(a:\ublund.wb1)
S-;¿~
-
----
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 9
Meeting Date 8/11/98
ITEM TITLE: Resolution /9/J? Waiving immaterial defect, accepting bids,
awarding contract for "Storm Drain Replacement - Hilltop Drive at SDG&E
Easement in the City ofChula Vista, CA (DR-130)."
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work~~
REVIEWED BY: City ManagerTh ~ 8JA.. (4/5ths Vote: YesXNo_)
At 2:00 p.m. on July 8, 1998 in Conference Room 1 in the Public Services Building, the Director
of Public Works received sealed bids for "Storm Drain Replacement - Hilltop Drive at SDG&E
Easement in the City ofChula Vista, CA (DR-130)". The work to be done consists of removing and
replacing three (3) existing corrugated metal pipes (CMP), and replacing with four (4) polyvinyl
chloride storm drain pipes in Hilltop Drive, south of East Rienstra Street. The work also includes
excavation, grading, asphalt concrete paving, reconstruction of existing manholes, traffic control,
and the construction of other appurtenant drainage structures.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve resolution:
1. Waiving immaterial defect (Incorrectly calculating unit cost on bid proposal).
2. Accepting bids and awarding contract for the construction of "Storm Drain Replacement -
Hilltop Drive at SDG&E Easement in the City ofChula Vista, CA (DR-130)" to Shoreline
Contractors, in the amount of $24,499.87.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Funds for this project were budgeted in the FY 1997-98 Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
budget. The existing CMP storm drain under Hilltop Drive, south of East Rienstra Street, has
deteriorated and collapsed and must be replaced. Due to the poor condition of the CMP, periodic
sink holes have appeared in the street, requiring asphalt patching during the rainy season.
9//
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 8/11/98
Bids for this project were received from seven contractors as follows:
Contractor Bid Amount
1. Shoreline Contractors, National City, CA $24,499.87
2. MJC Construction, Chula Vista, CA 40,099.00
3. Kay Construction Co., Sun City, CA 43,024.00
4. Shiva Construction, Inc., CA 50,700.00
5. Walter H. Barber & Son, Inc., La Mesa, CA 54,449.00
6. Salzano Engineering, Inc., El Cajon, CA 60,148.00
7. Basile Construction Inc., San Diego, CA 60,298.12
8. Underground Utilities, Inc., Spring Valley, CA 60,518.12
Staff received excellent bids for the proposed work. The low bid, submitted by Shoreline
Contractors is below the Engineer's estimate of $60,500.00 by $36,000.00 or 59.5%. Staff s
estimate was based on average prices for similar type work completed last year. Since Shoreline
Contractor's bid was well below the Engineer's estimate, we subsequently met with the Contractor
to detennine if their bid was substantiated. The Contractor (a small construction company) assured
the City that they were able to construct the improvements for their bid amount.
During the review of Shoreline Contractor's bid proposal, it was discovered that the bid proposal
was prepared incorrectly. Instead of multiplying the quantities listed in the bid proposal by their
unit cost figure to obtain a subtotal for a line item, they calculated the line item as if it were a lump
sum item by not providing a unit cost. We brought this matter to the attention of the Office of the
City Attorney. It was their conclusion that the bid proposal could be accepted even with the
discrepancies, only if the Contractor agreed to the Grand Total bid amount written in the proposal
and if their references were satisfactory.
The contractor has recently completed projects within the City of San Diego as a subcontractor
on various underground and grading projects ranging from $50,000 to $120,000. Staff has
contacted the general contractor for those projects, and their recommendations and comments
about the contractor have been satisfactory. Staff has also verified the contractor's license and
other qualifications and determined that they are in good order.
Shoreline Contractor's submitted the attached letter (Attachment A) to the City confirming that they
will construct the improvements based on their bid amount and provided a revised copy, with their
initials, of the bid proposal listing all unit costs were applicable. Staff, therefore, recommends
awarding the contract to Shoreline Contractors, National City.
9/;2,
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 8/11/98
Disclosure Statement
A copy of the contractor's disclosure statement is attached as Attachment B.
Environmental Status
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and has
detennined that the project is exempt under Section 15302, Class 2 ofthe California Environmental
Quality Act (Minor Alterations of Existing Public Improvements or Public Structures).
Prevailin~ Wa ¡!e Statement
The source of funding for this project is Stonn Drain Fee. Contractors bidding this project were not
required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for the work under this project. No
special minority or women owned business requirements were necessary as part of the bid
documents. Disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid through the sending of the Notice to
Contractors to various trade publications.
FISCAL IMPACT:
FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Contract Amount $24,500.00
B. Staff Costs (Design, Construction & Inspection) $20,550.00
C. Construction Contingencies (10%) $2,450.00
TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $47,500.00
FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Drainage Improvements
227-2275-DR-130 (Stonn Drain Fee) $47,500.00
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $47,500.00
The above action awarding of the contract will authorize a total expenditure of $47,500.00 from the
budgeted CIP project. After construction, only routine City maintenance will be required.
Attachments
A - Letter from Shoreline Contractors
B - Contractor's Disclosure Statement NOTSCANNED
BVH:bvh
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\DR908113.BVH
File No: 0735-10-DR-130
9~3
I. "1~o.LÛ 01 I^ '~\ / . '\1'-/ ìJJ
~--/-4 I - '''- ¡' n; ~_~- 1\_- ,~ y(
Shoreline Construction
1423 Roosevelt Avenue
National City, CA 91950
619/477-3316
EN Cr / N ~-£.£ //\/ c;.. 1),:;-;::; ¡:
~mv : Me ..s~",,(!.¿ 0 ""
-5 '-< 6 vea-I: C!-o"T;<:'4C-1 ?,£¡ C!.c?
51. oRe ,),uVE {20"?/ÆdC- ïC,,¿.:s
A5.5t.¡~ ES /#E a;¡- a> P. C/I-~Lð ¿(sh /he; I
o C'iI? Q C-r 0 / E Ù ;:;¡::'/ C £ 0 ~ -#" -< 't~ ~C:;J= @
/á/.e-4~ /7::>u~ --;f;¡L."/¿;Ju.54-nd "=,,ve- /T"-"<'Hd£é'f) ~
Ao", 777'E Võ6 - ~/'ê)¿;11 Ì)..eÆ/I\( ?':-/:::>ÁA ~eP?C'~-
A-I # / ~J. 7;/:::> ì) K'. -4 '/ .::y; Ù. 6-. "'1- E è:: .4-.::;-;;n é;;-;¡ ¡-
IN /1rF a,t¡ ° fè. CII4,),;<¡- vis 7/r. (;-:;; ic: -/ 3o~ /.5
/7£ n-¡ Hñ i) ¿&»? ?ÁL::--/é::'-;
#/11( d/f-P?E ¿;;4Òe¡¿5 C,.¿/,,,t.,L 6e.- d4~cre:..d
-+T-7d.. {;,u£ Æ¿;-""'-'z /è: '¿4-/& ~.
"1'f'ActtM~~T b
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE\1ENT
You 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:
I. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the Contract,
e.g., owner, applicant, Contractor, subcontractor. material supplier.
~5jOß!'¿~/ll"" U;",lðtfA/c
-- -., ;::;, // ~ .¡ S'lP )'-{
/"'"/J-m 1 /.14)-'7
/ /
2. If any person' identified pursuant to (l) 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 rartnership.
. JJí; (ì ,/j '7() ~; IU::!7r/JI n it I~-f-¿/;¿-L,j~/
,
3. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) 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,
/J/J ///J./1-:¡;;t¿¡h T é)dJ;q/J/ZAlreJ-;¿
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of 'he City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council within the past twelve month? Yes _ N0A If yes, phase 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.
-LYo/VF
f
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in xggregate. contributed more than $I,noO to a Council member in the current
or preceding election period? Yes _ No If yes, state which Council mcmbers s):
-, /', /
;7- F-9!5 · · · (NOTE: Attached addition ages a~e."apY¡' . ~ ~ /
.-",-1' / /;//
Date: £~ ~' - ,-v/'
~ ..- - :: ___ . ~ - . . ....----1
~ '-
SIgnature of Contractorl Applicant
Print or type name of Contractor/Applicant
· Person is defined as,' "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, associallon social club, fraternal organization.
corporation, estate. trust, receiver, syndicate. this and any other county, city or CDun/n. ciry ¡mmicipaiity, district, or other polirical
subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unil.
9.;/5 15
RESOLUTION NO. /9/3;/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VI STA WAIVING IMMATERIAL DEFECT,
ACCEPTING BIDS, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR "STORM
DRAIN REPLACEMENT - HILLTOP DRIVE AT SDG&E
EASEMENT IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA. (DR-
130) "
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on July 8, 1998 in Conference Room
1 in the Public Services Building, the Director of Public Works
received the following eight sealed bids for "Storm Drain
Replacement - Hilltop Drive at SDG&E Easement in the City of Chula
Vista, CA (DR-130)" :
Contractor Bid Amount
1. Shoreline Contractors, National $24,499.87
City, CA
2. MJC Construction, Chula Vista, CA 40,099.00
3. Kay Construction Co., Sun City, CA 43,024.00
4. Shiva Construction, Inc'l CA 50,700.00
5. Walter H. Barber & Son, Ine. / La 54,449.00
Mesa, CA
6. Salzano Engineering, Inc. , El Cajon, 60,148.00
CA
7. Basile Construction Inc., San Diego, 60,298.12
CA
8. Underground Utilities, Inc. , Spring 60,518.12
Valley, CA
WHEREAS, staff received excellent bids for the proposed
work and the low bid, submitted by Shoreline Contractors is below
the Engineer's estimate of $60,500.00 by $36,000.00 or 59.5% which
estimate was based on average prices for similar type work
completed last year; and
WHEREAS, during the review of Shoreline Contractor's bid
proposal, it was discovered that the bid proposal was prepared
incorrectly; instead of multiplying the quantities listed in the
bid proposal by their unit cost figure to obtain a subtotal for a
line item, they calculated the line item as if it were a lump sum
item by not providing a unit cost; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney's office reviewed the
discrepancy and concluded that the bid proposal could be accepted
1
9---?
even with the discrepancies, only if the Contractor agreed to the
Grand Total bid amount written in the proposal and if their
references were satisfactory; and
WHEREAS, the contractor has recently completed a proj ects
within the City of San Diego as a subcontractor on various
underground and grading projects ranging from $50,000 to $120,000
and staff has contacted the general contractor for those projects,
and their recommendations and comments about the contractor have
been satisfactory as well as verifying the contractor's license and
other qualifications and determined that they are in good order;
and
WHEREAS, since Shoreline Contractor's submitted the
attached letter (Attachment A) to the City confirming that they
will construct the improvements based on their bid amount and
provided a revised copy, with their initials, of the bid proposal
listing all unit costs were applicable, staff, therefore,
recommends awarding the contract to Shoreline Contractors, National
City; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has
reviewed the work involved in this project and has determined that
the project is exempt under Section 15302, Class 2 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (Minor Alterations of Existing
Public Improvements or Public Structures); and
WHEREAS, the source of funding for this project is Storm
Drain Fee and contractors bidding this project were not required to
pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for the work under
this project; and
WHEREAS, no special minority or women owned business
requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents although
disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid through the sending
of the Notice to Contractors to various trade publications.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby waive the immaterial defect
(incorrectly calculating unit cost on bid proposal), accept the
eight bids and award the contract or "Storm Drain Replacement -
Hilltop Drive at SDG&E Easement i the City of Chula Vista, Ca.
(DR-130) to Shoreline Contractors, in the amount of $24,499.87. ~
Presented by Approved as to form by CDQ8"-/ J
~¿::
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
H:\home\lorraine\cdrive\rs\hilltop.drn
2
9-?
.---.--- -.---- -_..._..._,.,_..~- . ----------...,.--. .._----_.~--_..-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item It:)
Meeting Date 8/1] /98
ITEM TITLE: Reso]ution / 9) 3 c¡ Accepting bids, awarding contract for
"Bayfront Trolley Station Parking Lot Improvements in the City of Chu]a
Vista, CA (DS-038)."
SUBMITTED BY, 0;""10,,, ""bli, W"'l
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ ~ ..-"7 (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
At 2:00 p.m. on May 20, ]998 at the Engin ring Counter, Public Services Bui]ding, the Director
of Public Works received sealed Informal Bids for the "Bayfront Trolley Station Parking Lot
Improvements in the City of Chula Vista, CA (DS-038)". The work to be done consists of removal
and disposal of alligatored asphalt pavement areas and replacement with asphalt concrete pavement
and overlay, crushed aggregate base, saw cutting, seal and tack coat, directional sign painting,
instal]ation of directional signs, removal/rep]acement of wheel stops and cold planing.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept bids and award a contract for "Bayfront Trolley
Station Parking Lot Improvements in the City of Chu]a Vista, CA (DS-038)" to American Asphalt
& Concrete, Inc. in the amount of $34,459.20.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Funds for this project were budgeted in the FY ] 997-98 and FY ] 998-99 Bayfront Trolley Station-
TDA Fund. On March 6, ] 998 the Department of Public W orks- Transit Division requested that the
lower parking lot at the Bayfront Trolley Station be repaved and restriped as part of the overall
maintenance for the trolley station. The existing lower parking lot has multiple alligatoring cracking
and faded parking lot stripes. This project will repair all deteriorated asphalt concrete and enhance
the aesthetics of the Bayfront Trolley Station.
/ ¿::;-j
Page 2, Item 10
Meeting Date 8/11/98
Informal bids for this project were received from three contractors as follows:
Contractor Bid Amount
I. American Asphalt & Concrete, Inc. $34,459.20
2. Frank & Son Paving, Inc., Chula Vista, CA 43,225.00
3. Miller Paving, Spring Valley, CA 45,755.00
Staff originally sent the informal bid to six contractors who have performed work previously with
the City. We received the required three bids from the six contractors in order to award the project.
Staff received good bids for the proposed work. The low bid, submitted by American Asphalt &
Concrete, Inc. is above the Engineer's estimate of $29,337.50 by $5,121.70 or 17.5%. Staffs
estimate was based on average prices for similar type work completed last year.
Disclosure Statement
A copy of the contractor's disclosure statement is attached as Attachment A.
Environmental Status
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and has
determined that the project is exempt under Section 15301 (b), Class 1 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Minor Alterations of Existing Public Improvements or Public
Structures).
Prevailin~ Wa~e Statement
The source of funding for this project is Bayfront Trolley Station- TDA Fund. Contractors bidding
this project were not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for the work
under this project. No special minority or women owned business requirements were necessary as
part of the bid documents.
FISCAL IMPACT:
FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Contract Amount $34,459.20
B. Staff Costs (Design, Construction & Inspection) $3,500.00
C. Construction Contingencies (10%) $3,500.00
TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $41,459.20
/¿;---.;¿
Page 3, Item /0
Meeting Date 8/11/98
FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. 238-2380-5362 (Materials to Structures and Grounds) $41,459.20
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $41,459.20
The above action awarding of the contract will authorize a total expenditure of$41,459.20 from the
Bayfront Trolley Station-IDA Fund. After construction, only routine City maintenance will be
required.
Attachments ~
A - Contractor's Disclosure Statement '
~ot
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA \DS038113.BVH
File No: 0735-10-DS-038
/iJ""3 //0 - Lj
.+-rrAC-H-MENr A '.
"-.-- ~.- \
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of cenain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions,
on all matters which will require discretionary action on the pan of the City Council, Planni1g Commission, and all other official
bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
I. List the names of all persons having a fmancial interes! in the propeny which is the subject of the application or the Contract,
e.g., owner, applicant, Contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
¡vIr
2. If any person" identified pursuant to.(I) above is a corporation or pannership, list the Ilames of all individuals owning more
than 10 % of the shares in the corporation or owning any pannership interest in the pannership.
IJf/;r
3. If any person" identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, Ii,! the names of any person serving as
director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
I~j¡}
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with anÄ,ember of We City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council within the past twelve month? Yes _ No If yes, ple"se 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.
¡.~/ /t
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Council member in the current
or preceding election period? Yes _ No þ- If yes, state which Council members(s):
.f ·P;t,· ..
" · . (NOTE: Attached additional
~ - ':::2cU7"g
Date: /~ . ~----.-
Signature of Co ractor/ í\pplicant
. :1?~':7;-fifi'?f"1' 2-
I ¿1l- ~ Print or type e of Contractor/Applicant
· Person is defined as: . Any individual, firm, Co-partners lp, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
co1p(N'Qlion. eslale. trust, r«:dver. syndiCille, Ihis QN/ any other COlUI1». dry Dr COIl1I11y, dry "'" "icìptlliry. dislnCl, or ot},n poIitiml
~. "4I1t)' otllw 110MI' ., COMbillQliolt «riltg as 0 unil,
RESOLUTION NO. /9/3 c;
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS, AWARDING CONTRACT
FOR "BAYFRONT TROLLEY STATION PARKING LOT
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA.
(DS-03B) "
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on May 20, 199B at the Engineering
Counter, Public Services Building, the Director of Public Works
received three sealed Informal Bids for the "Bayfront Trolley
Station Parking Lot Improvements in the City of Chula Vista, CA
(DS-03B)" :
Contractor Bid Amount
1. American Asphalt & Concrete, Inc. $34,459.20
2. Frank & Son Paving, Inc. I Chula 43,225.00
Vista, CA
3 . Miller Paving, Spring Valley, CA 45,755.00
WHEREAS, the low bid submitted by American Asphalt &
Concrete, Inc. is above the Engineer's estimate of $29,337.50 by
$5,121.70 or 17.5%; and
WHEREAS, staff's estimate was based on average prices for
similar type work completed last year; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has
reviewed the work involved in this project and has determined that
the project is exempt under Section 15301 (b) , Class 1 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (Minor Alterations of Existing
Public Improvements or Public Structures); and
WHEREAS, the source of funding for this project is
Bayfront Trolley Station-TDA Fund and contractors bidding this
project were not required to pay prevailing wages to persons
employed by them for the work under this project and no special
minority or women owned business requirements were necessary as
part of the bid documents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
CiCy of Chulo VioCa doeo hereby oooepC bide ond oward 0 ooncraOC;1
for "Bayfront Trolley Station Parking Lots Improvements in the City
of Chula Vista, Ca. (DS-03B) to American Asphalt & Concrete, Inc.
in the amount of $34,459.20.
1 CDQ8' (;)5
,.--
/¿J'~..!:J
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
H:\home\lorraine\cdrive\rs\bayfront.bid
2
/t7---V
.._.~. "-----.- "----
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /1
-
Meeting Date 8/11/98
ITEM TITLE: Resolution /7'/7' gtablishing the Kenneth Lee Memorial A ward for
Community Planning
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Building ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager:DR ~ aSjvJ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NolO
The City has established an annual Beautification A wards Program to recognize projects completed
in Chula Vista during the prior year which reflect exceptional architectural and site planning
solutions. The awards jury selects a number of projects for categorical awards, and also selects
one project to receive the Richard Welsh Memorial Award "which is intended to recognize
superior building function and design, as well as unique characteristics which best exemplify a
commitment to the beautification of the community." With the recent passing of Ken Lee,
Assistant Planning Director, who was instrumental in the planning of many of the master planned
communities and projects in Chula Vista, staff has determined that a new memorial award in honor
of Mr. Lee would be a fitting tribute.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the resolution establishing the Kenneth
Lee Memorial Award for Community Planning.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
As noted above, during his 38 year career with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department, Ken
Lee was instrumental in the planning of a number of master planned communities, such as Rancho
del Rey, Eastlake, Sunbow, Rolling Hills Ranch, and Otay Ranch. In light of his contributions
to the planning of the City, it is recommended that a new memorial award be established, which
would be given annually to a project which represents excellence in community planning.
Examples of such projects could be parks, private recreational complexes, trail systems, or other
community enhancement projects which are exceptional in nature, and set a high standard for
future development in the community in which they are located. This award would be given in
conjunction with the Beautification A wards Program.
;)-)
Page 2, Item ..ll
Meeting Date 8/11/98
FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time.
(F12\.KENLEEAl1)
J/-d-
RESOLUTION NO. 19P/rP
ESTABLISHING THE KENNETH LEE
MEMORIAL AWARD FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING
WHEREAS, Ken Lee began his career with the City of Chula Vista
on March 1, 1960 as a Planning Draftsman, and has since served as
Junior Planner I Assistant Planner I Associate Planner, Principal
Planner, and as Assistant Planning Director until his untimely
death on July 19, 199B; and
WHEREAS, Ken has been responsible for the supervision of the
Current Planning Division of the Planning Department over the past
several years, and in this role has served as chief staff advisor
to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, through Ken's efforts toward the creation of the
Design Review Committee, and his leadership and work with that
committee, the City developed a very effective design review
process and Beautification Awards Program; and
WHEREAS, during his career, Ken was directly involved in the
formulation of several major community plans and projects,
including the Eastlake, Rancho del Rey, Sunbow, master planned
communities; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate to recognize Ken's contributions to
the planning of our community through the establishment of an award
to be given annually to a project which most clearly represents
excellence in community planning.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby
establishes the Kenneth Lee Memorial Award for excellence in
community planning, to be given annually in conjunction with the
City's Beautification Awards Program.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert Leiter
Director of Planning and Building
11,....h"'.d',~'"'m'y...Kr"'I.EE.Rr~,
/l-- ~
-- --_.._--_.__..~-,---------_._._._._-_..._~_._-~..-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item !:<
Meeting Date Q(I/11/98
ITEM TITLE: Resolution /1/ fippropriating $600,000 from the available
General Fund Balance to the Insurance Budget for payment of
previously authorized claim settlements and related expenses
SUBMITTED BY: Risk Manage~
&l¿
REVIEWED BY: City Manager F P j2- (4/5ths Vote: YesJS.._No )
This action will appropriate funding for payment of previously authorized claim settlements.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION: The annual Insurance budget is funded at a level of "normal" expenditure
requirements. Occasionally claims arise for which settlement and litigation expenses
exceed the "norm". Recently, the case of Wolfe vs City of Chula Vista required the
expenditures of $160,000 for settlement, and approximately $370,000 in litigation
expenses. The case of Griffin vs. City of Chula Vista required the expenditure of $218,000
for settlement and approximately $210,000 in litigation expenses. In these instances, it
is necessary to appropriate the additional funding to cover these expenses and to continue
normal operations throughout the year.
FISCAL IMPACT: $600,000 will be appropriated from the General Fund Reserves to
cover these expenses.
[T0i'Jr>c·TEDI....TEA11¡"OOI..,t.,ugus15.1998501ømJ /), -I
_ .. ~'__.__M___________..._____ _ _ __.._,._,__,,~
RESOLUTION NO. /9/,//
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING $600,000 FROM THE
AVAILABLE GENERAL FUND BALANCE TO THE
INSURANCE BUDGET FOR PAYMENT OF PREVIOUSLY
AUTHORIZING CLAIMS SETTLEMENTS AND RELATED
EXPENSES
WHEREAS, during the annual budget process, funds are
appropriated in the Insurance budget to pay costs and expenses
related to liability claims against the City; and
WHEREAS, the annual Insurance budget is funded at a level
of "normal" expenditure requirements; and
WHEREAS, occasionally claims arise for which settlement
and litigation expenses exceed the "norm"; and
WHEREAS, the case of Wolfe v. Citv of Chula Vista
required the expenditure of $160,000 for settlement and
approximately $370,000 in litigation expenses and the case of
Griffin v. citv of Chula vista required the expenditure of $218,000
and approximately $210,000 in litigation expenses; and
WHEREAS, in these instances, it is necessary to
appropriate additional funding to the Insurance budget to cover
these expenses and to continue normal operations throughout the
year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby appropriate $600,000 from the
unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund to the Insurance
budget for the payment of costs and expenses associated with claims
against the city as may be authorized by the City Council through
June 30, 1999.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Teri Enos, Risk Manager ney
H:\home\lorra;ne\cdrive\rs\approp.ins
/:<-,2
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /;J
Meeting Date 8/11/98
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCZ-98-01, An application to rezone from Rl
(Residential Single Family) to CT (Commercial Thoroughfare), part of the
parcel at 619 East Manor prior to a lot line adjustment. Applicant: Leroy
and Joyce Curren.
Ordinance No. .;¿ 77"e{f the City of Chula City Council amending the
Zoning Map or Maps established by Section 19.18.010 of the City ofChula
Vista Municipal Code by rezoning part of the parcel at 619 East Manor
Avenue and 600 Broadway Avenue from R-l to CT.
SUBMITTED BY: ,,",,1m "'- ""'~.... /tft¿'
REVIEWED BY: City Manageí})R. ~ ..... (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..xJ
The City was approached by the applicant with a lot line adjustment in January 1998. It was
recommended by staff that the applicant apply for a rezone to bring the parcel into land use and
zoning conformance. Since 1989 the parcel has been split zoned along with others in the 600
block of Broadway as Rl (Single-family Residential) and CT (Thoroughfare Commercial). The
land use activities are a combination of commercial and residential land uses (refer to Attaclunent
2). The subject parcel has contained a single family residential home facing onto East Manor
A venue and a commercial parking lot for Discount Tires facing Broadway. The northwest portion
of the parking lot is in the Rl Zone, so it was recommended by staff that the whole parking lot
be rezoned to CT prior to the processing of the lot line adjustment.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the project is categorically exempt
from CEQA as a Class 5 exemption.
RECOMMENDATION: The City Council adopt the attached ordinance rezoning the easterly
portion of property at 619 East Manor Avenue from R-l to CT.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission considered this
proposal on June 24, 1998 and voted 5-0-1-1 to approve a resolution recommending that the City
Council approve the rezoning in accordance with the draft City Council Ordinance No. _ .
/ J-/
Page No.2, Item No. l~
Meeting Date: 8/11/98
DISCUSSION:
Site Characteristics
The site area is flat and contains approximately 22,650 square feet. The site is one parcel with
separate zones shown as Parcel A and Parcel B on the adjustment plat map (refer to Attachment
3). Parcel A, 619 East Manor Drive, consists of7,840 sq. ft., while Parcel B consists of 14,814
sq. ft. The adjustment plat map shows the placement of the lot lines at the rear fence line between
the residential use and the commercial parking lot use.
General Plan Zonin¡¡ and Land Use
GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT LAND USE
Site: LM (Low Medium) Rl & CT Single Family Residence and
and Thoroughfare Tire business parking lot
North: LM (Low Medium) Single Family Residences and
and Thoroughfare Rl & CT Tire business
South: LM (Low Medium) Rl & CT Single Family Residences, Strip
and Thoroughfare Commercial Centers
East: Thoroughfare CT Strip Commercial Centers and
Commercial Retail buildings
West: LM (Low Medium) Rl Single Family Residences
Proposal
As indicated above, the applicant is requesting that the portion of the site being used as part of
the tire business parking lot be changed from Rl Zone to CT Zone in order to make the zoning
consistent with how the property is being used.
AnaJysis
The parking lot area has been used by Discount Tires for more than ten years and, as such, is a
well-established land use on the subject parcel. Even with the lot split, the residential area will
meet the minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet. In addition, a zoning wall will be required to be
installed along the new parcel line when the adjustment plat is processed. To require that the
parking lot portion of the subject parcel revert to a residential use would place an undue hardship
on all parties concerned.
/3~oZ
Page No.3, Item No. /5
Meeting Date: 8/11/98
Conclusion
Since the existing land uses on the parcel and many of the adjacent commercial land uses in the
CT Zone date back many years, the zone change for this parcel from R1 to CT would not alter
what has been the existing land use pattern. Such action would allow the residential and
commercial activities to continue with no adverse impacts. In addition, minimum lot sizes and
other zoning criteria can be met on both parcels. Therefore, staff has concluded that, based on
sound planning principles, it is in the best interest of all concerned parties that the rezone be
granted.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact as a result of this project proposal. The applicant has paid all required
processing fees.
Attachments
I. Planning Commission Minutes and Resolutions
2. Locator Map
3. Proposed Adjustment Plat No. 97-08
H:\HOME\PLANNING\MARIA \PCZ980IF. WPD
1;1-3
...¡o/ .
~r1
if?
.) p ~,.
tp(
1
I
SECTION III: this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force the thirtieth day rrom
its adoption.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
--
/ ;3 ~J:1
Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - Wednesday, June 24,1998
. l!ì(i [? ) (( Ð C L~ _,",IILlIIU~ PUUIIl.. Jltdllng lú JUlY, 1:1:10. IUUIo.IVU ......... :_~
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ 98-01; request to rezone ITom R1 (Residential Single Family) to
CT (Commercial Thoroughfare) to bring the property located at 619
East Manor Drive, into conformance with Zoning Ordinance prior to
the processing of Adjustment Plat No. 97-08.
Background: Maria Muett, Assistant Planner, reported Ú.at the applicant submitted a lot line
adjustment application, and after review, starr recommended that the applicant apply for a
rezone from R-1 to CT to bring this property into conformance with the zoning ordinance.
The property was zoned R-1 until 1989 when it was split zoned as R-1 along East Manor Drive
and CT on the Broadway frontage.
The land use has for many years been a combination parking lot for Discount Tires at the
corner of Broadway Avenue and I Street as well as a singie family residence, which faces East
Manor Drive, with approximately 80% of the parcel being in the R-1 zone and the remainder
in the CT zone.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCl-98-D1
recommending that the City Council approve the rezoning in accordance with the draft City
Council Ordinance.
Public Hearing Opened 7:14
Don Baker, 837 East J Street, representing applicant stated he was there to answer any
questions.
Commissioner Thomas asked if there was any indication that there might be a change in land
use from Discount Tires to another commercial use.
The representative responded that he had no knowledge of change in land use.
Public Hearing Closed 7:17
MSC (Rav/Willett) (5-0-1-1) to adopt Resolution PCZ 98-01 recommending the City Council
approve the rezoning in accordance with the draft City Council Ordinance. Motion carried.
/J---ç. Attaëhme:!nt 1
RESOLUTIO:\' :\'0. PCZ-98-01
RESOLLTIO:\' OF THE CITY OF CHVLA VISTA PLA..l\'J\'ING COMMISSIO:\'
RECOMME!'-ì)ING lI.PPROVAL TO REZO!'-'!: FRO~1 R-l TO CT TO BRING
PROPERJT l'.TO CO!\TOR\1A.l\ICE WITH ZO:!'llNG ORDINl~.NCE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 619 EAST MA..."iOR A.."'D 600 BROADWAY A VE1\'"L"'E.
WHEREAS, a duJy verified application for a rezone was f¡]ed with the City of Chula Vis", Planning
Depanment on March 13, 1998 by property owner, Joyce Curren; and,
WHEREAS, said application requests approval 10 rezone a ponion of the land area úom R-I to CT
for pmposes of conformance with Zoning Ordinance prior 10 pro::essing parcel =1'; and
WHEREAS, this application will bring the property in10 compliance with Title 19, and amend the
Zonin2 Man. Se.:::tion 19.18 ŒxhibitA); and
- - .
WHEREA.S, this application is in conformance with the Gene:;¡] Plan and Landuse designations; and
WHEREA.S, the Environmental Review Coordina1Or has derermined that the proposed project is a
Class 5 exemption under CEQA; and,
WHERE,;,s, the Planning Direc10r set the time and place for a hearing on said rentative subåivision
map application and notice of said hearing, together with its pmpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of gen.."TI!1 circulation in the city and its mailing 10 property owners and residents within 500 feet
of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior 10 the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely June 24, 1998 at 7:00
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 repom, evidence, and testimony presenred at
the public hearing with respect 10 subject application.
NOW, r.rlEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED TILt."T THE PLA.NNING COMMISSION does hereby
rec=nd that the City Council approve Rezone application PCZ-98-01 in accordance with the fmåings and
subje.:::t to the conditions contained in the anached City Council Oråinance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolurion be transmitred to the City Council.
PASSED /1...1\'1> APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA. VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 24th day of June, 1998, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Parry Davis, Chair
ATTEST:
13-7
Diana Vargas, Se::rera,)' It
J:1:\!)~~~~;_~~~:;?~Q:,Fs(J_
~ -
-
~ ----
! \
\
\
CC "
\
~ \
R2 ) BURGER
KING
CHULA VISTA
CENTER
lRAV"clDDGE
HD1El. Ê
.'
~r:'i f
s t. I
R=ïAlL
SF CT I
-%
1¿þ McDDNALDS ~
.."
,-
~ SF
Ö
r<'
R1
~
c:>
Ö
%
~
\
CH U LA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
"ë)R PRC.F..cT Don Baker PROJECT DESCRIPT1ON:
APPUCAHr. Joyce Curren ZONE CHANGE
PRo.r:er 619 East Manor Drive ):3 r Request Proposal to rezone from R1 (SIngIa FamIly Zone) to
ADDRESS: - CT (Commeràal Thorough!are) to bring property Into confDrman::e
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: with zoning DI1inanœ.
NORTH No Scale PCZ-98-01 . )
~1hð~""'..,i"..\........;......\I..._~_\__nDn'" ""'". _~_ 'P.-..-·----.-....
r-::-"¡¡'
, :y
ADJUSïMENT PLAT NO. 97-08
CONSOUDAllON PLAT NO_
~i!<-6:!~ >
D_
r'C\ ~~ ----
S\R;:"~ -- :>
D ,
. 't - t-:D
~- ~
C .À
'.~ "QÎ.
...--
t
,0
~ ~ -
'~~ ~'
J_ _=
----
, ;,. ."~-
":) ./ ¥ '
'''>'' ./ ,"
~. -..",:~" .~::-- --.- . - - ':.. .:. -'; :.~"'-.' -: .'.: ; --_:~;-~~
./
./. -
./ -'
. D:J1'W1) G. 3AI-:::? 15 55E5
.1 ~l n="'::'~:'IIJN:
LOT 4, B!.D::K 1. 3!.'f I.!ANO?" WI? NO. il14
AND TIE Ef.5T 210' CF.1!£ NDifiH 140' (F.
O!J!IffiE'R EilDN 154, ?áNr:-iD IE lJ. W\CJDI'i,
MAP NO. b, IN J::: CITY (F. c.!' LJ1_~ V~¡".
WUmy (F. ~I¡ DEGD, ~L.!üt: CF. CA!..R?.Nlt..
I' DWN5't· EW'( £. O..;:tr.:N _.
1 .~ -., m__h_.......___.__ - .- -......--
THE cn'Y OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You are required 10 file a Statcmcnt of Disclosure of certain owner.;hip or financial interesls, payments, or campaign
contributions, on all matter.; which will rcquirc discrctionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and
all othcr official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all per.;ons having a financial intcrest in the propeny which is the subjecl of the application or the
contract, e.g., owncr, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
LeN4 E: f jul,/ C ~ E é(/,rÍ'....'7 - ÛLlN1¿ r~
../ /
O:<cuvnrJ/re - j)t'de;!(.~vjr''¿
2. If any per.;on* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or panner.;hip, list the names of all individuals owning
more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any panner.;hip interest in the partner.;hip.
3. If any per.;on* identificd pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person
serving as director of the nl1D.profit organization or as trustcc or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 wonh 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 bave assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
D rJ /J Cí / c/ ¡f /? q~t!?¿--, piS'
.oó/J .:vpW--; ~ Wo//~L?
J '''/
6. Have you and/or your officers or agcnts, in thc agg~contributed morc than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the
currcnt or preceding elcction pcriod? Yes_ No If yes, state which Councilmember(s):
3/11/71 . . · (NOTE: Attach addiûonal pa~ as ~ry) · · ·
Date: ~~.ø~
, Signature of contractor/applicant
//()/)~/c/ ¿f- /]q.4¿'þ
/:3 -IV' Print or type name of contractorlapplicant
. ~ is dcfillcd as: "AllY individual, finn, co-pamu:nhip, joiru YenlUrr, associalioll, JociDI chW, jrolmUJI orgallÛßtioll, corporarion, esuue, Þ'Wt, rteeÎI<W, J)'ndicau,
dW OI.d 0'1)' other COUllty, city and (OUIII1')', city mw';cipalily. district, or other political subdi~'isjoll, or QlIY other group or combinotiOlI Qcting as Q wlÍ.L"
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item E
Meeting Date 8/11/98
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCA-98-06, application to amend Chula Vista Municipal
Code Section 19.62.100 to change "Temporary" parking from six months
to 12 months and include parking area pavement standards for private
vehicular areas into the Zoning Ordinance.
Ordinance No. 02?f J the City of Chula Vista City Council amending
the Municipal Code, Title 19, Chapter 19.62.100 changing the time period
for "Temporary" parking from six months to 12 months and adding the
pavement standards for private vehicular areas.
SUBMITfED BY, m"",oc "PI,""", ""'~..... JÆ'
REVIEWED BY: City ManageflR :0 '-? (4/Sths Vote: Yes_NoX)
Nearly a decade ago, the City of Chula Vis developed standards for paving of temporary and
permanent parking lots, which were adopted by policy resolution of the Planning Commission.
Staff has recently updated these standards to bring them into conformance ,pvith current
environmental and design standards, and to revise the time limits for temporary installations.
Staff is recommending that these updated standards be adopted as part of the Municipal Code at
this time.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the project is categorically exempt
from CEQA as a Class 5 exemption.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt attached Ordinance NO..;¡,1tt:3 approving the amended text to Chapter
19.62 - Off-Street Parking and Loading, of the Zoning Ordinance, in accordance with the attached
draft City Council Ordinance.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission considered this proposal on June 24, 1998 and voted 6-0-1 to approve
a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the proposed zoning text amendment
(Attachment 1).
/1/- /
Page No.2, Item No. It.{-
Meeting Date: 8/11/98
DISCUSSION:
1. ~
According to a memo dated November 5, 1997 (Attachment 2) from the Engineering Division,
several issues needed to be addressed in updating the Pavement Standards for Private Vehicular
Areas:
· First, the materials specified in the adopted Paving Standards ("cut-back" asphalt) have
long been outdated and were environmentally undesirable. The cut-back asphalt had been
replaced by emulsion composites, which are environmentally less hazardous. Attachment
3 defines the terms used in the text of the Zoning Ordinance amendment.
· Second, the local design standards were outdated. In order to update these standards, local
agencies had the option to adopt the "Green Book", Standard Specifications for Public
Works Construction, which the City of Chula Vista has adopted.
· Third, there were problems related to the time frame for "temporary parking," which is
currently set at six months in the Muncipal Code, but at one year in the Paving Standards.
2. Pro,posal
The proposal is to amend the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 19, Section 19.62.100, by
incorporating updated Paving Standards and time limits for temporary paving.
3. Analysis
The existing standards call for two inches of compacted decomposed granite with the top one inch
treated with SC-250- asphalt road oil. However the use of SC-250 liquid asphalt, a solvent-based
"cutback" oil, was phased out several years ago by the Air Pollution Control District. The
previous substances were hazardous to the environment because they put volatiles into the air.
The new substances consist of emulsion materials which contain water as part of the asphalt
solution, which is less hazardous to the atmosphere.
Additionally, in reviewing the standards for semi-permanent and permanent use pavements which
is limited to six months, the City staff determined such standard is also outdated. Staff has found
that, based on experience and our understanding of the cost involved in the installation of
temporary paving, a one year use period for such paving is reasonable.
;tf--:¿
Page No.3, Item No. /'1
Meeting Date: 8/11/98
Conclusion
It is staff's opinion that this Text Amendment will bring the Zoning Ordinance up to date
regarding temporary parking and paving standards and provide clarity and conformance with local
and State regulations for the general public.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There are no anticipated fiscal impacts from this proposal.
Attachments
I. Planning Commission Minutes and Resolution
2.. Memo dated November 5, 1997 from Engineering Division.
3. Definition of Terms
(H:\home\planning\maria\pca9806f. wpd)
) 1/ -<J
J~ "
,..1 :
I R (Ii'
SECTION II: That the Project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption ITom Environmental
Review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
SECTION III: That the amendment of Chapter 19, Section 19.62.100a "Temporary"
parking ITom six months to 12 months and inclusion of the Paving Standards for Parking into
Chapter 19, Section 19.62.100b, as shown on Exhibit A.
SECTION IV: this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force the thirtieth day ITom
its adoption.
Presented by Approved as to form by
~ 0
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
/tj~5'
19.62.100~ Parking areas-Surfacing requirements-Waiver permitted when.
Any off-street parking areas shall be surfaced in accordance with fl,gil,U:1 il,~ J~ee:ifie:atjôIIJ âJ
ael6 3teel 13, the 3löRRint; E6R,n,iJ3iðl, ~~~~miiim~H!imHmi¡¡¡¡~ii!!~Wäíiíii~RI!I.mlll~, so as to provide a durable and
dustless surface, and shall be so graded and drained as to dispose of all surface water accumulated within the
area, and shall be so arranged and marked as to provide the orderly and safe loading or unloading and
parking and storage o( vehicles. The planning commission may, by resolution, waive or modify the 3filkil,¡;
íI!JImmmilUstandards for any use within the agricultural zone, or any use deemed as temporary (operating for "'"
m6Rth3 ðr le33 î!iI~rnûmilotih1ili,·i!!ar]i'·'···'!i!·'ií;!i:1i:!'ihdliii!!Mmi~¡¡ëílliiJi!liî!ï:!Ii!lI'i'ûlli1Ii~!!i.i.II~!lil_.illl!l!li!
"""",'ú",,,,,,,,,,,;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,M;,,,,,,,,,,,,,p¡f!,j)ìL,j"'';'oh'}o,',J.+J.,oo",oooow.' ..,,'" ,1_,", .,t¡5!1¡mJ \ .1.;".OLb...'-1 jj' 1....' .,!" .." n" A"./
~IiIU!f¡!\\!mmîi1I!~U~~~mii:!~~i:!~ilm!!!!~i:!i:im,j¡1jæidï!Umi~¡ì!i!girn!i!!!!!rn¡IW(Ord 1212 § 1 (part), 1969; prior code §33.801 (F)(4)).
"IIII.!!!! !f¡ï!*~Iiî!I~ij~I~~ï!!!~!!~I~!í~II!f¡~l\!!\t~llMlI~l~!ï!~m~
~11!fî!iïml!!"'àr'íIm'fií·~·'~mÆ!.'lIi!mllI_~_
,[,:,,11. ,¡¡~ ,;¡ J; 1,B;~ì¥:;;j" ~i;!?'~2~~¡;'~j¡¡~ul';;A1~i¡!1;¡i¡mM3!!!(¡~J¡: ¡; db' J'.. . . 11, ..,.. . .
~.'If4I~!!lriï¡¡~I"Iiì~1i1fiji!r~í'rnfií!!'IiII~m!r¡¡.!!YI!ÆiiIJl~rlíi!l_~___1I
'. IDi ¡ ',:..1),", "~,;,,,,!;;,,~,,,.i,j!~ ¡,,¡ '¡i , ,,11;';' HLlu,uLu¡¡,,j' ),!",.. JL';,;,WIJID: ';"0 '''0'' ¡
ìll!l!lLiiiî!ilIlIl!l~'~'ì:JIr'!lm!" j¡"""iï'i"î!·'íi!'~' ¡Jjj"lì:II!!i¡:ª!'!!ª'¡¡ Fª'!!iIirmil l1l1I!I!1II!I...__rR
"' "",1.1;',,,' ;,/¡\,~h',~~j""""3L;i;~/~",;jj,>;rn;'jj¡bU!,,,,"¡L/.hAL.1;~k",.!í",¡L"IIJ,m:';" u, " ";,, , '" , "..., ",¡,.! . H.""''''. ¡,;,¡j,
l!IIIIII!!ilì!iiI!!m~l~lt'i~¡;rJi1ji!I!!míi!l!l~imffi!írll!ld:!¡¡í¡¡ili!¡¡!!Jiïïgimíi!¡¡~ªi!ïi~i!!!!:;1IIiiI_'imrm__BIIIIIIJII
:, ',";"~'"1,jW""",;,A"n';;h""".,,,,;,,;,L;,,,,,+oo'+";+".+.,..11'];>"""''''''''''''''''.,"."1.1,'''""",''','','''(;;;,'', ;,;, ,,,,,.1,.,,......., ,,,,,,,,, ,. '0' ,¡;""
flli!l!MIlll!lii~lmil~iln!f!i~~I!I'ª!ªIIi!!ªr!!iªj!¡<iß¡iª!il!i!f:º¥l~i·m!ï~llllimrm~ì:llillllîm!lliî!!!mm!~fií~lml..Iì!lllll_IIm!IIIII!!1I111
II!IJli'MIli!iií!!!!~~IIï!ªtl#.i!ïgli!i!ffil~tii!r~gíi!iiºílfj¡!lIfiíi~III~.I~~II~!i~II~1i!<iß¡iíi~ª!!¥'tIî~l¡
~ii ]Em~I?~~~B~i!:i!~~'~ì,TIaximÜm'¡¡('jf,¡:¡~y~1ír:I¡¡¡¡:II[_~rm!IIfØBII____1
,.. .,. . ........... .........,."".."..........0..000.... ... .,. ....,,,,)£,1,,j .. ,1,.... ........ ...... " ""
!II.~'nt'···········.Y····Ct···¡¡ ·'i:!·'¡:i·i··i·i·i·i···i·~·'!!"'~.ai!ïII~"'m11l·· ·'!·Y·'¡:'·'·Òiit"··"i! ëíI!·IOOI'iliiilì:llil!lllliII...!IIII!iIIIIII__iIII!!iI!II1I
, ' '¡"~j¡!!~~¡¡m¡~¡j!,,,,,~,,,,¡Lojfit~R:r;mp,~;tf¡L g&,¡,,,,],,,; ""r;¡1",i,~.J~~H"+;,NrtH,,. ",;",JL.1!Ld.,' " '", ; ":;~,, ; , ¡ .;,¡ 1 "" ;
.1m1!:illiII!!l~i~mYlilîi[d~!!í!i¡¡~i~à.t!!th~'I~Ià.¡¡liiâ¡¡!!Jii¡¡ ¡¡~tlf¡[lIíi!ii!'i¡¡af:i!l~ii~11I1.Wíæili~IIDIIIIII_III"_
; ; Wi , ,¡" 1/, I ,,,1 ,¡'¡;'AJ;;:, .A."";,),, hH.'"'''''''''''''''''''''''..'.''''' '.11'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''';;''''1.;;;; ,j"".",,,,w,,,, ¡; 11,,' ;, ,,' ,~ ,.IL, ! . R . . .,.. . .,. . .., ,1. .
_IWJJI!!i!!If$!!ëíI!ii¡[.aI!ffi$ii!ií¡[i!i'i~~íf¡!!ìMtiiî!ììÏm ¡îe'iiOf!tÎ!ïleSitQiiï!¡[º~!!1ïeifR.ifriimlllllllll._..W.lllIi
' ,m ",,¡ "",,,,,,',,,"'.1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,,),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,".'"""."',,>'."'''.1'1.. ,,',,'.1""';;"";;",,;;.'...1"';;,""" ,,,,,,,/; ,;;"""" ;,,,,,,,,,,,,j,,I,,, ",1" "" .. .... 11.1 111. .1.'
~!lIIIII!Ii1iI!lî!III!i~illilîill!l.Ii1iI~!l!!iuli1il¡¡uli1i~lm~II\!¡Ii1iIIli!i!,¥ê!!iiili1,li!,~~!!r!!~ij~IIII!Iml!líII!!!~llilllliI!!iI!IIíIII_íIIIIH__1!1!I1
.11II"I!i!H"t·N<"¡fo'''Ní:i!!m·nls'~¡¡iëí¡¡':!&i!I''b·¡¡'!j ¡¡··I'·l!l!¥¡¡f,¡[illili!!!IIH!!!!!IillllII..1II!!___!l.Rlllt_
.d,., ..1:....... .~~!!J"'.!!"+...d"I'!i!"'+.....~.....d+,,b.....¡¡..:+...¡¡..!:\nmg~,.,.1it~~.Ii!iiJI.... ""'~ 'ke. ,.,. " . .... .., .." !.....i I. .
ï!¡[g~~!I!ïI!i~~!!~ffi~~!!~!: :!~~í:"i!'1~!,!!~~~·i!ïlIii¥¢Jíi!¡¡Ilí!~~!!~!li~li~iï!l¢riil!lll.iì1Irm'mlìl.~m!l.ì1I.I~III__
!llfi!fjj\ilHI
~;~ ß~I\o1I'!,ERMi'iISl'EISI¡¡¡¡"lUISE(¢:Iªxil))!c\m"of¡¡fiN<¡¡j"!!!Ii!íf!iI¡¡li~ii!IIliIIIi!fjj\iI~1II1Ii1l:"'!!i.~!lIIII!
...,........................,...,..,.,...,.""",..,..,.............................................................,"'..1.1..,j.._.,"',1.1",'1" "Û ,,,), '" j"n¡ ",1.1,,)" 'w
!!íIII'i!II!I."l··· "'hll" .1\...... 'f"" !··············fiïn¡sli'·fr'¡¡ il)lii!r!lliïillrlíl"fil"II!Iii.~litii!ll.._1!!!!
b ,~il'¡¡K!i...~i!l!.::!!~Ii!¡!!,t.~ii~,~Iit.¡;i!i!~~¡;!i1i!¡;ffi,,:;:j[L,.i,J~i!,i¡\¡!i!i!,!ill!:!!\i1m...iiii ¡...lIiill,I,.., ~. ,I..,!I. .. ... ......, .., .1.., .11..",..
!l!1j11l!1··!iiiI'B2i!41rrs2i'iliei:!"illi'!>éi!írÖiiI'iflI}OiHI"l>'i:!!i!liíi!j'SctiiitillMíi!I'!I_II_...!!Ii.1I1
¡,,¡ii'; ',; JLmz¡¡,,::;,¡~~~¡¡;;,;::,:j1~mj;;~:'''¡ª~~ih:::::;;IiHF!:~j¡~J~~m""",;¡"JL"Li¡;;,;";;.:Ji:,<J!;L,,;,~:;;;E,,R,;,;:L;+¡!"jj;",.!¡;d"""¡"~",.;;,, ¡¡, ';", ',',,, ,," ,,,,,; '" ;;, j", ,,1,, j j 11 ~
E1I~"!!::ºí'i~î!Jiiliöl\"'iíi!ÎÎilie~ti ¡Jjjat'iililslliall"'l:ie'li'etmi~¡¡il:il¡H"('j"î.t¡¡!!I'U!í¡Rir¡¡~lIiií.ïlI1IIEllliI~III~.'lUlllllllllllíliIl1li'
;,3: 1',+h,¿i:;;,¡,,,;,¡,,..,.,L,;,,,u,j,,;,¡,J;;;,,",,,,,:..;...,,,,,';;''''''''''';'::·''':'''''''':::''''''·:'.'';·"<,;,,,,,,,,,,·>+;,,,h,,,,;;,,n.,./;;!""",h,.",;"u)j L .; '" ';,j ,,,,; ;, L j: ), i,m, "n
~œ!!IIDIi!!iiª,lrnl~mm!ii~!ii'II'm~i!lm¡j;îi,ª!ill~~¡j;!i!mtli'~mª\¡Ï~i~ilfiíll~íi!~1!i!iIì!I~!!m:iJ§!~.I!!liIìf,.I.!__1IíI1IIII
~1i1!!1I!!III····eí!lm'!.\\rn'.'iiI'd·····et\ts:·uslt\g'iallii!RS;J"('j',e···uîNí:.aIíi!í!lm'iffi¡··!iìiiíi!ìs'''li'sl!lílj'[jj¡¡¡m¡¡I¡imm!lIBli!IIOIIIIIII!I!III'í!l''11I!
: ,;,¡" ,,', m",,,;,;;,;,,:,,,,,,,,m::,,,,,,,,Jm!,,,,,,,,¡;;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. """""",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;;,,,,,,,,,g,;;;¡,11"""Y':1.,;,,,,,,,,R'¡;1+n,,,,!ff,,,,,,¡,h ,;;;",,,..,'.:,,,,,,,,y,,, ;\11.; j~} ,1/ 1 ..d .d.' b . . .....1.11 .uL., h u'U
1I!!illlliílîª'\¡[~li~!î~fiií¡¡1I!1
~I PEßiY!i'iNEN."IB··\;J~E,"II~e~rm.~!j¡¡¡IjJ!!~iií~íi!IiII¡¡ï!!ii~!ii~filiit~!j¡§¡l~!liIìf,llIiilillll!!iIJI lm.í!.IíII~.1II11I!I
"""fií" ' i·,.,""'·',i···· .':... ...... 'meí!ltwiU!'$'I"di!íI'''a'¡¡ ·š'til:id"l.If¡i:!"~"Siìm'l!IiIì!!II!I:l!Ii!IIIm.~:1IIIIIII
."I!I.~!1I¡:!ii!Í!ffi~~IiI!~"p¡¡¥,e""""""".,e¡¡,,,",,,,,,,,L,~",,~,,~,,,,,e.,,,,,,,, "."e",,,,,.,eli!l!,,,,,¡:e!!l!l!,.. ".¿,.!:..."..m .... ..... ...å,..,'
f¡'llf ¡Jjj'g ~In .. ..... ... '\'1 ........ "0" r ......~ ........ ...... '¡¡'hlrlll!iliiilllil!ìlli!i!II_'lOOIIiIJIIIiIII!
_!im!!!",!iI!m;'I,'i'i!~~li¡¡gg~~g¡¡!~i¡¡S~i~)~,~t~~ii'gg~![g¡¡1~i,¡¡~~li~,!1iiil~!!!Ii!, h,.,.I.. ..., . ..... + . . .n .11. ..!.. ...
IiIlïlIi18l~¡¡il!i!ffi~!II~,!JíIi'¡;jI~Iiî!~!j¡Ii%tjjêhgmíi!ij!~iiiím91~ì:IIIßIII!.!i1êil!i!i1m1'!!\~!~li!~ll!!lJ!ÆIfflIIIiIIIII!II!IiI__iiIIl_lI!IIIíI!!ll.
61i!íiil'i~¡n¡:~~;i'iih¡¡¡NatiVe'süb' tadeisliall¡¡¡bEii····ti\déì:!·iisœri¡¡¡¡éì:!,',a·¡¡ ii~!i!I!!Iii~¡¡¡¡··iilililîi:IJ!n'MiilliIIl!lIiIJ!j,~IiIIIIII!_
"bm ";j""I,;"';'¡¡kiod,;<,¡¡J<i+V,."""+<>¡¡",,,,g""¡",^'^,,,><,¿';''''i'',,,,,Jt,,,,,,,,;,¡,,,/;;;,¡¡,,,,,,,'ji.;,,,,,,,JI:,¡,,ÆL,,,,,.,,Üi)" ,ik,. .J~L,./,." A, j 1.1\",.J", . , .," '" ,,,,¡ ,. .Ü,..k
(R 3/94)
jt! ~~
CI,!iI!!I:ì!àctiör¡:þ!'!r ASTM D-1557 to a m i¡jim urn d¢gth 01<Six,î"çl1es>priQr,>tQ:ii\ :!liliií¡¡1:I!!ìì:II:ìjII~II.IIII!i~_
'L ,"''' ,¡'''''''''',,''.'.''.'".'.""HH'''''"H., ,.""",.,.,,,.......".......... ....."......"".""."....,.".."".""..",,". ...",,,'.'..m"".o.·....,,,.....,,..,,,,,..Po.P. .",.""",w.o.o,.",,,,,..,,,11 ....1,.,,' ."'".....",, ....""/,.,,,.....
!1Iiijljc¡;tllrjltIS.ilci:ion.
19.62.110 Limitation on areas to be used.
No part of any front yard or exterior side yard (i.e. street side 01 a corner lot) shall be used for
off-street parking or access, except as noted in Sections 10.84.020 and 19.62.150 unless so authorized by the
zoning administrator, pursuant to an approved site plan. (Ord 2176 §6, 1986; Ord 1212 §1 (part), 1969;
(R 3/94)
/'/-7
Planning Commission Minutes - 3- Wednesday, June 24, 1998
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-98-o6¡ application to amend Chula Vista Municipal Code Section
19.62.100 to change "Temporary" parking from 6 months to 12
months and include parking pavement standards for private vehicular
areas into the Zoning Text.
Background: Nearly a decade ago, the City developed temporary and permanent paving
requirements for private parking lots. After adoption as policy by the Planning Commission, it
was made into an information handout for public distribution, which included pavement
standards for the Private Vehicular Areas and Parking Table. The handout was an accessory
to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 19.62.100.
In November 1997, the Engineering Division updated the paving standards to bring them into
conformance with environmental requirement. Some of the issues that precipitated the update
were:
· the materials (cut-back asphalt) were environmentally undesirable and have been
replaced with an emulsion composite,
· the local design standards were outdated; and
· because of problems related to the time frame for "temporary parking", which is
currently set at six months, staff is proposing that it be extended to 1 year. This would
allow temporary parking standards to coincide with the minimum Conditional Use
Permit of 1 year.
Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Reso. PCA-98-06 recommending
that the City Council approve the amended text to Chapter 19.62 - Off-Street parking and
Loading, of the Zoning Ordinance, in accordance with the draft City Council ordinance.
Commission discussion:
· Commissioner O'Neill asked if a tickler system is in place that allows staff to review at
the end of the 1 year term those cases where temporary parking has been permitted,
in order to ensures against temporary parking becoming permanent, non-conforming
if it is overlooked.
Ken Lee responded that there is a system in place in which the permittee is
notified via a letter a few months prior to expiration of the permit, which
informs them that they are required to either cease the business operation or
install permanent parking.
The temporary parking standards are in place for those instances where an
appl icant is proposing a temporary use for a one year period or less, not the
pumpkin patch and Christmas Tree sale lots, which typically do not exceed one
month of operation.
Attachment 1
/;j~~
Planning Commission Minutes - 4- Wednesday, June 24,1998
. Commissioner Ray asked what precipitated the review to amend this section of the
Municipal Code.
Ken Lee responded that this review came about as a result of the temporary
parking condition that was included in the Conditional Use Permit for the
swap-meet on L Street.
Public Hearing opened 7:23
No public input.
Public Hearing closed 7:23.
MSC (Ray/Willett) (6-0-1) that the Planning Commission adopt Reso. PCA-98-06
recommending that the City Council approve the amended text to Chapter 19.62 - Off-Street
parking and Loading, of the Zoning Ordinance, in accordance with the draft City Council
ordinance. Motion carried.
n Lee reviewed the calendar and stated that the next Planning Commission meeting is
8, a dinner workshop with a presentation by the Redevelopment Agency on Jul tho
. sion consensus is to have the workshop dinner begin at 6:00 a
OTHER BUSINESS
4. Ken Lee reviewed the Su
Commissioner Tarantino offer a
Recommendations" stating that the Co
budget, of their work-effort and service
various conferences.
wished to add a statement I 'cating that since the existing CUP
process does not h in place a mechanism by whicn follow-up or check that the
conditions of ap' val have been complied with, except thr h responding to a formal
outside com t; he is recommending that the City Council draft a r to the City Manager
on behal the Planning Commission, requesting that serious considera be given to look
atw to set up a program using interns or volunteers, to review all of the P's, and that
a al or bi-annual reviews be conducted to ensure that the conditions of appro I are being
omplied with.
/7'./7
\
RESOLUTION PCA-98-06
RESOLUTION OF mE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
RECOMMENDJNGTIffiCI1YCOUNCILAMTh1DMUNICIPALCODE TITLE 19, SECTION
19.62.100 TO AMEND TEMPORARY AND PERMANTh'T PARKING STANDARDS AND
INCLUDE PAVEMENT STANDARDS FOR PRlVATE VEHICULAR AREAS INTO TIffi
MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS, a City-initiated report regarding current temporary and pennanent parking
standards was presented to the Planning Commission for review pursuant to a reco=endation
regarding possible changes to the current Zoning Ordinance, Section 19.62.100; and,
'WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the Project is a Class
5 Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAs, the Planning Drrector set the time and place for a public hearing on said report
and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city for a minimum of ten (10) days prior to the hearing of the Planning
Commission; and,
'WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised., namely June 24, 1998
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth A venue, before the Planning Commission and said
hearing was thereafter closed; and
'WHEREAS, since that date and with recent changes to the temporary parking and paving
standards the Zoning Ordinance is proposed to be amended so as to properly provide continuity,
simplification and conformance with State regulations on pavement and composite materials,
NOW, TIffiREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
that the City Council approve the amendment to Chapter 19.62.1 OO(a) and (b) Pavement Standards
for Private Vehicular Areas in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained
in the attached City Council Ordinance.
BE IT FURTIffiR RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY TIffi PLANNING COMMISSION OF CIIDLA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 24th day of June, 1998, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Patty Davis, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
/ý~/¿;
-..., -.
- PAVEMENT STANDARDS FOR PP.IVATE VErICULAR AREkS
Areas upon pri vate prDperty whi ch are requi red -:D be paved per the various
City regul ati ons, or pursuant to condi ti ona 1 approval of the Planning
Commission shall be paved in accord with the requirements contained herein and
~Iith the standard specifications of the City. Such requirements shall apply
to all areas to be paved for the movement, parKing or storage of vehi cl es
except as specifically noted.
l. T£t.1PORARY USE (maximum of one year). Temporary pavement sha 11
consist of two (2) inches of compacted decomposed granite, the top one inch of
which has been treated with SC-250 aSDhalt road oil to form a water-resistant
and dus" free wearing surface. Penetrants shall be applied at such rates or a
sufficient number of times to produce the specified wearing surface. A weed
killer shall be applied in accord with the manufacturers instructions to the
entire area to be paved.
2. SEtI¡I-PER~1AIŒNT USE (maximum of five years). Semi-permanent pavement
shall consist of two inches of asphalt concrete pavement with seal coat placed
upon nati ve soil. Asphalt concrete shall be Type IIBII per Secti on 8 of the
Standard Specifications except that it shall be permissible to use 40-50
penetration grade asphalt binder as an alternate to óO-70 penetration asphalt
hi noer. P. Type IIAII seal coat per Subsection 8-08 of the Standard
Specifications shall be applied to the entire paved surface.
-
Nati ve soil to receive pavement shall be graded and compacted prior
to installation of paving material. A weed killer shall be applied in accord
with the manufacturers instructions to the entire prepared native base.
3. PERfI'iANENT USE. Permanent pavement shall consist of a minimum of two
inches of asphalt concrete pavement with seal coat, as described under
"Semi-Permanent Use" above, applied over a four inch aggregate base (Class 2A)
per Section 7 of the Standard Specifications. Native subgrade shall be graded
and compacted prior to application of the structural section.
Permanent areas for the storage only of passenger type vehicles may
be paved as specified under semi-permanent use. This reducti on shall apply
only to the specifi c storage areas and does not incl ude areas desi gnated for
parking or movement of vehicles.
4. DRIYEWA YS FOR ALL SINGLE-FAMILY, ATTACHED MID DUPLEX RESIDDJCES.
Dri veways for all si ngl e-fami ly, si ngl e-family attached, and duplex res i dences
shall be paved with a minimum of four inches (4") of concrete of a fi ve sack
mix. The Director of Pl anni ng may authori ze the use of other "permanent
pavement", as specified above, when it can be determined that concrete paving
would be unnecessary or impractical. Guidelines for such variance would be:
OLD VERSION
/2/--//
~-_._.._--_._._._-~ --- .'. -.--...-......----..-----
<I, ~,
,
a. :n an area where asphalt drives are u5!:'d exclusively or
predominantly.
b. Where lots are large or unusually deep setbacks prevail, th!:'
cost of using concrete may be unreasonable.
c. Driveways with sufficient slope to pennit good run-off, but l!:'ss
than 12:0.
(Resolution PCM-72-9, 7/18/72) ,
GEtERAL CmmITI D:JS
In ;;11 instances, pav!:'ment grades shall be d!:'sign!:'d and constructed so è,S to
pr!:'v!:'nt ponding of wat!:'r upon or adjacent to the paved surface.
Pav!:'m!:'nt shall be maintain!:'d in serviceable condition at all times. Patching,
sealing and/or repenetration shall be undertaken as necessary to maintain a
usabl e surface. .
t,jat!:'ri als and constructi on methods shall be adequate to accompl ish the
int!:'nded life and purpose of the specified class of pav!!11lent. The City
Engin!:'er shall have th!:' authority to deny final inspection and utility
approval for any property upon which such materials and methods are inadequate.
Th!:'s!:' specifi cati ons establ ish minimum acceptabl e standards. Hi gher Qual ity
mat!:'rials è,S approved by th!:' City Engin!:'er may be substituted in all cases.
DESJôN FOR UNUSUAL CJRC~~STANCES
Special design efforts are justified in all cases where:
1. Native soil is expansive, poorly drained or has a high clay cont!:'nt.
2. Traffic volumes are high.
3. Unusually heavy v!:'hicles are expected to utilize the pavement.
Relative to the paving of multiple, commercial and/or industrial properties,
the City Engineer may require the submission of a pavement design to
accommodate any unusual circumstances. Upon approval of the design by the
City Engineer, such design shall supersede the blanket requirements contained
herei n.
WPC 3529P
;1/--/:<
~ ~
.1
P¡',RK1NG TAB L ~
A B C 0 ElF G A B C D E F G
S'O" 8.0 12.0 23.0 28.3 --
£1£" 8.5 12.0 23.0 29.0 8161' 20.7 18.5 9.8 59.9 55.6
O· BID" 9.0 12.0 23.0 30,0 -- 60· 9'0" 21. 0 lB.O 10.4 60.0 55.5
91611 9.5 12.0 23.0 31.0 -- 9'6" 21.2 18.0 11. 0 60.4 55.6
10'0" 10.0 12 0 23.0 32.0 -- 10 I 0" 21.5 18.0 11 .5 61 0 56.0
E'OIl 14.0/12.0 23.4 40.0 31.5
B'óJJ 14.5 12.0 24.9 41.0 32.0 9'0" 21.0 19.0 9.6 61 0 57.9
20· 91011 15.0 12.0 26.3 42.0 32.5 70· 9'6" 21.2 18.5 10.1 60.9 57.7
0'''-'' 15.5 12.0 27.8 43.0 33.1
J D 10'0" 21.2 18.0 10.6 60.4 57.0
10'0" 15.9 12.0 29.2 43.8 33.4
8'0" 16 5/12.0 16.0 45.0 37.1
8'5J' 16.9 12.0 17.0 45.8 37.4 9'0" 20.3 24.0 9.1 64.3 62.7
30· 9'0" 173 12.0 18.0 46.6 37.8 80· 9'6" 20.4 24.0 9.6 64.4 62.7
91611 17.8 12.0 19.0 47.6 38.4 10'0" 20.5 24.0 10.2 65.0 63 3
10'0" 18 2 12.0 20.0 48.4 38.7
A''''U 19.4 13.5 12.0 52.3 46.5 9'0" 19.0 24.0 9.0 62.0 --
_ D
45· .9'011 19.8 13.0 12.7 52.5 46.5 90· 9'6" 19.0 24.0 9.5 62.0 --
916" 20.1 B.O 13.4 53.3 46.5 10'0" 19.0 24.0 10.0 62.0 --
In'o'' 20.5 1, n 14 1 :;4 n 146.9
*Min. Stall Widths Average gross ar.ea required for parking one car at
Std. Compact different angles: 60· = 280 sq.ft.
8'õ'" 7 161' = 0·-40· O· = 310 sq.ft. 30· = 310 sq. ft.
8'6" 7'611 = 41·-60· 10· = 350 sq. ft. 40· = 280 sq. ft. 80· = 275 sq.ft.
9'0" 7'611 = 61·-90· 20· = 400 sq. ft. 50· = 270 sq.ft. 90· = 275 sq. ft.
*Note: a) Compact space 7~' X 15' - standard. I~
b) Add l' in wi dth for all stall s
adjacent to any structures.
A PARKING ANGLE
B STALL WIDTH
C S7 ALL TO CUT?S
0 Þ.I SLE WIDTH G F
E CURB LENGTH PER CAR
F CURB TO CURB
G STALL CENER
/ f;o / :J
..-...., ,-\,
=....; I '"
~ - I
.<oJ ~ o9't7 UDI.l.J.. Þ~.1 J0.:l 'U!W ..0-,;1 $;
:; ß. 'U!W,,0-,91 I aADQI1 PUO cSt> J0.l 'U!I'II ,,0-,91 ~
~~ ~
"II>
11»
" II>
:="
~?-
~ ø
o~
to)..., -0 ~
m= to IQ)
~QJ ~
-.:J '"
"'~
~ '"
'" II>
~ ::¡;~
~ - I J'
It! _:= --I,
-...> ~~
OJ --
=:>
~.:::
:: cn-r-
-..- IV VI
~ -~
~ .=>~
~ ::sit!
"'-' 0"'-'
V) =:> '"
...., '"
--' QJICV _I
~ ~U'J~ o~~o~ =
= ~QJ~ ~~~~~Eo~
= = -0 ::1""0 .,..- 0 S- t: _ .,
- 5 ., aJ .::: .., Q.. n:I >., to S- ~ n:I õ.Eõ.
~==.c..Q) 0 rDU'+- :t: c
-.,...QJ Q, c",""C3:_.:::£~ ¡:o ~
~x>~~ .::: U'J~Un:l ~_~ 0
3: rc: QJ 0 x: ~ -a. VI t: ttI GJ >., eLl "' 3: ~ =C;:=J- 01
IDES- -- ID 1'O"0.=...J::QJ.QQ, u>E.. c:
~-.o.. 3: en It) p. .,..-.. ..) Q..~ > -;¡ CI ....__
-- Q) .. - 0 U'J OJ ""C .,.... &J ~ 0 CÞ~ Õ OJ
VI_ 0__ Q. II) r& U') ::_..- QJ aJr- S- .t: 4Þ ZQ..I- a::~
IV ~ >~ c. .... m__..!:I> Q)""O U) "C t ...J
u> 0 - ""'0_ rei 1'0 --~ U) ..
-- Q) ~ U'J "'::J ¡¡:; ~ Q) S- S- -0 ~ .::: -r -e=
,.-,....,....-,.... l¿¡ ..f.,.).. ..)ttftn..- U)Q) - :;.0
~ I'C s.... ::I E n:I U'J 0--0 :;:¡;.oj-) __ QJ r¡:> '~ u:=
::I~3:QJO ::J r-ev t:oU'J 3: in"""--
~U'JQJ>.=. ~ _ :::I""CU)QJ..J::tD..-....., ,~_
0-0_ II) Z 0')(1)_""" U'J GJ_ Q) _
n::sE--s... -= Q.lQ.. X -rø..Q
~"'''= ~ ~ >,11>>, :;0 ~
Ore 0 c;; '+-ro: ro.., QJ
~ Q)QJ- Q103:..t:3:n:lQJU
U'J..J::.J::.. ..) .c Q,lUQJ..c::: _ >.
~-- .0,...)..0...> -- c:]: > __ > -# n:I 0 C
::I VI . 0 0 Q).,.....r:....... 0') ..¡..) -.> .' ¢ ~
""""t:nrn..::: ., Æ_ cn_s...3':s-t::... .JU'Jo U') IÞ
;:I")n:lC:,:::ro E ~= .->-c ""C_rtS_o ~
=..r=____s... ...J . n:I ,.... ........J::""O~ ....
_..o...>~s-~ ~~ U'J.....,_QJ_~ 0
II') U:::5 ?: ~ ""C--.-ro~ttS -em _
..,...~Q)UU') ~ ~ r-~x~~~..¡..)Q)= _
:...oU)U)_ III =:smm oz-o ö:i
..,....~.:J.=. Q. 0> QJ'+-~O-,-
~~wo~ E ~-.-~~oo~=:s~
-.-U~ c.. U')~ro.,.... 0--...=:1
XQ)C=~ ""C __QJ..c~Q)
Q) (I)..,.... 0 . (I) ~ :::n~ U ~"'::J
~.:::..! - - r-cvcv>t"'::J:::S1O Q)
>t~Q)~__ __~>..¡..)Q)UQ)Q)U
~o~ ~ m~Q)~~:::5
~-.-C~~ ~ ~ s..Q)Q)~~~"':'
U) QJ~I+-rc: -- ":::'Q)c...~..co Q)
..¡..) >__Q)UQ) E' Q)~-=O~ L.I....s..
*1- -.-tn~ ... =__~~.. oX
X s.. ~ Q) ......, ~ .'- 3: c.....~ __ Q)
LU -:;:I 10-":: r- .::¿ OJ . 1'0..,::)
S-N.~ ~ U) Q) . tth-.J::r- ~
~ "'::J~LO 0 »s...:::..! mLl)r-Q)~
ro Q. ~ ..¡..)Q)--o3:__m""'Cro
3: .o..n::s"'OCIJ s..'+-rt5~Q)r-3:-.-==
- QJ == Q) ~. Q) s..::: "'0..0 U')
> ro:aJJ::::..""'::::Jro:tn .o..QJQJ~..,....ro:~_
...... :"'>00__= Y o~""'Cs::U)..¡..)roQ.J_
s.. ro~o~o s..~..,....~ tn-='='~
c c:::..:U)-=~_ )1/-) Q..·.-ClJun:sQJ~..¡..):;:
-., 1
E !"')
~ I
~ 0
= !"')
- - - I
:- 0"1 O"H..::> ~ -'
::>N....-..- ~ "-
I I I
- - - - - - -
~ OO"""'L.'")oo:::tMN
MN...._r-___
~
'"
a>
U ~
!" b =
-
'" 0:: .' :E:
a> ~ CD ~
~ -
'-' u - - - - - - -
.. ~ ONoo:::t'l.OCODo::T
õ' MMt"')M("I")oo:::t~
'" ~
~ Il.
OJ ~ .,
> 0_
- -~
'- -..,
=:. co ..
~>
~
~
= ·0 E
-
z ,
-N ::<
z
....
~'"
"..
0-:>
~ a>
-:> ""'
s...-Ë I
a> >'" '-
> 0'- ~ a>
0'- "'''0
Q.a> UI::
'" .~ ::>
Q) a>.... ....
Q."::> ¿ J:: a>'-'-
0 ~ 0 Q.a> '"
~-:>o ::< - 0> U
"'~ .. ~ '"
::>a> .. -0 J:: "''''~ .~
'- O=>. J:: N c. .' D a> 0
0-= 0 o~~ CD ~ =>.'" 0>
'-'- "'~ ~,,(I) Erts.., . I::
VI I'tI U U Q.J .~
0> ....c. '- "'u >
. I:: a> J:: C.E ~....", '"
~ O~ ~~D C. ~-::4- 0.
Lon,..... ., ~I/)II:: E -'" 0'-
~ u::> ·
....~ ~~ >,1:: '" U
a> a>~ . ~-.... ·
..::> a>'" E'" c. I:: 1::-= U
~-= ,,- E 0 ~a>"" ·
~ E . co '- >- c..
~""a> - .. II:: "0 a> a>~
"'-== xc. a»s.... ·
- 0>0 co 0 s...cuc..s... a>
"'- ::<Üi -~ a> '-
a>.... ::::5 0_ C. ~
a> '" 1:r::I: r- e-
o..... a> "'::>
0 '" =>. '- -= -'" -
~ 1'tI=: . '" 0
'" Q)", ~ "'".. '-
~ '- 0:: 1::0 1::0 "..
~ ::< ~ o~ 0 N
E ..µ cu - - - a> ~
rts 10-= .. ~ U)~ C')
s.... .... eN:' -0 J:: --0-,.... rc: ~
~ , D "'a> "'.~ 0
'" Õ~ 0:::::.2 ÍD ~ =Q}~s...
a> 5-_ 0 ~IIU) ~ rts U rts s... '"
E"µ ...c. s...XS-rtS ~ a>
-'--"':' J:: C.E ~QJ"µU "0 "0
X "'= . ~~ D "'a>
~ I::a>~ 1-1/)11:: '- '-
'" ~ .. O>.~
So-.:: Q) a> ::>
;a Q)..¡...)UCf) ...., '- 0-
~ "'...., /9//5' 0 o a>
~ >- "'a>_ z: u. '-
Il<t\l"""""" "'t:,S,m "'i:I""',ij':~""îi:Il""""'te:¡~"'~JiIIg!i~rr_
"""+fi'mJ¡!!i!++b,+,!!,,í!~,,~¡ ,!i!+",,~!~í!"++d!!' ,,', , l" ,~" ""''''''
1.~:I!!!ìi!~¡¡¡¡:liiïliMat!!¡liiïl!1;!Iii!iiI!!~!iwl:îi!iil:î!iar!!.¡Jf~!äí1íjïl!!!J!!!it¡¡¡!i~!*':liia,¡¡e!il!iœ¡mliIIDIIIIilIlSilllillllrilmlltll_1'1I
ß ",j' 1 ",,0>,., ,bj1,+,¡' ",,+:bi¡:wnd¡ :;;""," 1m ,U/ 1:::;,U;'1'00;;,),,,,,,,,';,,,,,;,;:;,,,, ;"''''+,U1j:;;01"q1'''~j,k'''",+ii"nA¡ N n;iL,j, t 1 " h ""g j) ¡" 1_ , "L,)' ;, Ai u
IiI.Ui!ïm~~IiI!i!1l~~¡ti'Iil!ïIìI!iIìIiiÏi1!JfIils¡a:I:¡liIfi:tlli¡¡¡gR¡¡¡î!ßjililg¡'!!!;liIl!m¡I!mlli1î!:!~IIIIII"lil__11II
1 j w¡d,,,, , +7; ""'¡' IL !il1ièkŒUi¿db" ,) ,'mY",;";""",1, ;;;1¡)¡;¡,j,¡¡;,;¡¡;¡1u//ihAè",L ;¡L;¡;1j iLLA,i,,,) ,1, J111.JilLd,", ,n n¡" 1 ,I ¡, j 1 P '}k 1 ,;;,;
111~B!!i¡fti!Imt,\iì!i!I!ii::!1I¡¡¡ß~iilil!~::I!i¡jjïleil1!¡!äiIiI¡¡¡!imíl:im j¡!itl:îi!¡:~mï!i:lï!¡r¡¡ ¡!~i\tiIiñl"IIJ1H!lliIIlllrI'.:II~
' 1 \1), '" ~,,i ;,0",.;:);' 1 1,1, ")",, ,',hi;,;;";"';'""u./u";""""""",,k;,,,iJ;,,/ki ;U,,! ';¡'";k"A,,,>,,,,~H¡:,,,,,,,~,,; m ¡j: 0"'+' d J ''"' 1 ¡ '"" ',1
_~!I1i.ililïï¡:aifi!j¡ ¡;ãï!~¡;im¡jjiiì¡¡¡I!iJ¡jj¡j¡¡¡¡;!iJïI!iJìi¡;¡Ï!Ï!Ii!!iïi!ï!¡¡j¡;II!ii!iti!ml!:!ÎiIiIl.V,II1IJ1iIl.I_1IIII1
.j L.", "H",L,,1 L u1!X"",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,umu ,k, "J,.,.".,.,,,,mHH "''''''"",."""" dh",,, '" """,j,;", ",,'P", ,p, .", j "w,"""~+ j."". .", PL" u: , "'N' j ¡, '" ", 'm'"
_lìIII¡jjïlimr¡ji¡ lí!ì~êJìIII~ïiI~ìim,¡ri!!êJ:I!I:í!i!l¡!iI!!i!MIIØ,f,I~III¡;¡Iä:¡~Î~III!¡~.~II¡IIiI_!111"1111111II'11II1
" ,-8,. ",,,,,,,,,,,,/û, I,U,m"<,';'"",.,,,,,,,,,,,,,, !1,"U"""mbw. "",1,\..,1.1"_,,,.,., ",·"111\''''''''''''''''''''',1.,,,",:1 : Hi, jj. 1 p" ','j' ·,·"""ft" '" ',j j ) L m' 1 A!, , 1
_!I!!iI~II1II~~~I¡!lli~l1!¡l1ilImli!ll~!,!II~f¡~~I!i!liI:~~ !¡¡!!ij¡\'!~~I¡fli!"lm~~I¡I!iJIIMI!tI\1I1111~.~_.j.llt!lI!l!IIIJ
.\I!íijämll!!'!iiJl!¡jjí¡ijíí¡í¡ij¡¡II~"ï]ïilI~ï
,'U " ,. ,,.; ·mdL" db",-<:;'""",,,,,,,,,' J1b:.","::'';;''''''
ft¡¡ ~¡¡¡l'N!\I!~R~R1i!!'i\!iI~~!'I!!JI~xíïT!ïili!!ì!'ltïft:¡¡ß¡jj¡¡&!eal']I¡!'!¡!I1¡¡i!!ìIilIl{._I_~~
j,h 'N,""''',,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,, "j" '.m. ."pmMn""""",.""n",""p,""",,, .".,.,,,,.,.,:17;1"'h:/,1,,,)\.,,,,),,3"-11 """"L ti " ' '" "
_~1OOì1µ~ï!IiI!iïI!l!~;!~II~i!!i!~!iïI!l!i;!~i!~II!!Ii!!~J[~HIII~!ijII¡¡¡¡I!I!I'¡¡¡iiìl¡;¡¡¡lim¡I11¡11i1111111~.!III_
\limIIil!BiIIl~im~~!!lII¡j!iïIHî!~!!iï!i1llm!iï:I~!i1Êl!iJllill~!ì'!I~~tft¡¡ml:~li!!îlll~ìi!~II!:1:¡;¡!i1ilffiiRI_"'__
_1¡¡¡'lffirl:în~'T'!:I¡¡I~jJ(!jl:rle'fli'·~ß'Hîìllllír!iljj:IllIIIIII~_IIII!I!IIIII.
'"",I, ",,,,:,,,j~;j;:i~,;;;~,ij:¡L;:;;,,;!gl¡U!~J~it;jLjL:,:,;,::1,d1im¡tJiH~;m¡¡¡}¡!~~";,¡M#;!~~:jlL¡,i,¡j,;",J~mL:,,,ML' ;,1,'", 1 11 1 ¡ :, '~ , '" ,I,,, ' . ..
III!!Ifl!.¡;¡i!tIa!Jiemmijffl¡r;w~¡¡K¡'III"lsl ¡¡all¡¡¡!I!':¡¡II'img:tI.!i·:tl:le>el!\:tíœ~1m!ii!t1l!l!'1IiI!!!:ïïHl.¡r!IIIIIIIIIII!III..:t~
:" '" ",,1 ",:: 'L1""""Li""",;,;,rtn¡;~,iUg:;";~";,,;,,¡L::;~,,,,~,,iF"L:""';,;,i!i:';i~i;;,J~IP.;J)",;",;¡;,,,,,,F';';'11;n1j,,::+,,~,Lj11;:¡¡n1J1'",': ,11'/;¡':"",,11 ,11 "," ,I,,¡,, ¡J, ,1"", , ,did'; ,,,,1:
~.I_lIffi~t~If¡¡¡~~~::m1!ìï!f!ilI!iJI!iJ~t ¡~i\tì2'iiì~!'
l.ïIi¡¡~lr':I·t"····'··········r¡¡I:î-I:î¡;·II¡br:êJr:nt1!li!r·MITIW.~III~._._
1/' , ",u!, ,,) 1!irn~it!~~L ;tm~IiIi1f:IM;f¡Moo.~';t§,;~"J~L<!~~,,,";111J:¡j;¡~~~,,'¿b"'1i:,,;;;,,,,,~~h;~,jit ' 1 â, " 11 1 1 "'" " ,
h_'I!í~~;¡;rIJf~!ii~!!ç n!i!!ìr.(!jeIIMi!!Ø;tlJs:llìia~¡¡¡¡¡'iïïl1il¡;¡êJï!ì!1!·l'e!îmll~¡;i!;Uíi!llmBll!lllíllllllln~_I!iï.!II
' 1 H! ¡fi ' .1iu: ~,,~§ti¡,l;t¡; ,;" ¡; ",b,"";,;",¡;11";"~;":; :;;,;:,;";"",,,,,,,,,,,, 1'1'1""1""" r',L.""'1'I":'1''''''''111'1h11,:;,11 1~",,:,,;u1 1J~J!I .,"1,1,., ,,,",,"" L , ¡, ,j" / " j'j ¡; .., '"'''' ,,1.1.
I!IID!lî1I~~llIIm¡!Ii!~!m1~i!~!il.míi!!lillgÊi\~j¡¡¡H
¡m~ ~~!\l!!II$I!~Ril'N!\,*,IìiII!iIìil'¡lnEII:JSI!iE(i!!ì····ÍÎí .··uìlllnïilf,¡f,ive.:.··.eåjj!Ï¡mm$···I'ifi:imJlli!l!íiI!!_III..~_1
'"'''' '"'''''' ""'" '"'''''''''''' ""'"'''''''''''''''' """"~",Q:I'",,,,,..,,"'''''o,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,'''''''''o,,,1'''':1¡mj,,;¡.;.L j .",,, /, / " j j ,,' 1.1,1."",,'
1I.~Eillll!i!~!!!lljof,r:a:ìi~l1íam!;jIj1!:I.!iß!;jí!ef!!gl1!aMei!!ì!1í!!t::Wit ¡¡:rìi[¡1j;\I:r(!j!i!!iI.m:lJ!mä__[II-.J!iIIIIIIIII!1
'" 1.1,)0 ¡Cj,.11,/¡U 11" , 111,'1¡,;:iJi!::+iL11::": :+:L'"1111::i:::iL",,:;hU;;1,:!d1,,di ,,,:c,,Lh,::,,,,,;,,,,'¡,,,,!1,¿,,;,", ,;,dL",;:,;;::11":;,:",,,1 ') ,;;:v; 1;,' F f ,1 1. h, 'I' b', ," ",' " "'''''''
ï!IiIï]I1!m1I!fHI:î '1IiIllIillrBII!@ils!1i!III" 'fUä'liírlli!íliKl1!1Ií111111ßIIIII_iI
: ~ /,1; 11L,";~¡¡m¡:L~;;u¡LJ~aUWiIffi~¡;'11j!jj¡;;;jjë~~j¡',"¡::;;j¡~~j~,;;;:;~~;jj:;;i:::;;~Hª~H ,~~~J:11/>J¡tJ:":1.1,j~,";' ,1" Ii" ",:",j "L , , ,n, "",;,1;1 '1.1 '¡L,
~1I!i!1fi¡¡1I~Ï!l"""'f,'" ····I!ïeA···I:îI· ""W" {····¡¡¡··········t·······í¡ijf····························t·11:î·f¡'·I'I!iiIla:I¡.lIIì'lrJIII.¡m'!i!liII.i!!'iB_~
. ,',)l II ¡¡¡W,, I, g c\,J,JQ:r·,·;!1!W ,~.n"QI11~,r:¡¡' L)'l"gfi¡¡¡¡ 'fi¡ 'E ,h , .' . , , ' '.' , ' ,', ,¡ ,
,,;, ,1, ,1iI,111,;"WW '",U,j,~i.1,¡,;,'"1iW,;"o,'"j,11L"oj"","",,j,"'''''''' ",,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9, "(;o""",~",,~,;,, '''''''''''''~'''''". "H'''' m i ,., àl1 ,,1 ,,} ",.11111 "" n¡Ù!¡¡¡",1.dm11111'¡U j,j,
lI~ilh!!l~n~1!I1!iJ¡¡m1III~:~\J1'IIi!1,IIíi1Jf\J1I1!i!¡,Iº'¡~~¡¡¡:¡!JQI¡!I:~Ii!,~i!1,I!1!li1!I!iJ1!!íì!lH[IImII[~.I!1iü' iIJJij:lVallll!l!!lillljllmlU
_!liIïIi:¡!!!!I!III~~m~:!I!I:Q!¡IIi¡¡~,~ªI¡ì¡:!'ªiJ:\\!º'¡:~!!giºï!íi!lI¡:$!tlJI!!Ï!I¡¡ìIII!I!!i!¡:i1NI!iJi!f¡I!íI~.i!_IIIII.mllllllliinlWJ¡1!rI.
","'UM"""''',j,j,~,j"'¡,,,'''',,w,'''',,j,,,',,,'','''',,'''',,',,,,',',,','' , ,""""''', ,""""""''''','''''' ," "")"",,,,1, ",j",,1, ","',' 141,,;'1/1 A, 11 "Hi" 1, "",,,,,,,,,,,..,,,,,,,,,\1 ",.>1 ", ",', ,',
h"III:!Mi·!;j·.'í ..'.,!'!§.. ·l!alt:eìlll···lsÎCi¡:1c¡ìirra:Uil:îË!iå ·····'li!ifô.::t¡¡¡¡:tneiË!m:tíí!i!ijäa:_¡:I,'!iI:_
" !1"d,,,,,,,~,,"~utml,Ií!1:,,]!+'''''''';~''''',,I:!,'''''''',.,.,'''',.,'"".,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,JJ, :!,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, '"'''''''''''''''''''' ""'",, """",b,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ". ". ,,"
!IIIilllilli!¡:~!!îill:ti:!¡:ftŒ!!i\l!!¡:I!I!ª\lgïT!Eo\bt!sl'¡ªl!Inp1j:gÎ'ªî;lJjj¡¡ L's!:iª~¡íieî;I¡I¡:iíîî!î;I¡lI!IiII!iJI~_.II__~1IIIIIIIIIIIII
," "L"""""~"",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, """"""""""" "'" "'" ''','''''''',' '" """" '" ,,,,,J, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :f;..", "';\"'''' ,111 111111111 , Jj,,,].1),,, "
~ill~iilli!ll!iiºml!ï¡¡~¡ºI¡ìII:I!!!!I'::i%:$!TI[l'N!\:.,ª~!jI!!!!:¡ru::tI.!iI:ìlímïT!ií:jílí!ìï:í!iï11¡¡j1ìÏi1:t j¡':í!!~Im!IIJI!!1i~~_:1M
,I. 1.',',,'11""'1,"'11'"1'1'1,1111','1'11'''''''''1'1,''''1'''''1'''','''," """'+1"""'11",1>:.','+"111"""1"'''''\''1' ,11"'''';' j,pn1,j¡,dC;;""" "j " ,,' " ,,' j" "" ,5"
iIIII1IIglrr~glrn······· ¡¡lrl:î·rìii·······I1íTr~~..n_JI
" "·,II!li!!I!i!Ê,ii!'IH¡lli·L'I:~!i!~L¡:,J",!i!£¡~iili.m,,!ffiI~li!li!li!I1!ìHml:!lm"!i!Hfil1I1L!If!i1IIIi!,I,,,,,:,, I :", ,i,,,, , . . ,1+1, . . ,. I
._¡¡II!iï!!ïl!:Hîí¡¡~~!ï~1!f¡r:~llríi1¡¡¡91!iJrj'¡§\J1¡gØ!,19í!!~i
\!I~~~~N~rsJ:r¡;·~1M§8'm: ?;~~I !'I¡¡!,!~I¡ì!:IIi!¡¡'!1II'¡Miì;!fflïl1!'!~îI!¡¡'!!IIï!º~~1~!!íl¡¡'II!lJm¡iIIIIIIll!l!Mllil!lIl!lmli
II!I!lI!h¡¡!li~~JI!!1I~j!),tJ¡ïI:Ï!iíîillíi1rj'¡!jIi!l:~~'itÞII~§ii¡I~9i!1,tij::iml:!Î!j~¡¡¡~1,~~IIIJI!!íI@rmlm_._III_
IiIll!f~~II~!!mll!llffig!ll~iligj!¡!im:mÞi¡¡¡~':<¡1I~~lllJlllIggf¡!!gª~'I~iíî~jj!II~!I:~!íiIlIf¡HllllglI!lill__I!iJ_~
!ì_IliIii'IIiII i)!j)¡¡r~lf"¡31!1:r·····"'K·rS'rli!t·~¡jjJl!!ílm!ï!l.!lI_"'I.~lInlI.
j""¡;,,,,,+¡,ILiU,!,,IiI:·Iº.lmffl;:¡¡.~.I!i1g~~g!ll:!m¡¡. ¡llrn~I!î,~I !'II1!I¡::I !'I",¡., ,:" ,1'.1, , .'. , ',. ,., H· :,
m·ïï:im!ili!!ì·····I·· ........ ··········r··········,A.!S¡;¡;:MQ'~ô5'ZNr'!ïllrnß¡;Ií!I_.II.III_
,L. !,:,I¡,r"..,,,,r,;:I:ïI~!I:!!!Iìi~I¡~ºm~~¡¡;lgnp!i1f;:L"'III:!,;::;::¡"1.,;,:!i;:;:,¡¡,iiI;,!:m~;:~,I ¡1"J!!IiI., ,!,,,I!ì,r,,,, ¡ . ,;.. " .". '. . .,,1 ,
ï!IiIlmt,îI!¡¡;!~:III!!II~~irl9!;rj'¡!!11.1.1!iJ9!J11:[~ a:!jillËiI~91i!111mi!1,miI!9.!11IIIi!!!i~:1mmrfii!IIIHMI.~iI!!II~II!iïI!Jj .~I.
1!I!._:r¡niíî!¡,t¡! ·······I·lItìör1ICif·tl'¡¡¡¡¡· "n¡¡ltiì!:::ø:¡¡:ti!!:!!i!ïlI!l~tlJJfíi!ll!!~milli!!!i1
,,¡¡ô ,i."""/!;Im,:1~h":i!¡!,~JtBg¡,;!!~,,,,, :" ,;,:;'1:;";,, '1 ,1,1:, ';";1§R"j;;,;;;;111;;;<;;!1H:;1;mJ¡;;~';;;";11,,,,";',!111;:;:,11111;1¡,¡;j,11!",'''''''''''',111,1,;:i!i
!l:t~¡¡!!~I¡¡¡teaìi!I(Øt:tl'¡e,'5tc¡r.àgè,(JI11¡'Y:;:ºf¡Pa~~!ilì;!gìl1r,~M'm!ilI!lìi~niì!:I!$IIIíi!:1i~I¡!I!!ï__IIII~illIIII¡I..
'!M¡,¡id,I'!h, ""''':'11'11';''11''1''''';':'1","' ";",,,,1'0"'"""""" " '" """" "" ",,,,~ "" ,',,""","" "",,,'0"" ,,,'LL"1..";'''''''';1;j',;;::''''''''';,d:d ,;, "~, ',"~' ,'" ,', ,,' :, ~, ¡ ,h ,m
~1.!iI!n!§:~ll1!:tmJ'>:!mr¡:!U.$E'm~:mrhis.[~~gï!!!!!JI¡ì:I:i:iiì¡l~mʺ!I1!º1i!!!11~¡¡mili!i!JilII~lII¡¡!!I[_!IIIII!!I!I.II_1II
.r~.liïI~¡¡~!:i!1,iiì9ii!li.!':>~~.;t ¡l:!t;ihql.\1q¡¡:.~m~¡¡,~:,<i!~~ig,iiì~!.~ql:í!':>~:'~!iíÊ~i.lI!îlllI!ml__.I"'II1III.~
/Lj--/ú New Version
" "
..
I f\C,",CIVCU
.-:-....\ ----
to' 61997
~~~ , PLANNING
~ M
E M 0 R A ND----u-I\1:-
m'1I' (C f
~~
November 5,1997
File No. 0600-80-EY028
TO: Ken Lee, Acting PlanniTlg Director
FROM: Cllif 'won""" _ ""'Ifu W",'" Di=úx1City ~
SUBJECT:
Temporary Parking Paving Standards
This is in response to your mcmDJ'1Indnm of October 27, 1997 regarding tcmporaIy parking paving
rcquiremenIs. The existing standards call for two inches of compacted decomposed granite with
the top one inch treated with "SC-250 asphalt road oil". However, the use of SC-250 liquid
asphalt, a solvent-based "cutback" oil, was phased out several years ago by the Air Pollution
Comol District. We have also reviewed the standards for semi-permanent and permanent use
pavements and have determined that they are also outdated.
Therefore, the Engineering Division recomm""d~ that the "Pavement Standards for Private
Vehicle Areas" be revised as follows:
Areas upon private property which are required to be paved per the various City
regulations or pursuant to conditional approval of the Planning Commi~sion shall
be paved in accordance with the requirements conl1linf"il herein and with the
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction ("Greenbook") and any
amendments or supplements thereto, including the San Diego Regional Supplement
.AroP.T1dments and the City of Chula Vista Standard Special Provisions. Such
requirements shall apply to all areas to be paved for the movement, parking or
storage of vehicles, except as specifically noted.
1. TEMPORARY USE (Maximum of one year): Temporary pavement shall
I
I consist of two (2) inches of compacted disintegrated granite, the top one
I inch of which has been treated with CRS-2 or CMS-2 asphalt emulsion to
form a water-resistant and dust-free wearing surface. The asphalt emulsion
i shall be applied at such rates or a sufficient number of times to produce the
I specified wearing surface. A weed killer shall be ¥plied to the entire area
, to be paved in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
j
I
I As an alternative for pavements which will be used exclusively for the
,
,
movement and parking of heavy trucks, processed miscellaneous base,
included recycled asphaltic concrete base, may be substituted for
disintegrated granite.
/f-/7 Attachment 2
, ~
I
Ken Lee Page -2- November 5, 1997
2. SEMI-PERMANENT USE (Maximum of Five Years): Semi-permanent
pavement shall consist of two inches of asphaltic concrete pavement with
seal coat placed upon Dative soil. Asphaltic concrete shall be Type ill,
Class B2 or Class C2, as specified in Section 400-4.3 of the "Green Book",
except that it shall be permissible to use AR-2000 asphalt cement as an
alternate to AR-4000 asphalt cement. A seal coat in conformance with
Section 302-5.10 of the San Diego Regional Supplement Amendments
using an RS-l or equivalent high viscosity asphalt emulsion shall be applied
to the entire paved surface.
Native soil to receive pavement shall be graded, scarified, and compacted
to 95 % minim11IIl relative compaction per AS1M D-1557 to a minimum
depth of six inches prior to installation of paving material. A weed killer
shall be applied to the entire prepared Dative soil in accordance with the
manufacturer's recommendations.
3. PERMANENT USE: Permanent pavement shall consist of a minimum of
two inches of asphaltic concrete pavement with seal coat, as described
under "SEMI-PERMANENT USE" above, applied over a four inch-thick
Class IT aggregate base or better. Aggregate base shall comply with
Section 400-2 of the San Diego Regional Supplement Amendments and
shall be compacted to 95 % minimum relative compaction per AS1M D-
1557. Native subgrade shall be graded, scarified, and compacted to 95%
minimum relative compaction per AS1M D-1557 to a minimnm depth of
six inches prior to application of the asphaltic concrete structllra1 section.
Permanent areas for the storage only of passenger-type vehicles may be
paved as specified under "SEMI-PERMANENT USE". This reduction in
structllra1 section shall apply only to the specific storage areas and does not
include areas designated for parking or movement of vehicles.
Please note that temporary pavement is recommended for a maximum of one year, although the
nnmicipal code specifies a rimeframe of six months. Also, processed miscellaneous base, which
includes recycled asphaltic concrete base material, is not being recommended for general parking
under "TEMPORARY USE" due to potential roU2'hneSS and variations in surface texture, which
could cause significant trip and fall injuries compared to a smooth wearing surface.
KP Alkpa
H:\HOMEIENGINEER\LANDDEV\PVT]A VE.KPA
/ ';1---/ ?
-----_.._------.- ~. ""-,-.-...--.. --~---_._--_.---.
Attachment 3
Definition of Terms
The meanings of the following materials and standards used in the Zoning Text Amendment,
Attachment 1 to the staff report, are:
ASTM D-1557 American Society Testing Materials
and Test Methods. This is used to make
certain that material compaction is
done correctly.
CRS-2 Rapid setting catatonic emulsion standard for
homogenous mixture of water and
asphalt.
CMS-2 Medium setting catatonic emulsion standard
for homogenous mixture of water and liquid
asphalt.
ARlOOO Vicosity grades of liquid asphalt; thickness.
AR2000
/ '1--/1
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: ]5
Meeting Date: 08/] t /98
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: DRC-98-16A - Appeal of the Decision made by the Design
Review Committee and upheld by the Planning Commission - Hyun/JVP,
Ltd./Autoplex, Appellant
Resolution No. . J 71 Y.Q..~ A Resolution of the City of Chula Vista City
Council upholding the decision of the Design Review Committee and
Planning Commission and denying an appeal to Design Review Case
Number DRC-98-16
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Building K
REVIEWED BY, Ci~ M,"",,~ ~ ~ (41S"" Vo", Y,"-"oX)
On April 3, 1998, the Appellant filed an ap al to~e Design Review Committee's conditional
site plan and architectural approval of ai, 677 square foot, two story office building located at
1450 Broadway, DRC-98-l6, to the Planning Commission, based on the attached statement
submitted with the appeal form. At its meeting of May 13, 1998, the Planning Commission held
a public hearing to consider the appeal and voted to uphold the Design Review Committee's
approval of DRC-98-16 and deny the appeal. The Appellant subsequently appealed the Planning
Commission's decision on May 29, 1998 to the City Council. Both appeals are Attachment I.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the attached Council Resolution No. DRC-98-16A
upholding the decisions of the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission and
denying the appeal to DRC-98-16.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On May 13, 1998, the Planning
Commission voted 6-0-1 to adopt Resolution No. DRC-98-16A upholding the decision of the
Design Review Committee and deny the appeal (see Attachment 2).
On March 23, 1998, the Design Review Committee conditionally approved DRC-98-16 by a vote
of 3-1-1 (see Attachment 3).
DISCUSSION:
I. Proiect Description/History
The Project Applicant's application is for a 1,677 square foot, two story office building
located at 1450 Broadway on a vacant 4,544 square foot parcel along with parking and
associated site improvements. The parcel is located at the northwest corner of the
Autoplex, the Appellant's property.
/5;-01
Page No.2, Item No.: 15
Meeting Date: 8/11 /98
This Project was originally considered by the Design Review Committee on December 15,
1997, at which time it was continued for an indeterminate period to allow the Applicant
to explore the following issues, as described in the attached letter dated December 19,
1997:
A. The use of reflective glass should be reevaluated.
B. The site plan should be revised and possibilities for shared circulation and parking
in conjunction with the neighboring parcel should be investigated.
C. The conceptual landscape plan should be reconsidered.
D. There should be more compatibility between this and the adjacent site and
buildings.
In the subsequent revised submittal for this Project, which was conditionally approved on
March 23, 1998, the Applicant complied with these conditions as follows:
Compliance with Condition A. The Applicant submitted a revised materials board which
indicated a less reflective glass. Both boards will be available on May 13, 1998 for review
by the members of the Planning Commission.
Compliance with Condition B It is staff's understanding that the respective property
owners were unable to come to any agreement on the matter of shared parking and
circulation. Although preferable, in staff's opinion, joint access and circulation is not
essential for either development to be able to function properly and they can operate
independent of each other.
Compliance with Condition C. The conceptual landscape plan was revised and approved
by the Design Review Committee on March 23, 1998.
Compliance with Condition D The Applicant's architect revised the building's
architecture to be more compatible with the adjacent site and buildings. In staff's opinion,
the proposed office building offers an architecturally superior design for the Broadway
window to that of the industrial-type buildings which occupy the area to the south and east.
This can be seen in the elevations, cross sections and materials board.
2. Basis of Appellant's Appeal
The Appellant claims that by approving DRC-98-16, several guidelines in the Design
Manual related to compatibility, building placement, vehicular access and circulation, and
)5'- c2.,
Page No.3, Item No.: 15
Meeting Date: 8/11/98
architecture were violated. The specific citations are in the attached statement submitted
by the Appellant.
3. Staff's Response to A¡¡.pellant's Appeal
In the appeal statement, the Appellant mentions several issues as bases for overturning the
approval and either denying the Project or significantly modifying it. It should be noted
that not all of the issues listed below fall under the authority of the Design Review
Committee to approve or deny, nor are they relevant in the appeal. For example, items
A, B, C and D are standards to which any developer may build by right, as long as other
design review criteria, as outlined in the Design Manual, are met. The issues in the
Appeal are outlined below:
A. Substandard lot size.
B. Building setbacks.
C. Building height.
D. Insufficient on-site parking for the proposed commercial building.
E. Lack of landscaping or hardscaping.
F. Problematic site access.
G. Lack of reasonable relationship to the surrounding Autoplex.
H. Blockage of signs.
I. Interference with neighboring businesses.
Staff Responses:
Issues Not Under the Authority of the Desi¡In Review Committee
A. Substandard lot size - This is an issue which falls outside the purview of the Design
Review Committee's authority because it is not related to design. However,
notwithstanding the fact that the parcel size is nonconforming (4,544 sq.ft. vs.
5,000 sq. ft.), the Project parcel is a legal lot ofrecord and the property owner can
not be denied his/her right to develop under these circumstances. The test for
development of a parcel relies on whether or not the building and associated
parking fit on the parcel and whether or not the other required City standards can
be met. This evaluation is done through the Design Review process and is not
determined by whether or not the parcel is substandard in size.
B. Building setbacks - This is a Zoning Ordinance requirement not related to design.
If the building were unable to meet the setbacks, a variance would be required.
The Design Review Committee does not have the authority to consider variances.
It should be noted, however, that the Project site is located in the CT _
/~J
Page No.4, Item No.: 15
Meeting Date: 8/11 /98
Thoroughfare Commercial Zone which allows a 10 foot front setback, a zero side
setback and a zero rear when abutting a zero side yard. The building meets these
setbacks and a variance is not required.
C. Building height - This, too, is a Zoning Ordinance requirement over which the
Design Review Committee has no authority to vary. Either the project meets the
height or the Applicant must apply for a variance. The proposed two story
building is to be 23 feet high, which is much less than allowed by the Zoning
Ordinance which sets the maximum height at three and one-half stories or 45 feet.
D. Insufficient on-site parking for the proposed commercial building - As pointed out
earlier in this report, certain requirements are addressed in the Zoning Ordinance
and the project must meet these or the Applicant must apply for a variance. The
Design Review Committee has no authority to vary from these requirements. It
should be noted, however, that the approved building is to be 1,677 sq.ft. once
built. The Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space per three hundred square
feet (1: 300). Based on the building's proposed size, 5.59 parking spaces are
required (1,677/300 = 5.59). The Project contains six parking spaces. The
Project meets minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements for parking.
Issues Fallin~ Under the Authority of the Desi~n Review Committee
E. Lack of landscaping or hardscape - A copy of the approved landscape plan is
included in the packet distributed to the members of the Planning Commission.
The City's Landscape Manual states that 10% of a parking area should be utilized
for landscaping. The 10 % is used as a guide to break up large expanses of
parking. The subject property, being small by commercial standards, has a very
limited parking need and thus a combination of landscape and hardscape has been
used.
F. Problematic site access - This Project was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer
who determined that site access is adequate for a project of this scale.
G. Lack of reasonable relationship to the surrounding Autoplex - Because of concerns
related to architectural compatibility with surrounding buildings, various aspects
of the Project were considered by the Design Review Committee on three different
occasions, as indicated in Attachment 4. Through this process, the Committee was
convinced that the Project, as approved, would bear a reasonable relationship to
the nearby facility. Building colors and style, although obviously for an office
building, are nonetheless compatible with the Autoplex structures.
/5'-1(
Page No.5, Item No.: 15
Meeting Date: 8/11/98
H. Blockage of signs - As of the writing of this staff report, there were no signs on the
west elevation of the nearest building. In addition, any signs on the adjacent
building would be partially blocked by existing trees.
I. Interference with neighboring businesses - Attachment 5 indicates the footprint of
the approved building and the property lines for the Project, which has a 79 foot
frontage on Broadway, and the area of the Autoplex, which has a frontage of
approximately 300 feet, also on Broadway. The Autoplex has several entrances off
Broadway, none of which are hindered by the Project. With the exception of the
opposition from the Autoplex, staff is not aware of any other opponents to the
Project.
The Project departs in minor ways from the development to the south and east due to the
fact that it is an office building and not an auto repair facility. The Project nevertheless
implements the overall intent of the Design Manual by adhering to the guidance given
therein. It should be noted that the opening paragraph of the introduction of the Design
Manual sets the tone for the design and decision-making process involved in determining
the overall development patterns in Chula Vista. This paragraph states:
"The Design Manual provides guidelines to assist the city and the
development community to achieve a high quality of aesthetic and
functional design. The guidelines are applied in conjunction with
development standards in implementing the city's design review
process. Although these guidelines are expected to be followed,
they are general and may be interpreted with some flexibility in
order to encourage creativity on the part of project designers. "
4. Conclusion
It is staff's opinion that Appellant's basis for appeal and request for denial or significant
modification should be denied by the Planning Commission and the original approval by
the Design Review Committee upheld, based on the foregoing information.
5. Proposed Findin¡¡s of Fact
If the Council concurs with the recommendation to uphold the decisions of the Design
Review Committee and Planning Commission, it is recommended that the following
findings be included:
A. The proposed Project is in overall conformance with the guidelines and standards
contained in the Design Manual.
------
/5/~
Page No.6, Item No.: 15
Meeting Date: 8111/98
B. The proposed Project is consistent with the intent and the guidelines of the
"Commercial" section of the Design Manual as follows:
I. The Project's scale is proportional to nearby buildings and is appropriate
given the parcel size. The Project does not overwhelm facilities to the
south and ease by being an out-of-character style.
ii. Given the constraints on parcel size, the quality of the site planning and
architecture implement the guidelines of the Design manual in that the
Project's architecture, landscaping and parking layout promote an
attractive, inviting, imaginative and functional arrangement.
1lJ. The functionality of the site is adequate because the design of the Project
recognizes the importance of parking and circulation to the success or
failure of this commercial enterprise in terms of ingress and egress and
potential conflicts with street traffic, on-site circulation and potential
conflicts between cars, pedestrians and service vehicles, and the overall
configuration, efficiency and appearance of the parking area and circulation
drive.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Appellant is paying all staff costs related to this appeal.
Attachments
I. Appeals of Apri13, 1998 to the Planning Commission and May 29, 1998 to the City Council
~-~ """""'00 M_ .~.. M>, ". ,_ _"~ ~ '='"""0 No. W.~"A
3. tter of March 25, 1998 conveying the DRC's decision on DRC-98-16
4. Staff reports to and minutes of the Design Review Committee, as follows:
Staff Renorts DRC Minutes
December 15, 1997 December 15, 1997
I' February 16, 1998 February 16, 1998
March 16, 1998 March 23, 1998
5. Property Site Plan: H&S Building/Autoplex - Broadway/Palomar
H:\HOME\PLANNING\MARTIN\DRC\9816\9816A.113
/5~?
RESOLUTION NO. / f./ 'I ;L,
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY
COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND
DENYING AN APPEAL TO DESIGN REVIEW CASE NUMBER
DRC-98-16
WHEREAS, a duly verified Appeal, DRC-98-16A, appealing the Design Review
Committee's approval of DRC-98-16 and the Planning Commission's decision to
uphold said approval and deny the appeal was filed with the Planning Department of
the City of Chula Vista on May 29,1998 by Hyun/JVP, Ltd./Autoplex; and
WHEREAS, said appeal requested the that the conditional approval of DRC-98-
16 be reversed and denied or drastically modified by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said appeal
application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property
owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days
prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
6:00 p.m., August 11, 1998 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council hereby makes the
following findings of fact:
A. The proposed Project is in conformance with the guidelines and
standards contained in the Design Manual.
B. The proposed Project is consistent with the intent and the guidelines of
the "Commercia'" section of the Design Manual as follows:
i. The Project's scale is proportional to nearby buildings and is
appropriate given the parcel size. The Project does not
overwhelm facilities to the south and ease by being an out-of-
character style.
II. Given the constraints on parcel size, the quality of the site
planning and architecture implement the guidelines of the Design
manual in that the Project's architecture, landscaping and parking
H:\HOME\PLANNING\MARTIN\DRC\981 6\981BACC.RES
-/.£' - ?
"__M _._._.,___."~_ ..__ _________.__,_',_.__,._ .~_.._~___.__
Council Resolution No.
Page NO.2
layout promote an attractive, inviting, imaginative and functional
arrangement.
iii. The functionality of the site is adequate because the design of the
Project recognizes the importance of parking and circulation to the
success or failure of this commercial enterprise in terms of ingress
and egress and potential conflicts with street traffic, on-site
circulation and potential conflicts between cars, pedestrians and
service vehicles, and the overall configuration, efficiency and
appearance of the parking area and circulation drive.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, from the facts
presented to the City Council, the Council hereby upholds the decisions of the Design
Review Committee and the Planning Commission as related to its approval of DRC-98-
16 and denies the Appellant's appeal.
And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the Appellant and the
Applicant of DRC-98-16.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
this 11 th day of August 1998.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter ~~û
Planning Director
H:\HOME\PLANNING\MARTIN\DRC\9816\9816ACC.RES
).Ç-2š'
. . . _.._______._...______ m'.. '_________..._._._______
-.---- _.._.~---.._._-_._--
". .'.--...--.-.-.-.- -
-----
.. Hyun I JVP Ltd.
;¿~í North Pacríi: Avenue, SUIlS ',02
Glenaals, Caliíornia 91202
~ (818) 246-8538
¡:AX (818) 246-8982
R ¡:r' !='1\fI"'¡':
. ., ~ r-. .'
"·-\....'1_ __ ...'~
August 7, 1998 þ,U;:· 1 ,.., ~~!,P
PLANNiÌ\JG
Mr. Martin Miller 0/
Senior planner
Planning Department \\
Public Services Building
Chula Vista civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91910
Re: Case Number DRC-98-16A ~
Dear Mr. Miller:
Enclosed are nine copies of "Report to the City Council of
Chula Vista, To Rescind the Decision of The City Planning
Commission Case: DRC-98-16," We are submitting these for the
Tuesday, August 11th Hearing. There is one copy for each City
Council member and one for yourself.
I am sending them by FEDEX Priority Overnight so you will have
them early Monday morning. I would appreciate it if you call
Monday and let me know that you have received them as 7iTj
extremely important to the Hearing.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Hyun
General Manager
Encl.
cc: David Hyun
;~',~:~;"':"" , _ A.' - ~ - ---------..-..........-
/ STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT, JVPIHYUN, Ltd.
by David Hyun
Subject: DRC-98-16A
Aloha. My name is David Hyun of 1954 Redesdale Ave., Los Angeles 90039. I have been a registered licensed
Architect since 1950 and best kno...!n for the awud w;:·!..il~g k:>~:ese Village Plaza shopping center of Los Angeles. Today,
I speak as the majority share holder and chairman of NPfHyun Ltd., the owner of the Autoplex property on Broadway
in Chula Vista City.
I hereby appeal to the City Council to rescind the decision of the Planning Commission made at a Public Hearing
on May 13, 1998 on the case DRC-98-16. The decision was to uphold the recommendation of the Design Review
Committee (DRC) to approve the development upon a substandard lot of less than 5000 sf. I appeal on the following
grounds:
Ground (1) The DRC acknowledged the property being less than 5000 sf. was denied the right of development under the
zoning regulations. However, the DRC overruled the prohibition under its own ruling that a legal recorded lot cannot be
denied the right to develop.
Appeal (I) All zoning regulations apply only to legal recorded lots and the DRC has no authority to make any rulings on
zoning regulations.
Ground (2) The DRC approved landscape plans which showed less than the required minimum of ten percent of the
interior parking area devoted to landscaping.
Appeal (2) The planting area in the interior of the parking area is zero. The area on the periphery is 2.73 percent. The
addition of the hardscape areas to provide the ten, percent landscape minimum is illegal. A minimum requirement cannot
be changed by a DRC ruling.
Ground (3) The DRC failed to uphold the Design Manual purpose which is to maintain and to improve the existing
architectural environment. Appellant's report on pages 13, 14 and 15 show that II of 13 items show the project compares
unfavorably with the adjacent property. The DRC approval of project design by conformance to minimum and less than
minimum city standards is contrary to its stated purpose.
Ground (4) The "Report to the City Council ofCh~1:1 Vista: To Rescind the Decision of the City Planning Commission
on Case: DRC-98-16".
This 34 page report is to provide additional testimony of wider scope and increased detail. An important portion of the
report deals with the financial damage to the businesses and the property that can be caused by the interference created
by placing a building in front of the Autoplex.
I believe a desirable process to settle this matter is, first to rescind an obviously illegal approval and a project that
causes serious financial damages. Second, should the Council deem it appropriate to grant the right to develop under a
variance or a grandfather clause, I will accept, without protest, such grant to with the following provisions:
(I) The project meets all minimum requirements of the City, (2) to seek reasonable compliance to the Chula Vista Design
Manual, and (3) the design is made in consultation with the Tenants and Owners of the Autoplex.
I close with a rebuke of the DRC for making recommendations beyond its authority, for failing its duty to uphold
the Chula Vista City Design Manual and for failing to see any interference of 22 existing businesses.
Aloha, '~
Q ¿./ /. ~
~
David Hyun
- ,_________._ __ __ - - ___ _______.__...._ ._.._~_. .."_.._.__._.__..___.__,_.___,___._______~_~___~._"______._._..__________._n__
t r<
I¡-,c
\. V, () AA\.
REPORT TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA
TO RESCIND THE DECISION OF
THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
CASE: DRC-98-16
SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT
JVP/HYUN LTD. PROPERTY OWNER OF
THE AUTOPLEX
LOCATED ON BROADWAY, CHULA VISTA
Index
Introduction Page 3
Executive Summary of Appellant Arguments Against DRC-98-16 Page 4
Report Subjects:
1.0) Substandard Lot Size Page 6
2.0) Building Setbacks Page 8
3.0) Building Height Page 10
4.0) Lack of Landscaping or Hardscape Page 11
5.0) Lack of Reasonable Relationship to Surrounding Autoplex Page 13
6.0) Blockage of Signs Page 17
7.0) Inteñerence with Neighboring Businesses Page 19
8.0) General Findings of DRC Page 23
9.0) Findings of Fact Page 27
10.0) Concluding Summary Page 28
Special Report: Financial Damages Page 29
- Page 2 of34 -
June 10, 1998
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA
Appellant's Arguments for Rescinding the Findings of the Design Review Committee
and the
Decision of the City Planning Commission
At Public Hearing DRC-98-16 on May 13, 1998
Submitted on behalf of HyunlJVP Ltd., Appellant, by David Hyun, Co-Owner of
Appellant's Property.
Concurred by: 1. Michael McDade, Esq., Legal C011I1sel
Introduction: On May 13, 1998, Public Hearing- "...the city Planning Commission,
upholds the fmdings and recommendations of the Design Review Committee as related to
its approval ofDRC-98-l6 and denies the Appellant's appeal."
This report to the City C011I1cil is in addition to the brief statement of Appeal to the
C011I1cil and recites in greater detail the faults of the Design Review Committee and the
City Planning Commission.
These faults are substantial, and if permitted to stand, shall injure the welfare of the City,
the neighborhood, the businesses of 22 tenants of the Autoplex, and the commerce of
Appellant's property.
To avoid the potential damages, the Appellant hereby advises the C011I1cil by enumerating
the faults in the decision of Public Hearing DRC-98-l6, as follows:
- Page 3 of34 -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OF APPELLANT ARGUMENTS AGAINST DRC-98-16
Introduction: DRC-98-16 involves a Chula Vista City Planning Commission approval of an
application to construct a building on a substandard lot in front of the Autoplex buildings.
Arguments against the Commission approval and for the City Council to overturn the Commission
approval are as follows:
(I) Substandard Lot: The property lacks the minimum size for construction of a building, The Planning
Commission is without authority to authorize the construction on a substandard lot.
(2) The Commission ruled that the Project may develop without side yards, rear yards and a 10 foot front
yard. These rulings violate the open space character of the Autoplex and adjacent properties.
(3) The Commission has allowed a two story building and a 23 foot height. Two stories and a 23 foot height
is out of character with the one story and lower heights of the Autoplex and nearby properties.
(4) The Commission has allowed non-conforming landscaping. This violates landscape regulation and the
character of the well landscaped Autoplex and nearby properties.
(5) Lack of reasonable relationship to Autoplex and surrounding properties: The Chula Vista Design
Manual requires respect for and compatibility with existing properties.
(6) Blockage of Frontage Visibility: DRC-98-16 Project reduces the existing frontage visibility of Autoplex
by 37%. The loss of frontage visibility will damage the sales and income of the existing businesses.
(7) Interference with Existing Businesses: Obstruction of commercial frontage visibility is interference of
the existing businesses.
(8) General Findings: The Planning Commission has neglected purpose of the Chula Vista Design Manual
which is to respect the existing architectural environment of surrounding properties. The Commission has
lowered the open space character of surrounding properties by ruling that side and rear yards may have a
zero setback.
(9) Findings of Fact: The stated findings by the Commission that the DRC-98-16 project is in conformance
to guidelines of the Design Manual is contrary to Appellant's finding, The Appellant found eight out of the
ten findings of fact were reversed by the actual facts.
(10) The damage to the tenant businesses is carefully calculated to be a loss in sales and gross income at
a minimum of 18%. Such a loss is serious indeed for the tenants and employees of the Autoplex. The
percentage damage to the owner's property value is estimated at the same minimum percentage of 18%.
- Page 4 of34 -
1.0) SUBJECT: SUBSTANDARD LOT SIZE
1.1) FINDINGS BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE (HEREAFTER, DRC)
"This is an issue which is outside the purview of the Design Review Committee's authority,
However, not withstanding the fact that the parcel is non-conforming (4544 sq.ft. vs 5000
sq Jì.), the Project parcel is a legal lot of record and the property owner can not be denied
his/her right to develop under these circumstances, The test for development of a parcel
relies on whether or not the." other required City standards can be met. This evaluation is
done throughout the Design Review process and is not determined by whether or not the
parcel is substandard in size,"
1.2) Appellant's Arguments on Substandard Lot Size
1.2.1 The requirement of a lot to have a minimum area of 5000 sq.ft. is admitted to be "beyond
the purview of the Design Review Committee".
I. Conclusion: Therefore, the Committee should have refrained from acting on this Issue.
Instead, the Committee acted beyond its purview and authority.
1.2.2 The finding cites: " the project parcel is a legal lot of record, and the property owner can
not be denied his! her right to develop under these circumstances".
This citation is a grossly mistaken opinion as follows:
The city law does not deny the owner the right to develop his! her property. The owner may
develop vendor carts for flowers; a vendor's court that is paved and landscaped; or any other
creative commercial enterprise. But the city law specially denies the right to build a
structure or a parcel ofless than 5000 sq.ft. minimum size.
It is herein noted that city laws contain many minimum requirements. These minimums
when stated as a percentage is adjustable; when stated as a number the law is not flexible.
For example, a city law that requires that a residence must have a side yard equal to 10%
of the lot width but in no case less than 5 ft. is permissive for side yards greater than 5 ft.
However, the 5 ft. minimum is the law. A side yard cannot be 4.99 ft.
II. Conclusion: The opinion violated the city requirement of a minimum land area of 5000
sq. ft. which is a fixed quantity that can not be reduced except by law.
1.2.3. The finding cites: " ".the Project parcel is a legal lot of record and the property owner
can not be denied his/her right to develop under these circumstances".
- Page 5 of34 -
- ~
This citation, besides being outside the authority as previously admitted, is of gross
illogic.
If the law does not apply to legal lots of record, what kind oflots would the law apply
- to?..to illegal, unrecorded lots? The answer is, of course not. The law applies to all
recorded lots in the City of Chula Vista~And the law does not deny the right to develop, it
denies only the right to develop a building,
- .
m. Conclusion: The opinion on the denial of right to develop is faulty and misleading.
-- 1.2.4 The finding also cites: " .. . notwithstanding the fact that the project parcel is non
conforming (4544 sq, ft. vs 5000 sq. ft.)".
- This finding makes mockery of all minimum requirements in city laws. It sets
precedents for lower and lower requirements as follows:
~- If a legal recorded lot with 4544 sq. ft., a reduction of 456 sq. ft. from the required
5000 sq. ft. is buildable, can a lot of3988 sq. ft. which is also a reduction of 456
sq, ft. from the precedent of 4544 sq. ft. become buildable? A 456 sq. ft. precedent
could establish a new legal minimum~
IV. Conclusion: The requirement of 5000 sq. ft. is a minimum that, by law, cannot be
-' reduced.
- 1.2.5 The finding cites: " The test for development of a parcel relies on whether or not
the.. ~other required City standards can be met. This evaluation is done throughout the
Design Review process and is not determined by whether or not the parcel is substandard
.' in size."
This citation is grossly erroneous and a violation of tthe authority given under the Design
-- manual. Other city standards are enforced by other city departments. The Design Review
Committee has authority to enforce only the Design Manual and to exercise its authority
within the bounds of other standards.
V. Conclusion: The DRC has expressed an authority to regulate other city standards through
the design review process authorized by the Design Manual, a clearly illegal assumption of
authority.
.-
-- - Page 6 of34-
.
2.0) SUBJECT: BUILDING SETBACKS
2.1) FINDINGS BY DRC
"This is a Zoning Ordinance not related to Design, If a building were unable to meet the
setback, a variance would be required. The Design Review Committee does not have the
authority to consider variances, It should be noted, however, that the project is located in
the CT Thoroughfare Commercial Setback which allows a 10 foot fÌ'ont setback, a zero
side setback and a zero rear when abutting a zero side yard".
2.2) APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS ON BUILDING SETBACKS
22.1 The findings are based upon a simplistic application of a Zoning Ordinance over which
the committee has no authority.
The requirements within the Design Manual itself on setbacks and open spaces are
completely ignored and violated as follows:
2.2.2 The Design Manual states that "structures should be sited in a manner that will
complement adjacent structures.,.." considerate of existing structures.
A comparison to the Appellant's adjacent structures are as follows:
Project vs. Adjacent Structures
Address DRC-98-16 1415 1427 1421 Total
Broadway Broadway Broadway
North Side 50 ft. 25 ft. 95 ft. 50 ft. 170 ft.
yard
South Side 0 95 50 45 190
yard
East Rear 0 80 avg. 50 70 200
Side yard
West Front 10 75 avg. 160 75 avg. 275
yard
Total yards 60 240 355 240 835
- Page 7 of34 -
_______________n_
V. Conclusion: The project siting is grossly incompatible with the three adjacent
structures and thus violates the design guidelines.
It should be noted that existing developments for the neighborhood generally is of open
nature with ample £Tont and side yards, To allow zero side and zero rear yards is edrenèy
disrespectful of the existing and at this time would open the door for
developments side by side without a space between. Such development may, in the
future, be allowed. However, such character is compatible with dense urban
developments but not with the present open space neighborhood. The Design Manual
encourages "outdoor rooms"- the open spaces between buildings.
- Page 8 of34-
-- ._._..~_._-
3.0) SUBJECT: BUILDING HEIGHT
3.1) FINDINGS OF FACT BY DRC
"Building height- This, too, is Zoning Ordinance requirement over which the Design
Review Committee has no authority to vary. Either the project meets the height or the
Applicant must apply for a variance. The proposed two story building is to be 23 feet
high, which is much less than allowed by the Zoning Ordinance which sets the maximum
height at three and one-half stories or 45 feet".
3.2) Appellant's Arguments on Building Height
3.2.1 Again, the Design Review Committee cites the Zoning Ordinance over which it has
no authority and neglects the Design Manual which states that the structure "should
relate to the surrounding built environment in pattern, function, scale, character and
materials" _
The surrounding built environment, the Autoplex, which is a large development on
191,000 sq. ft. ofland area and consists offive buildings which are entirely story, The
properties adjacent to the Autoplex are large developments and also one story.
The building heights are all substantially less than 23 feet. The buildings of the Autoplex is
18 feet. The adjacents buildings are lower than 18 feet.
VI. Conclusion: The project height created by two stories, if allowed, does not respect
the surrounding character of a one story environment. Thus, the project is in violation
of the Design guidelines.
- Page 9 of34-
.-------"------. - __'_+____m_____ u_
4.0) SUBJECT: LACK OF LANDSCAPING OR HARDSCAPE
4.1) FINDINGS OF FACT BY DRC
"A copy of the approved landscape plan is included in the packet distributed to the
members of the Planning Commission. The City's Landscape Manual states that 10%
of a parking area should be utilized for landscaping. The 10% is used as a guide to
break up a large expanse of parking. The subject property, being small by commercial
standards, has a very limited parking need and thus a combination of landscaping and
hardscape has been used",
4.2) Appellants Arguments on Landscaping
4.2.1 The Design Review Committee has expressed opinions on matters for which it has no
authority and has abdicated its responsibility to rely on the Design guidelines to preserve the
character of existing buildings. These opinions, rather than facts, include:
4.2.2 The finding cites: "The subject property, being small by commercial standards, "
This citation is irrelevant to the landscape manual requiring landscaping to be 10%
of the parking area.
4.2.3 The finding cites: "The 10% is used as a guide to break up large a expanse of parking,"
This citation is ridiculous, 10% is 10% no matter how the 10% is used.
4.2.4 The finding cites: "" ,has a very limited parking need,,,"
This citation is arbitrary and outrageous. Parking areas are required to landscape an
area equal to 10% of the parking area regardless oflimited need.
4.2.5 The finding cites: "".and thus a combination of landscaping and hardscape has been
used"
This citation violates the very landscape Manual requirement quoted which is that 10% of
a parking area should be utilized for landscaping. This relationship required I s
obviously a combination oflandscape and hardscape but the 10% is not a
combination. The ten percent is solely a criteria for landscaping.
A greater issue involved in this citation is that the Design Review is absolutely and
completely silent on how the project landscape relates to the adjacent property. It appears
that the silence is to hide the fact that the adjacent properties (surrounding and nearby), by
comparison, is well landscaped.
- Page 10 of34-
VIT. Conclusion: The subject landscape violates the requirements of the landscape manual
and is grossly out of character with the adjoining landscaping.
- Page 11 of 34 -
.-"'-.-.-.--.-------. -------.--..-
5.0) SUBJECT: LACK OF REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO
SURROUNDING AUTOPLEX
5.1) FINDINGS OF FACT BY DRC
"Because of concerns related to architectural compatibility with surrounding buildings,
various aspects of the Project were considered by the Design Review Committee on three
different occasions, as indicated in Attachment 2. Through this process, the Committee was
convinced that the Project, as approved, would bear a reasonable relationship to thenearby
facility. Building colors and style, although obviously for an office building, are nonetheless
compatible with the Autoplex structures".
5.2) Appellant's Arguments on Lack of Relationship to Surrounding Autoplex
5.2.1 The finding cites: "".architectural compatibility with surrounding buildings"." and
"Building colors and style, although obvious for an office building, are nonetheless
compatible with the Autoplex structures. "
This citation disregards the architecture of relationships between properties involving
more than the building design, materials, and color. Relationships in architecture, and
as recognized in the Design Manual involves the total environmental qualities of the
project such as building heights, setbacks, landscaping, percentage land coverage, and
other elements which give the character and ambience of the property and the
neighborhood.
The project is dissimilar and of much lesser quality of development than the adjacent
buildings in building yards, building heights, and landscaping. A new project is to improve
the existing character. This project lowers the character of "outdoor rooms" described in the
Design Manual. Outdoor rooms are completely absent along the east and south property
lines. These opinions are supported by the following table of comparative facts and a
drawing of surrounding and nearby properties.
- Page 12 of34-
+-- +_.~_._--~_._------._._._.+.. .._.~+--_._.- -- ,- ,-- --- --------_..... ....-..--...- -- --..
Table Facts of Comparative Architectural Environment
Item The Project Adjacent AutoPlex
Property
1. Addresses DRC-9S-16 1415,1421,1427,1409,&1403
Broadway
2. Total Land 4544 sq.ft. 191,000 sq. ft.
3. Total Bldg. 1677 sq.ft. 61,000 sq.ft.
4. Percent Bldg. 37% 32%
5. Percent Open Land 63% 6S%
6. Landscaping Non complying (1) Complying
7, Front Property Line 76 ft. 535 ft.
S, BIdg, Front 26 ft. 220 (1415,1421,1427)
9. Bldg. Front Percent 34% (2) 41%
10. No. of Stories 2 (1) 1
11. Bldg. Height 23 (1) IS
DRC-98-16 1415 Broadway 1427 Broadway 1415 Broadway
12. N. Side yard 50 ft. (1) 25 ft. 95 ft. 50 ft.
13. S. Side yard 0(1) (3) 95 50 45
14. E. Side yard 0(1) (3) SO avg. 50 70
15. W. Side yard 10 (1) 75 avg. 160 75 avg.
16. Total yards 60 (1) 240 355 240
-Page 13 of34-
u__._.....__.___..__..______..______...__., n_'__,_o,__ _._~. -~,-,---_._._--_.. ---.-..-
¡¡¡ L'J
~ r ).1J \9
uJ ;Z - _
. ~ u1 \- .
\II ~ :i rJ. ~
..J)... <Í
III :z~ ;z 111 .
i5~;J~ ~~ () (:¡. ~
' ~ -~ t ~ 0 0
<S\c )\!)Q.. _ > cL
~ óI \) ëi)... ~ í:\- IJ
o. v
- ~ r )-4, ...J Z
t h~ ...1 j Z Õ
D. - °uJC&:;:¡ IJ
Q. !t d! !J I-
o .not a..~ J.Q :::> cí ..J
o 0)( ~ ~~ ~:¡¡ 0 r 4: ::
u uJ .j
:r "~\Jcl.- tiJ Oil! W :z ¡Q
cL á)~~aI~ ...." t D a
o uI()pJ:c. At! :¡: :z µ.J
~ 2 ~ ~ b: ~ \" \ \ \ g ! u 4: ¡J\
<d 0
4. >< tì-
uJ 0
~ 0~ ~o {!,\ i ¡Í.
:z 0 I'L
-~11J
X ~ ti 4. ;¡¡:
1.&1 0
...J - l-
e.. I t!J ;0< IJ.I 0
uJ :!: ;Z
0 ¡¡J \- ..{
¡- ri
0 'dO x - ],¡,..
::J uJ t. 0
oo::r. c:Q ..J
0.. a
rJ. 0
. t:O 0 rL t-
, '::I
. o. «
¡Q
(f) .t.
0 I
~ --- -, --------- 0 ---L :,. 0
z
- . - --t.
0 ÐftIY'ttrd
-.J 0
- - . 1'dí
::J Z
cD 8 ~ 0 I
~ -;- ~ /
u- ,." .¡ z. ~æ;
G ~ "g" >~:v:
uJ o<{ _ 0,
D.. 4. \) ...r:i..J oj o...J) r
<t ~:z u )( _ "'Q.. .
% ""\9u!4.r:i..,.uJ.:tL:
2- - ...Jo..°b.Jø¡
¡JJ \:J = ,Q \0 o. 1£ no 6)
..J 0 "-Icc:( 0.14 0 '
<t g ...l..J~~t-~~:i
U -3"o-:)d:40
If) ~ ~álOOo.. «{o
c£)..cog~
o ..0
Commentary to Table: 8 items marked (I) compares unfavorably, I item marked (2)
violates the Design Manual- page 111-3, third paragraph, 2 items
marked (3) violate the Design Manual- page III-3 first
paragraph. Total number of items: n
The Design Manual referred to states:
Page III-3, third paragraph- "Freestanding, singular commercial structures should ~Jb.l
with their major entry toward the street where access is provided. Primary structures should
not be obscured by secondary or ancillary structures. In the case of commercial centers, pad
buildings should generally constitute no more than 25 percent of a project's street ITontage".
Page III-3, first paragraph- "Recognize the importance of spaces between structures
as 'outdoor rooms' on the site. Outdoor spaces should have clear, recognizable shapes
that reflect careful planning and are not simply 'left over' areas between structures.
Such spaces should provide pedestrian amenities such as shade benches and fountains".
vrn. Conclusion: The design with no yards along two property lines, a minimum ITont y a r d ,
and minimum landscaping makes the project disrespectful of the adjacent. And, tiny office
buildings of height greater than adjacent will create a "finger sticking into the sky". Truly
a mockery of respect for the adjacent structures.
- Page 15 of34-
_........_...- -.--. - -- --"--- -~------_.--
6.0) SUBJECT: BLOCKAGE OF SIGNS
6.1) FINDINGS OF FACT BY DRC
"As of the writing of this staff report, there were no signs on the west elevation of
the nearest building, In addition, any signs on the adjacent building would be partially
blocked by existing trees"
6.2 ) Appellant's Arguments on Signs
6.2.1 The findings offact shows a very poor concern for the Appellant's property.
Briefly, the identification and image of a building development is made through visibility
of the entire development rrontage which consists of the building mass, landscaping, and
words. Words may be placed upon the building or on a monument to advertise or identifÿ
the address.
Words without a building or landscaping are meaningless. Signage is ftontage visibility of
the entire development.
The appellant has enjoyed and relied upon a complete, 100%, visibility along a rrontage
of 470 feet. The reliance was based upon his understanding and knowledge that the
land parcel was non-confomùng for a building development because of its substandard lot
stze.
The blockage of appellant's property rrontage visibility exceeds the 76 feet rrontage ofDRC-
98-16 because of magnification. Magnification of visual blockage is caused by Appellant's
property front yard set back of 75 to 160 feet. This magnification is illustrated by the
drawing on the following page.
The drawing illustrates that a driver traveling south on Broadway has practically no
visibility to the rrontage of all three buildings until he passes DRC-98-16. This visibility
has no anticipation visibility and very poor visibility time. For a driver traveling north,
the visibility of the two buildings is good. And, both drivers have no visibility of the
rrontage of 1415 Broadway.
IX. Conclusion: The visibility to the rrontage (signage qualities) are drastically reduced.
- Page 16 of34 -
/' 0\0
~.~a
vi,- ~,-.t ~\.o
ø7
~{> Q ~~
~:ç
h"'~ \ ~ '?-@
o'P
Z
0
-
I-
/ >t ü
:J
c:L
¡-
~I <.0
c..... ~~ '" // d)
~~v o~ )( ~ 0
~~' \01
ø~ .J di
0' ~ " .-1
roO
::1-'_ «
~d)
:J
(P
-
~¿/ >
I-l-
0
~o~
() ~ '#() z:
Q\..J.' 0
-
1-
4.
U
-
u-
-
:z:
C-'
c(
¿
7.0) SUBJECT: INTERFERENCE WITH NEIGHBORING BUSINESSES
7.1) FINDINGS OF FACT BY DRC
"Attachment 4 indicates the footprint of the approved building and the property lines
for the Project, which has a 79 foot frontage on Broadway, and the area of the
Autoplex, which has a frontage of approximately 300 feet, also on Broadway. The
Autoplex has several entrances off of Broadway, none of which are hindered by the
Project. With the exception of the opposition from the Autoplex, the staff is not
aware of any other opponents to the Project".
7.2) Appellant's Arguments on Interference
The fmding expressed above are of such gross incompetence as to raise questions
of bias for the following facts:
7.2.1 The fmdings of the frontage dimension of the adjoining property is grossly
inaccurate. The mistake is by 90 ft. The frontage of the Autop1ex on Broadway is
closer to 390 ft. rather than the cited 300 ft. and the visual frontage presently
enjoyed is 470 ft.
These dimensions are critical to establish the loss of visibility to the signage
aspects and image of the Autoplex.
7.2.2 The finding cites: "The Autoplex has several entrances off of Broadway,..."
This statement misleads. The word "several"implies three or more entrances
(Webster's International). The Autoplex has one entrance directly into its property
from Broadway. One is less than several.
The Autoplex site plan submitted by the Design Review Committee misleads by
dimensions, scale, and by showing two entrances off Broadway. A correct plan,
showing only one entrance, is shown on the following page.
- Page 18 of34-
_........_________....____ _____ __ ___m_,n....'_
. . ~
dO'1:id è!31-1..l0~'V 'fa.
.s-
o« ~
',éJ \,110
t
1Jl
U
. 1-
\ ..(
\ d
r-
:r: :Z:~
\ uJ$
t- \
Q 0
-
> )< UI
..,. t.U \I
J.- ..J ~
J. . Il v
ILl \ o f
D.. 1---
0 :J
c:J 4. III
0.
\ J
..(
)( 'Z. v
III «If)
J J
L . (l.
~ t 11.!
.( 1¿ !-
¿. -
,~ (J1
~
-ø
"d '*
.L
~
,<...L'd2ld O'dd ~:i1-J .LON'<t f '1:
v
,
. . \
. ._·'__..'..___.~...._.._-.-_____._U_. . __...._.
7.2.3 The finding cites: "With the exception of the opposition from the Autoplex, the staff is
not aware of any other opponents to the project."
This citation is irrelevant and prejudices the position of the Autoplex. This citation
ignores the courtesy of the owners of the Autoplex to seek relief with minimum public
fanfare because of their confidence that a building on the site was prohibited by law
and the proposed design violated the Design Manual.
7.2.4 The finding cites: "The Autoplex has several entrances". none of which are
hindered by the Project. "
This citation is obviously unnecessary and obviously biased to color the Project as
not interfering with the Autoplex, Furthermore, driveway entrances are usually regulated by
a Traffic or Building Department of a city, The Design Review Committee must look to its
area of expertise and responsibility.
7.2.5 The most important aspects of a business is location, location, location. Why? Because
visibility to the highest number of customers is of such importance that businesses choose
a location for its visibility.
Visibility in modem retail impulse businesses invariably use glass fronts to display the store
interiors. Thus, a frontage is often used, not only to create a signage and image, but to
advertise the wares of the business, Unhindered visibility is then absolutely necessary,
7.2.6 The placement of the Project in front of 22 existing businesses is an obvious
interference with those businesses because of the following:
The Project, if approved, will obstruct and reduce the visibility of the 470 ft. by a minimum
of 79 ft. and the entire 470 ft. for drivers traveling south on Broadway. More important than
the loss of frontage visibility is the important reduction of visibility impact to persons
traveling by car. Impact reduction is caused by a loss of anticipation time which is
obtained by distant viewing. Distant viewing enables a person in a car, traveling at 35
mph (51.33 ft. per second), to obtain a general impression before nearing the frontage and
thus anticipate and concentrate his viewing a few seconds before passing by. Anticipation
time and viewing time joined together makes for the best visual impact.
For drivers traveling South on Broadway, there is no distant viewing because the project
is forward and the Autoplex is set back. Therefore, with nearly a complete loss of
anticipation time, the driver has only one to three seconds of sideways viewing. The overall
viewing is without anticipation time with a brief viewing time. This visual impact is poor and
mJrnmum.
- Page 20 of34-
M___.~_____~___~ w.__.__~__.___._
x. Conclusion: The findings of the Design Review Committee appears to obfuscate a
very simple issue- placing a building in rront of another commercial building interferes
with the business of that building
An illustration of existing and obstructed viewing is shown on the following page.
- Page 21 of34-
_ _ _ ___<n.__'____ ._,_ ...____._~,__...__._.,.~__.__~
2.
vI-
_0
~~
~ ~ u..¡
QJ UJ
<!.
< I I-
z.
o
~ cL
o - U-
o I~ <.Ð to:
' · ".' X
o "'" W
- ~ ~
o - ~a -<
~I Q ~
00" Q; 0
. . ~-
'" ~ --,"-, I,
00' i; , -. .. " f--
.!-" , h'I,' ;:J
..j } '. II \\,,' :¡: 4:
OS -...::,'..... ~" l-
. .,
Õ IL ::1 CD
",. ;:0 0:2
~U~ ~_
QOõ- l: :J ( \ \~ ~ 3=
".~ ;: ~!; , , Z:':'
~~Z . _ >
,"" I- ,,~O (¡ O!
Ul wa~ \!J >1)- '"
'os 0" ~
'" - ~ lJJ
~ ~ é I-c
% " "
- · V
tJ :::J
"' < J r:í
J I- . ,~
Æ Æ 0 ,
-, u ~ ~ dJ
V œ d)
a ~ ~ 0
'" ~ ~ Q
o · I- Z
z ~ m 4
ill ~ 1\ (»
I- .. " Z
)( ¡...
· , z _
"' ëW f--
" ~
z _
~ ~ X
~ . ..,
""'" - ~ ""
> C\
8.0) SUBJECT: GENERAL FINDINGS OF DRC
81) FINDING:
"The Project departs in minor ways ITom the development to the south and east due
to the fact that it is an office building and not an auto repair facility. The Project nevertheless
implements the spirit of the Design Manual by adhering to the overall guidance given
therein. "
8.2) Appellant's Arguments
8.2.1 Citation: "The project departs in minor ways ITom the development to the south and
east." "
Appellent: This citation, besides being self serving, is grossly misleading. On the single
subject of item 5.0, Lack of Reasonble Relations, the appellant listed 16 items including
location addresses. Of the 16, the project was deficient in 11 important ways. The "departure"
is important in numerous ways.
8.2.2 Citation: ".. .due to the fact that it is an office building and not an auto repair facility."
Appellant: This citation is also an irrelevant excuse for pennitting important deviations.
Most anyone expects an office building to have an architectural environment of qualities
higher than that of an industrial auto repair facility. However, in this instance, the reverse
is true. For example, the two zero building setbacks eliminate the possibility of outdoor
rooms which the Autoplex provides abundantly. Three items violate the Design Manual. A
total of 8 items are ofless quality than of the Autoplex.
Therefore, the Project "departs" in substantial and numerous ways, but not becuase
of a difference between office and industrial building. The Project "departs" because
of lower environmental standards used.
8.2.3 Citation: "The project, nevertheless implements the spirit of the Design Manual by
adhering to the overall guidance given therein. "
Appellant: This citation could almost be humorous for its upside down reality if the
issue was not of such serious consequence.
The reality is that the DRC abandoned the Design Manual and used the Zoning Ordinance
and Landscape regulations to justifY the building on a non-conforming land parcel and to
lower the aesthetic character by the precedent of zero setbacks and non-complying
landscaping; and to allow the interference with 22 businesses that are important to the City
of Chula Vista, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
- Page 23 of34-
What is galling is the shameless quality of this citation by pretending to support when
actually abandoning the Design Manual.
The Design Review Committee, without shame, cast aside the spirit of the Design Manual
by ignoring the overall guidance given therein
8.2.4 Citation: "The Design Manual is meant to be flexible, Without flexibility, the newer
projects could turn out to be exact copies of what now exists. In cases where the design is
already at very high quality, this is appropriate, but where the surrounding area's building are
of a mixture of design quality, the decision-making process allows for flexibility, thus
ensuring ever advancing architectural quality and design. "
Appellant: This citation is humbug and unworthy of the City Fathers. The humbug:
"Without flexibility the newer projects could turn out to be exact copies of what now
exists", This danger does not and cannot become true in any fashion whatsoever
Various building, zoning, health, landscaping, fire and other codes have strict
quantitative requirements. However, there is never an exact copy of another building ever
built- even when a common developer seeks a replication.
The Design Manual has almost no measurable strictures of any kind. Therefore, there
is no possibility of enforcing exact copies against the will of a developer
The reality of the DRC, in this case, is that the flexibility used was often the
abandoment of the Design Manual and lowering the aesthetic character of the existing
surroundings.
8.2.5 Citation: "In cases where the design quality is already at very high quality, this [an
exact copy] is appropriate,,,. "
Appellant: This commentary is inedible. An exact is appropriate? Which is high quality?
Where is it? Why should the DRC require an exact copy?
The DRC has no business with evaluating a high quality for the purpose of requiring
an exact copy. Its responsibilities is to assist the City and Development community
to achieve a high quality of aesthetic design. The purpose of those guidelines is to promote
developments which respect the physical and environmental characteristics of the community
and the site; developments that reflect functional and attractive site planning.
The committee's concern about exact copies is non-sensical. The question of exact
copies is merely a product of the Design Committee. The Design Manual has no mention
of the words "exact copy".
- Page 24 of34-
~..... ^--_.._~-
However, the Committee failed miserably in fullfilling its responsibilities as follows:
(I) Allowing the project to have zero side and rear yards is a decision for zoning
administration.
The committee's responsibility "to promote a developement which respects the physical
and environmental qualities of the community and the site"." was exercised in disrespect
rather than respect. "Zero yards" disrespects the existing large yards of the surrounding
property; it disrespects the Design Manual's importance of "outdoor rooms"; the allowance
of a two story and 23 ft. height disrespects the prevailing one story and less than 18 ft.
heights, et cetera.
Therefore, the proposed Findngs of Fact made by the DRC and adopted by the Planning
Commission is stated below and is unsupported by the facts.
- Page 25 of34-
--.-_.._---_........,_.__...._._..~--~-_.~.._-_.._-_...-
9.0) SUBJECT: FINDINGS OF FACT
9.1) Finding of Fact A:
A: "A proposed project is in overall conformance with guidelines and standards contained
in the Manual".
Appellant's Comment: This project is absolutely not in overall conformance, As described
in the preceding sections of this report, the project is in overall non-conformance.
9.2) Finding of Fact B:
B: "The propsed project is consistent with the intent and the guidelines of the
'commercial' section of the Design Manual as follows"."
Appellant's Comment: Absolutely not. The project is contrary to the intent and guidelines
as described after each citation as follows:
9.2.1 Citation: "The project scale is proportional to nearby buildings... ".
Appellant's Comment: The project land is 4500 sq. ft. which is 2.36 % of the 191,000
sq.ft. area of the surrounding property. The Project building height of 23 ft. is 128 %
of the 18 ft, height of the adjacent buildings.
Obviously, the scale of the project building height is not proportional to nearby buildings.
9.2.2 Citation: "".and [the scale] is appropriate given the parcel size."
Appellant's Comment: Yes, but the responsibility of the DRC is that the scale (building
height) is appropriate in relationship to the nearby buildings.
Scale is a measure. Appropriateness is in relationships. The project height is not in
scale and is not appropriate to the adjacent buildings.
9.2.3 Citation: "The project does not overwhelm facilities to the south and east (Autoplex)
by being an out-of- character style."
Appellant's Comment: The project violates the character of the Autoplex in zero setbacks,
two story heights, non-conforming landscaping, percent of Building Frontage, minimum
amount of yards. The Table Facts of Comparative Architectural Environment lists 13
items which are unfavorable or in violation of the Design Manual.
- Page 26 of34-
10.0) Concluding Argument
1.0 The findings of the Design Review Committee made nine specific findings of fact and
a general statement on its findings,
2.0 The Appellant chose to argue against seven of the nine specific findings and the entire
general statement.
3.0 The Appellants Arguments show the Design Review Committee findings is extremely
biased and not supportable by law and the authority given by the Design Manual,
4.0 The findings, if allowed, will cause severe financial losses to the tenants, employees,
and owner of the Autoplex.
5.0 The City Council is therefore respectfully requested to rescind the decision of the City
Planning Committee on case DRC-98-16.
- Page 27 of34-
SPECIAL REPORT: FINANCIAL DAMAGES
1.0) Buidable Area
1.1 An important aspect of the Autoplex appeal is the damages caused by a building that is
constructed to the theoretical, buildable area established by the decisions of the City
Planning Commission in the case DRC-98-16.
1.2 The buildable area, allowed by DRC-98-16, is illustrated in the drawing, entitled "The
Architectural Environment of Autoplex and Nearby Properties and the rulingsof
DRC-98-16.
1.3 The concept buildable area is because such area can be realized by the present or future
owner under the rulings ofDRC-98-16.
2.0) Street Visibility
2.1 The owners of the Autoplex have always enjoyed a street visibility of their rrontage
without obstruction by another building.
2.2 The owners depended and relied upon the continuance of its street visibility because of an
existing city standard requiring a minimum lot size of 5000 sq. ft. for the construction of a
building.
23 Any loss of reduction of street visibility damages the businesses conducted on the property
by the loss of potential new customers who are attracted by rrontage visibility and existing
customers who return less rrequently for loss visible advertisement.
2.4 Commercial Land Value varies according to street visibility. Side street visibility values
are less than of a main street; that of a minor highway are less than a main highway.
2.5 Autoplex caters to a large market radius and for people who shop traveling in cars
Autoplex requires two important visibility qualities. One is viewing distance, the second is
viewing time.
2.6 A distant, unimpeded street view gives the traveling shopper maximum viewing time.
Maximum time provides time for anticipation and recognition by which, in the few
seconds of closer viewing, the shopper can better evaluate the shopping possibilities.
- Page 28 of34-
3.0) Existing Autoplex Visibility
3.1 The Autoplex now enjoys a high amount of visibility time and distance.
3.2 This high visibility is enjoyed in spite offront yard setbacks that vary from 75 tt to 160 ft
3.3 The front yard setbacks of properties to the south are compatible and allow practically
unimpeded viewing. Thus for shoppers traveling north, Autoplex visibility is optimum.
3.4 To the north, a Donut shop, apparently recent has a front yard set back of 30 feet This
building obstructs the view of the Autoplex for shoppers traveling south on Broadway,
As measured on a small drawing to scale, visibility from a car in the right lane begins at
3050 ft. from the far building of the Autoplex. For a car travelling at 35 mph the viewing
time is 59 seconds for the entire frontage.
4.0) Blockage of Existing Visibility
4.1 The Project DRC-98-16 by rulings may allow a building without side or rear yards and
a front setback of only 10 feet
4.2 The DRC Project will then block the frontage visibility of the three frontage buildings
1415, 1427 and 1421 Broadway as follows:
4.3 For cars traveling northward, buildings 1427 and 1421 maintain the existing frontage
visibilities.
4.3.1 Building 1415 visibility is reduced as follows: distance is reduced from 275 to 165 feet and
time is reduced from 5.4 to 3.2 seconds.
4.4 For cars travelling southward, the loss of building frontage visibility losses are as follows:
4.4.1 Building 1421 frontage visibility is reduced: distance is reduced from 3050 to 850 feet
and time is reduced from 59 to 16.6 seconds.
4.4.2 Building 1427 frontage visibility is reduced: distance is reduced from 560 to 430 feet and
time is reduced from 10.9 to 8.4 seconds.
4.4.3 Building 1415 visibility is lost completely.
- Page 29 of34 -
5.0) Calculation of Visibility Loss
5.1 Assume existing visibility is 100% and that the visibility traveling northward is 50% and
50% traveling southward.
5.2 For cars traveling northward, the ITontage visibility losses are as follows:
5.2.1 Buildings 1427 and 1421 have no loss.
5.2.2 Building 1415 visibility is reduced in distance and time as follows:
Percent distance loss is 100 minus (275 - 165) / 275 = 100 - 40 = 60%
Percent time loss is 100 minus (5.4 - 3.2) / 5.2 = 100 - 40 = 60%
5.2.3 Building 1415 is one of three; the 40% is 40/3 = 13% of 50%; the 13% is one-half the
total visibility = 6.5% of the 100%.
5.3 For cars traveling southward the ITontage visibility losses are as follows:
5.3.1 Building 1415, visibility is lost practically 100%
Buildling 1415 is one of three; the 100% becomes 33%. The 33% is one-half the total
visibility = 12% of the 100%.
5.3.2 Building 1427, visibility is reduced in distance and time as follows:
Percent distance loss is 100 minus (560 - 430) / 560 = 100 - 23 = 77%
Percent time loss is 100 minus (10.9 - 8.4) /10.9 = 100 - 23 = 77%
Building 1427 is one of three; the 77% is 77/3 = 28 of 50%
The 28% percent is one-half the total visibility = 14% of the 100%.
5.3.3 Building 1421 is reduced in distance and time as follows:
Percent distance loss is 100 minus (3050 - 850) / 3050 = 100 - 72 = 28%
Percent time loss is 100 minus (59.4 - 16.6) / 59.4 = 100 - 72 = 28%
Building 1421 is one of three; the 28% is 28/3 = 9% of 50%
The 9% percent is one-half the total visibility = 4.5% of the 100%.
5.3.4 The combined losses for southward traffic is 12 + 14 + 4.5 which equals 30.5%
5.4 The total losses for the traffice northward and southward is 6.5 plus 30.5 which equals
37%
- Page 30 of34 -
"_ ,····..····____.._'·""M.........._·_.._ __._._,~___.__....._.~_____
6.0) Significance of Visibility Loss
6.1 A building that has no frontage visibility is wortWess for purposes of retail sales and
servtces.
6.2 A frontage visibility on a major highway is greater and more valuable than one on a minor
highway.
63 A retail outlet that has its frontage visibility completely blocked is akin to the example of
line 6.1.
6.4 A retail outlet that has its frontage visibility reduced by another building placed in front of
it is akin to the example ofline 62. The reduced visibility is as though the location was
changed from one of high visibility on a major highway to a lower visibility of a minor
highway.
6.5 In the case ofDRC-98-16, the visibility loss is calculated to be approximately 37% of the
existing frontage visibility.
6.6 The loss of retail business and property value is estimated at a maximum of 3 7% and a
minimum of 18%. For the pupose of the appeal to the City Council ofChula Vista and not
for any appeal to a court of law, this report will use the 18% as a criteria.
6.7 Retail sales capability depends upon location and promotion. Promotion efforts depend
upon location and retail product. A retail outlet of very high annual sales per square foot
such as a jewelry store would not locate on a minor street or where frontage visibility is
blocked.
6.8 Generally, the location contributes 75% and promotion contributes 25% to gross sales of
most retail business.
6.9 However, the retail outlets at the Autoplex are all "Owner-Mechanic" operations with one
to three employees except for the retail automotive parts outlet whic has eight.
The "owner-mechanics" promote their businesses only by excellence of work and
reputation. They do not use or hire outside promotions.
6.10 The proportion oflocation and promotion of the Autoplex business is therefore estimated
at 90% location and 10% promotions.
6.11 The loss to Autoplex retail business is 90% of 18% which is 16%. This 16% is the
minimum percentage loss to the retail businesses at the Autoplex.
- Page 31 of34-
.---..>
7.0) Value of Autoplex Retail Businesses
7.1 The value of the businesses is estimated approximately by the total gross income
capitalized at 10%.
7.2 The total gross income is approximated as follows:
7.2.1 Number of tenants is 22 spaces less a vacancy factor of 5 percent: 21 tenants
7.2.2 The average number of employees at two per tenant: 42 employees
7.2.3 Annual average wage per employee at $20,000: $840,000
7.2.4 Cost of payroll overhead at 20%: $168,000
7.2.5 Average "owner-mechanic" taxable income at $35,000: $735,000
7.2.6 Annual average cost per tenant of rent, utilities, insurance, fees,
telephone, stationary and professional fees at $3,000 per tenant: $630,000
7.2.7 Total sales before tax: $2,373,000
7.2.8 Sales tax at 8%: $189,000
7.2.9 Total gross income ITom sales: $2,562,000
7.3 Income loss at 16%: $410,000
The value of income loss capitalized at 10%: $4,100,000
8.0) Value of Autoplex Property
8.1 The purchase price of the Autoplex: $3,400,200
8.2 The increase in value in 3.5 years, estimated at 3.5%: $100,000
8.3 Value at June 1998: $3,500,000
- Page 32 of34 -
84 The value of property loss at 16%: $560,000
9.0) Amount of Damages
9.1 Damages to the tenants, employees, and owner of the Autoplex by the single factor of
obstruction of visibility alone are:
Value of income loss: $4,100,000
Value of Property loss: $560,000
9.2 Total amount of visibility damage: $4,660,000.
- Page 33 of34 -
_._.~_"__ _" ____ ~_____._____._n'__...__.___.
END OF REPORT
CASE NO. DRC-98-16
- Page 34 of34-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /ø
Meeting Date 08111 198
ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: To REVIEW AND CONSIDER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE HUD
SECTION 108 LOAN GUARANTEE APPLICATION FOR $215,000 TO FUND A PORTION OF
THE OTAY RECREATION CENTER.
) 1/t?
RESOLUTION UTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE HUD SECTION 108
LOAN GUARANTEE ApPLICATION FOR $215.000 TO FUND A PORTION OF THE OTAY
RECREATION CENTER.
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director C-ç I
REVIEWED BY: C;~ .'"""])1< \;J' ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No )
- -
BACKGROUND:
The City Council approved a Master Plan for the Dtay Park on May 24. 1994. Phase I for Otay Park
includes acquisition and design and construction of a 14,964 square foot community center which will
include 9.280 square feet of multi· purpose/use recreation courts and 5,684 square feet of support facilities.
The Otay area is severely deficient in the amount of park and recreation resources. The community
recreation center was identified by area residents as the highest priority item to better their community.
The project is anticipated to break ground in October 1998 and be open in March 1999.
On October 21. 1997. the City Council approved the purchase of the land for the recreation center site at
3554 Main Street. Council adopted both the Capital Improvement Program and the 1998199 CDBG
Consolidated Annual Plan which directed staff to pursue a Section 108 Loan Guarantee to fill the funding
gap for the construction of Phase I. The project budget is $3.7 million. FY 98/99 and prior year CDBG
allocations total $3.5 million. The Section 1 DB Loan Guarantee of $215.000 is necessary to fully fund the
project. This Public Hearing is being conducted as part of the application process.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Conduct a public hearing to review and accept public comment regarding the HUO Section 108 loan
Guarantee application for $215,000 to fund a portion of the Otay Recreation Center.
21 Approve the resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute the HUD Section 1 DB loan Guarantee
application for $215,000 to fund a portion of the Otay Recreation Center.
/Þ -I
Page 2, Item .J..!£..
Meeting Date 08/11198
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
1) PRIOR SECTION 1 DB LOAN GUARANTEE ApPLICATIONS:
The City 01 Chula Vista has received three Section 108 loan guarantees in the past, 2 lor acquiring property
lor public housing in the early 80's and, in 1991. a $750,000 loan guarantee lor the Norman Park Senior
Center Renovation. All 01 the loans were repaid over short terms, and there are currently no outstanding
Section 108 loans.
The City submitted in March 1998, a request for a $1 million Section 108 loan guarantee to fund the
proposed Chula Vista Small Business Revolving Loan Fund (RLF). Staff anticipates to receive approval lor
this in September of this year. Section 108 funds for the RLF will be drawn down on a loan by loan basis
and the funds will be repaid by the business lender, having no impact on the City's future CDBG entitlement.
2) ApPLICATION PROCESS:
The City 01 Chula Vista is eligible to receive up to five times the City's annual CDBG entitlement in Section
108 loan guarantees. The City's annual entitlement is approximately 2 million, which allows a maximum
loan authorization of $10 million. Staff's current request is $215,000, bringing the total outstanding
requests to $1,215,000.
The Section 108 application process includes three stages: 1) presubmission requirements, 2) submission
of the application, and 3) review by HUD Area Oflice in Los Angeles and the HUD Central Office in
Washington D.C. The presubmission requirements were fulfilled by including the proposed application activity
in the City's 1998199 Consolidated Annual Plan. Staff is now requesting approval to submit the Section
108 Loan Guarantee application. The application generally includes the following: 1 ) Project
Description; 2) Discussion of how CDBG National Objectives and Chula Vista Community Development
Objectives will be met; 3) Sources of Repayment and Security; 4) Repayment Schedule for the Principal; and
5) Standard HUD Certifications. Staff anticipates that the HUD Area and Central Office review will take
between 3-6 months.
3) LOAN AWARD AND REPAYMENT:
Upon approval of the Section 108 Loan Guarantee, the City of Chula Vista will enter into a Contract for
Loan Guarantee Assistance with HUD and the private investor that issues the notes to the City of Chula
Vista will be brought back to City Council for review and approval. The loan rate is variable and is currently
between 6 and 6.5% lor terms up to 20 years. The interest rate will not be determined until issuance, but
Jt-;2"
Page 3, Item J..!L
Meeting Date 08/11 198
is anticipated to be around 6.5% considering current financial trends. Staff is proposing to repay the loan
of $215,000 in equal installments over five years. The estimated annual impact on CDBG Capital
Improvement funds will be $51,750. HUO has no restriction on the amount of COBG entitlement that can
be used for Capital Improvements. The City's 1998/99 CDBS entitlement was $2,008,000, the amount
allocated to Capital Improvement Projects was $1,001,068. HUO requires additional security be pledged for
the repayment of the Section 108 loan in the event that future CDBG funds are not available. Staff has
identified residential construction tax, and park acquisition and development fees as additional security.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Section 108 loan will need to be repaid. As proposed, the $215,000 loan will be paid back over 5
years from future COBG entitlement at an estimated 6.5% interest rate. The annual principal and interest
payment will be approximately $51,750, which will reduce the City's available COBG dollars for Capital
Improvement Projects accordingly. In the event that future COBG entitlement dollars are not available, the
loan will be repaid via residential construction tax and/or park acquisition and development fees.
IDDAI H:\HDMEICDMMDEVISTAFF.REPlD8-11-98Iotaygym IAugust 5. 1998 19:29amll
/?-J
RESOLUTION NO. /9/1/3
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE HUD
SECTION 108 APPLICATION FOR $215,000 TO FUND A PORTION
OF THE OTAY RECREATION CENTER
WHEREAS, Council approved a Master Plan for the Otay Park on May 24, 1994;
and
WHEREAS, on October 21, 1997, Council approved the purchase of the land for
the recreation center site at 3554 Main Street; and
WHEREAS, Council adopted both the Capital Improvement Program and the
1998/99 CDBG Consolidated Annual Plan which directed staff to pursue a Section 108 Loan
Guarantee to fill the funding gap for the construction of Phase I; and
WHEREAS, the HUD presubmission requirements were fulfilled by including the
proposed Section 108 loan activity in the 1998/99 CDBG Consolidated Annual Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Section 108 Loan Guarantee of $215,000 is necessary to fully fund
the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does adopt this Resolution which authorizes the Mayor to execute the HUD Section 108 Generic
Application for $215,000 to fund a portion of the Otay Recreation Center.
Presented by Approved as to form by
&. S-~
Chris Salomone
Director of Community Development
{(DDAI H:\HOME\COMMDEV\RESOS\otaygym (July 30, 1998 (11 ;58am))
/?-y
- --_.._._.__."_._.__.._-_._-_..~----_.~-_.-
Application for Federal
Assistance œs A¡:proval No. 0348-004
2. Date Submitted Applicant Identifier
.
. ype of Submission: 3. Date Received by State State <\ppHcation Identilier
Application Pre-application
~ Construction o Construction 4. Date Received by Federal Agency Federal Identifier
. Non-Construction o Non-Construction
5. Applicant Information
Legal Name City of Chu1a Vista Organizational Unit
Address (give city, county, State, and zip code): Name, telephone number, and facsimile number of the person to be contacled"\o
matters involving this application (give area codes)
276 Fourth Avenue
Chu1a Vista, CA 91910 Debra Anderson
619-691-5047
619-476-5310 (fax)
6. Employer Identification Number (EIN): 7. Type of Applicant: (enter appropriate letter in box) [J
CQ- Ii I () I 0 I 0 I 6 I 9 0 I A. State J. Private University
B. County K. Indian Tribe
8. Type of Application: C. Municipal L. Individual
EI New o Continuation o Revision D. Township M. Profit Organization
E. Interstate N. Nonprofit
If Revision, enter appropriate Jetter(s) in box(es): D 0 F. Intermunicipal O. Public Housing Agency
G. Special District P. Other (Specify):
A. Increase Award 8. Decrease Award C. Increase Duration H. Independent School Oist.
D. Decrease Duration Other (specify): I. State Controlled Institution of Higher learning
9. Name of Federal Agency:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
10. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 11. Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project:
~-[ilili] Section 108 Loan GUlllrantee
¡tie:
CDBG
12. Areas Affected by Project (cities, counties, Slales, etc.):
City of Chu1a Vista
13. Proposed Project: 14. Congressional DIstricts of:
Start Date I Ending Date a. Applicant I b. Project 50th
9/1/98 50th
15. Estimated Funding: 116. Is AP~lcation Subject to Review by State Executive Order 12312 Process?
a. es This pre-application/appHcation was made available to the
State Executive Order 12372 Process for review on:
Date:
b. No G Program is not covered by E.O. 12372
on
If ·Ves,· explain below or attach an explanation o No
18, To the best of my knowledge and belief, all data in this application/pre-application are true and correct, the document hæeen dul'
r "rized by the governing body of the applicant and the applicant will comply with the attached assurances if the assistande awardee
. . ,.led Name of Authorized Representative b. TitJeM c. Telephone Number
ayor (619) 691-5041<1-
d. Signature of Authorized Representative e. Dale Signed
Previous Editions Not Usable /t- form SF·424 (4/9~
Authorized for Loca! Reproduction Prescribed by OMS Circular A-' 0
---,,--......--....-
APPLICANT COMPLETENESS GUIDE
SECTION 108 LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM
SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION
Please complete and include the Standard Form 424 with the Section 108 Loan Guarantee
Application. Please ensure the submission includes:
Applicant public entity: City of Chula Vista
Designated public agency:
If applicant is a CDBG nonentitlement community, include reference to the provision in the
State's Final Statement regarding the use of Section 108 by nonentitlement communities.
Amount of Section 108: $215,000
Chief elected official or Chief Executive Officer:
Name: Honorable Shirley Horton
Title: Mayor
Organization: City ofChula Vista
Address: 276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Phone: (619) 691-5044
Fax: (619) 476-5379
Staff Contact:
Name: Ms. Debra Anderson
Title: Principal Community Development Specialist
Organization: City of Chula Vista
Address: 276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Phone: (619) 476-5355
Fax: (619) 476-5310
/t,./~
--- -- ----------_..__..~.....__._-
If appplicant is a nonentitlement community. provide infonnation on State contact:
Name:
Title:
Organization:
Address:
Phone:
Fax:
)~ -?
"-" ~._._-~. .
Section II' Budget
A brief narrative describing the project. Schedule A
A budget that clearly indicates all project costs and that identifies the eligible activities the
Section 108 will fund.
Eligihle Activity
Section 108 Other
Acquisition (570.703(a» 430,000 (CDBG)
Rehabilitation of Publicly
Owned Property
(570.703(b»
Payment ofInterest on .
Section 108 Loan
(570.703(c))
Related Relocation
(570.703(d))
. Related Clearance, Removal,
Demolition
(570.703(e»
Related Site Preparation 69,900 (CDBG)
(570.703(f))
Section 1 08 Issuance Cost
(570.703(g»
Housing Rehabilitation
(570.703(h»
Economic Development
(570.703(i)(1»
(570703(i)(2)
Debt Service Reserve
(570.703(k»
J¿'~Y
,.~. _..__.._..._-_.__.._._-----_.~---------~-~-,-_._.,.
Section 108 Other
Public Facilities 215,000 2,677,982 (CDBG)
(570.703(1))
Public Works, Colonias
(570.703(m))
Total: $215,000 $3,177,882 (CDBG)
If any of the following items are applicable, prepare and attach a narrative:
. If the application is generic in nature, provide a summary of the process established to
complete basic financial underwriting of the projects and a public benefit evaluation in
accordance with 570.209.
. If the application is for a single economic development activity, summarize the
underwriting used to evaluate the risk of the transaction and for determining
compliance with the public benefit standards enumerated in 570.209.
Provide a description of how the project will satisfy a CDBG national objective and
indicate which national objective the project will meet: (Schedule B)
Low Mod Area Benefit
(570.208(a)(1 )) X
Low Mod Limited Clientele
« 5 70208(a)(2))
Low Mod Housing
(570.208(a)(3))
Low Mod Job Creation, Retention
(570208(a)(4))
Slum! Blight Area Basis
(570.208(b)(I))
Slum! Blight Spot Basis
(570.208(b)(2))
Slum! Blight Urban Renewal
(570208(b)(3»
Urgent Need! Imminent Threat
(570.208(c))
/¿-i
_ _ _~~~__"'_.__u__~__._'____·____' ,._
If the application proposes multiple activities utilizing more than one national objective,
link each eligible activity to a specific national objective.
Statement of community development objectives the Section 108 loan achieves.
(Schedule C)
Section TIT' Supporting Information
. Identify Sources of Repayment and Specify Additional Security (Schedule D)
. List Annual Payment Schedule For Principal (Schedule E)
Section IV- Certifications' (Schedule F)
/ir)e;?
"-----
SCHEDULE A: BRIEF NARRATIVE
The City of Chula Vista has approved the construction of a community center in the Otay area
located in the southwest portion of the City. The total cost of the facility is $3,177,822 (not
including administrative costs). This application is requesting a loan of $215,000 to fill a gap
in the construction cost. The remainder of the facility is being paid for with CDBG funds.
The Chula Vista City Council approved a Master Plan for Otay Park on May 24, 1994. Phase
I consists of property acquisition, and design and construction of a 14,964 square foot
community center. The facility will house 9,280 square feet of multi-purpose/use recreation
courts and 5,684 square feet of support facilities and common area. The Otay community is
severely deficient in the amount of park and recreation resources. The community center has
been has been identified by the residents as the highest priority item for the bettennent of their
community .
/t-//
-----"-"_.,-,.'._-
SCHEDULE B: NATIONAL OBJECTIVE
This activity complies with the National Objective of benefiting low and moderate income
persons . The community center will be available to all residents and will primarily serve the
Otay and Southwest community. This area is comprised of a majority of census tracts with
greater than 51 % low/moderate income individuals:
Census Tract Population % Low/Moderate Income
131.01 6721 54.16
131.02 5359 53
132.01 6682 65.17
132.03 4977 61.3
132.04 3501 67
133.03 4940 37.3
133.04 11160 39
Total 43,340 51.7%
/¿~).;¿
,.......-.-.-.-...- - - ---~-'-
SCHEDULE C: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
This activity meets community development objectives by benifitting an area comprised largely
of low/moderate income individuals by creating a quality public recreation facility in an area that
is extremely deficient in park and recreation space.
/~~/3
_...__..____~___.__...__..__.u._" .
SCHEDULE D: SOURCES OF REPAYMENT
The City of Chula Vista intends to repay the Section 108 loan back over 5 years utilizing future
CDBG entitlement. In the event that these funds are not available, the City will pledge
Residential Construction Tax and Park Acquisition and Development Fee funds as additional
security .
It ~/'/
,------------ - ---~_....._--.__.._..__..
SCHEDULE E: REPAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR PRINCIPAL
Principal: $215,000
Tenn: 5 years
Year 1 2 3 4 5
Principal Payment 43,000 43,000 43,000 43,000 43,000
Ending Balance 172,000 129,000 86,000 43,000 °
I;; --- /~
. ~......_____._.___'_m__.__···m__m__
SCHEDULE F: CERTIFICATIONS
General Certification
Obtain Alternate Financing
Certification Concerning Disbarment, Suspension, Etc.
Certification Regarding Lobbying
Certification Concerning Drug-Free Workplace
I?---/~
SECTION 108 LOAN GUARANTEES
ENTITLEMENT PUBLIC ENTITY CERTIFICATIONS
In accordance with Section 108 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended, (the tlActll) and with 24 CFR
§ 570.704(b) the public entity certifies that:
(i) It possesses the legal authority to submit the
application for assistance under 24 CFR Part 570, Subpart M
( "Subpart M") and to use the guaranteed loan funds in accordance
with the requirements of Subpart M.
(ii) Its governing body has duly adopted or passed as an
official act a resolution, motion or similar action authorizing
the person identified as the official representative of the
public entity to submit the application and amendments thereto
and all understandings and assurances contained therein, and
directing and authorizing the person identified as the official
representative of the public entity to act in connection with the
application to provide such additional information as may be
required.
(iii) Before submission of its application to HUD, the
public entity has:
(A) Furnished citizens with information required by
§ 570.704 (a) (2) (i) ;
(B) Held at least one public hearing to obtain the
views of citizens on community development and housing needs; and
(C) Prepared its application in accordance with
§ 570.704(a) (1) (iv) and made the application available to the
public.
(iv) It is following a detailed citizen participation plan
which meets the requirements described in § 570.704(a) (2).
(v) The public entity will affirmatively further fair
housing, and the guaranteed loan funds will be administered in
compliance with:
(A) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L.
88-352, 42 D.S.C. 2000d et seq.); and
(B) The Fair Housing Act (42 D.S.C. 3601-20) .
(vi) In the aggregate, at least 70 percent of all CDBG
funds, as defined at §570.3(e), to be expended during the one,
two, or three consecutive years specified by the public entity
for its CDBG program will be for activities which benefit low and
moderate income persons, as described in criteria at
§ 570.208 (a) .
/¿, -/7
- - ,,'.------------"--.-"-.-.--.-
(vii) It will comply with the requirements governing
displacement, relocation, real property acquisition, and the
replacement of low and moderate income housing described in
§ 570.606.
(viii) It will comply with the requirements of
§ 570.200(c) (2) with regard to the use of special assessments to
recover the capital costs of activities assisted with guaranteed
loan funds.
(ix) It will comply with the other provisions of the Act
and with other applicable laws.
(x) (Where applicable, the public entity may also include
the following additional certification.) It lacks sufficient
resources from funds provided under Subpart M or program income
to allow it to comply with the provisions of § 570.200(c) (2), and
it must therefore assess properties owned and occupied by
moderate income persons, to recover the guaranteed loan funded
portion of the capital cost without paying such assessments in
their behalf from guaranteed loan funds.
2
/~ -/2f
-- --.-. -- ,_._._--_..._-~_._.._-,------ .,'.
SECTION 108 LOAN GUARANTEES
Certification of Legal Authority to Pledge Grants
The public entity hereby certifies and assures with respect
to its application for a loan guarantee pursuant to Section 108
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended,
that it possesses the legal authority to make the pledge of
grants required under 24 CFR § 570.705(b) (2).
3
/tf:, ~/1
'"
. _._..~._.__._.._. --.---.-------.-.-
SECTION 108 LOAN GUARANTEES
Certification Of Efforts To Obtain Other Financing
The hereby
assures and certifies with respect to its application
for a loan guarantee pursuant to Section 108 of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended, that it has made efforts to obtain financing
for the activities described herein without the use
of such guarantee, it will maintain documentation of
such efforts for the term of the loan guarantee, and
it can not complete such financing consistent with
the timely execution of the project without such
guarantee.
4
J ~ ~ .2(;;7
.~u__.._. __"_____.o··_.._
Certification Regarding Debannent, Suspension,
and Other Responsibi~ity Matters--
Primary Covered Transactions
(1) The prospective primary participant certifies to the best
of its knowledge and belief, that it and its principals:
(a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for
debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from
covered transactions by any Federal department or agency;
(b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this
proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against
them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection
with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public
(Federal, State or local) transaction or contract under a public
transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or
commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification
or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving
stolen property;
(c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or
civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State or local)
with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph
(1) (b) of this certification; and
(d) Have not within a three year period preceding this
application/proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal,
State or local) terminated for cause or default.
(2) Where the prospective primary participant is unable to
certify to any of the statements in this certification, such
prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this
proposal.
S
It-:2./
SECTION 108 LOAN GUARANTEES
STATEMENT REGARDING LOBBYING
THE UNDERSIGNED STATES, TO THE BEST OF HIS OR HER KNOWLEDGE AND
BELIEF, THAT:
If any funds have been. paid or will be paid to any person for
influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of
any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with
this commitment providing for the United States to insure or
guarantee a loan, the undersigned shall complete and submit
Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying, " in
accordance with its instructions.
Submission of this statement is a prerequisite for making or
entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31,
U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required statement
shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and
not more that $100,000 for each such failure.
6
/&-2;)"
~--,- ----.---
·
SECTION 108 LOAN GUARANTEES
CERTIFICATION REGARDING DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTs
The certification set out below is a material representation upon
which reliance is placed by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development in awarding the loan guarantee assistance. If it
is later detennined that the public enti ty knowingly rendered a
false certification, or otherwise violates the requirements of the
Drug-Free Workplace Act, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, in addition to any other remedies available to the
Federal Government, may take action authorized under the Drug-Free
Workplace Act.
CERTIFICATION
A. The public entity certifies that it will provide a drug-free
workplace by:
(a) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the
unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing,
possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited
in the public entity's workplace and specifying the
actions that will be taken against employees for
violation of such prohibition;
(b) Establishing a drug- free awareness program to inform
employees about -
(1) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
(2) The public entity's policy of maintaining a drug-
free workplace;
(3) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and
employee assistance programs; and
(4) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees
for drug abuse violations occurring in the
workplace;
(c) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged
in the performance of the activities undertaken with the
loan guarantee assistance be given a copy of the
statement required by paragraph (a);
(d) Notifying the employee in the statement required by
paragraph (a) that, as a condition of employment under
the loan guarantee, the employee will -
(1) Abide by the terms of the statement; and
(2) Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute
conviction for a violation occurring in the
workplace no later that five days after such
conviction;
Ie:. -23
-~ ......-...-,- ---.---
(e) Notifying the agency in writing, within ten calendar
days after receiving notice under paragraph (d) (2) from
an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of
such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must
provide notice, including position title, to every
grant officer or other designee on whose grant activity
the convicted employee was working, unless the Federal
agency has designated a central point for the receipt
of such notices. Notice shall include the
identification number(s) of each affected grant;
(f) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar
days of receiving notice under paragraph (d) (2), with
respect to any employee who is so convicted __
(I) Taking appropriate personnel action against such
an employee, up to and including termination,
consistent with the requirements of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or
(2) Requiring such employee to participate
satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or
rehabilitation program approved for such purposes
by a Federal, State, or local health, law
enforcement, or other appropriate agency;
(g) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a
drug-free workplace through implementation of paragraph
of paragraphs (a) , (b) , (c) , (d) , (e) and (f) .
8
Jt-;<,i
~- -,,-~-_.,""'-_..-
~----_.- -
·
B. The public entity shall insert in the space provided below
the site(s) expected to be used for the perfo~ance of work
under the assistance covered by the certification:
Place of Performance (include street address, city, county,
state, zip code for each site) :
Check ___ if there are workplaces on file that are not
identified here.
9
/¿~~
- -_..~_._------_._- .------
- - --_..
,/'/)
,
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 17
Meeting Date 8/11/98
ITEM TITLE: Report on Consolidation of the Planning and Building and Housing
Departments
Ordinance~741 'I Establishing the Planning and Building Department
SUBMITTED BY: Deputy City Manager ;¡¡t¿
Director of Planning and Building
'(L.
REVIEWED BY: City Manager 0J"¡.I Þ[V (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
The City Manager recently consolidated the Planning and Building and Housing Departments,
following the resignation of the Building and Housing Director. The following report describes
this consolidation, including identification of appropriate changes to the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept this report and adopt the ordinance.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. The proposed changes will
not significantly affect the staff support for any existing boards or commissions.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning and Building and Housing Departments were recently consolidated into a single
"Planning and Building Department." The intent of this consolidation is to improve the overall
effectiveness and customer service of the combined department, while also reducing an executive
management position and thereby resulting in an overall long-term cost savings to the City.
The new department will be headed by Bob Leiter, formerly Director of Planning, and will consist
of two separate divisions; Planning, and Building and Housing. Each of these two divisions will
be headed by an assistant director, who will have overall responsibilities for day-to-day operations
of the division. The Director of Planning and Building will continue to be the lead staff advisor
to the City Council on departmental issues, while the Assistant Director of Planning will be lead
advisor to the Planning Commission, and the Assistant Director/Building Official (formerly
Assistant Director of Building and Housing) will be the lead advisor to the Building Board of
Appeals. Barbara Bamberger, head of the Environmental Resources Division, will also be
transferring into this department.
17-1
Page 2, Item a
Meeting Date 8/11/98
The management team of the newly formed department, in coordination with the Deputy City
Manager and with the assistance of Dawn Herring and Toni McKean, organizational development
and training coordinators, have already initiated a process for consolidation of departmental
operations, similar to that which was recently conducted during the restructuring of the Parks and
Recreation Department.
The first phase of the consolidation effort will occur during the next 60 to 90 days, and will
address immediate issues and needs, including elimination of overlapping administrative functions,
physical improvements and equipment needs, short-term staffing and customer service issues, and
coordination with affected boards and commissions. This short-term effort will be directed by the
department management team, with input from all affected staff, and support from the City
Manager's office and Human Resources Department. In conjunction with this first-phase effort,
staff has prepared the attached ordinance, which would formally establish the Planning and
Building Department, and define the responsibilities of the department and key positions within
the department. (It should be noted that there are a number of other "clean-up" amendments to
the Municipal Code which will need to be implemented in the course of future updates to
applicable sections of the Code.)
The second phase of the consolidation effort will be the preparation of a Strategic Business Plan
for the Planning and Building Department. This plan would be prepared over the next six months.
This plan will clearly define the mission of the combined department; evaluate current levels of
performance and customer service in the department, including surveys and interviews of
department clients; and evaluate mid-term and long-term improvements in the following areas:
automation
- process improvements and streamlining
- physical improvements to the office areas
organizational development and training
- improved communication and problem-solving.
This plan will be developed in a collaborative effort involving all department staff, again with
assistance from the City Manager's office and Human Resources Department. Recommended
"mid-term" improvements would be implemented during the current fiscal year, while long-term
improvements would be addressed in the FY 1999-2000 Operating Budget and Five-Year Capital
Improvement Program.
The third phase of the consolidation effort would be the implementation of the long-term elements
of the Business Plan, starting in July 1999.
It is staff s intent that current levels of service in the department be maintained during this
transitional period, and that steady improvements in performance, service, and efficiency be
17- .2.
-"-_._--
Page 3, Item1Z-
Meeting Date 8/11/98
achieved as the Business Plan is implemented. We will be closely monitoring service levels to
ensure that this occurs.
FISCAL IMPACT:
With regard to budgetary impacts, we are not proposing any changes to the adopted budgets for
the Planning and Building and Housing Departments at this time. It is anticipated that there will
be salary savings resulting from the consolidation, based on the elimination of the Director of
Building and Housing position. However, these savings may be offset during FY 1998-99 by
certain one-time costs related to departmental improvements and Business Plan efforts. We will
keep the City Council informed regarding these plans and improvements, and related expenditures.
(FI2\,P&B,All)
17-3
~
~ ..yt\'
y ¡./þ /.( ....
Ý I~) .
0\ pI X'
PI
,,\ \,
2.17.030 Abolition of Position of Director of Building and
Housing and designation of Position of Building
Official.
The position of director of building and housing is
abolished. The duties and responsibilities attending the
position of director of building and housing shall be attached to
the position created for director of planning and building.
Wherever the title ~building official" is found elsewhere in
this code it shall identify the duties and responsibilities of
the position designated as the Assistant Director of Planning and
Building/Building Official. The provisions of this section shall
be cumulative to the other provisions of this chapter and
irrespective of such other provisions.
2.17.040 Director-Limitation on authority and duties.
It is not intended by this chapter to grant any authority to
or impose any duty upon the director of planning and building
which is invested in or imposed by general law or valid city
ordinance in any other city commission, board, department,
division, service, officer or employee.
2.17.050 Director-Duties and responsibilities.
The Planning and Building Department shall be under the
supervision of a director of planning and building, who shall
have the following duties and responsibilities:
A. Act as technical advisor to the Planning Commission as
created by Section 605 of the Charter, and assist said
Commission in carrying out duties as provided in Section 606
of said Charter;
B. Promulgate and administer policies and regulations governing
land development and recreational projects as recommended by
the Planning Commission, and adopted by the city council;
C. Establish administrative rules and regulations governing the
administration of the Planning and Building Department;
D. Recommend to the Planning Commission and to the city council
rules, regulations and amendments relating to planning and
zoning matters;
E. Plan, organize, direct and maintain an effective growth
management program that coordinates growth management and
planning policies with regional planning agencies as well as
local service providers;
2
/7-~
.-_... -----------------.----
F. Train and supervise planning and building personnel,
G. Prepare and submit a department budget when required;
H. Maintain such records and render such reports as may be
required by the chief administrative officer,
1. Have responsibility to protect the natural environment
through the City's environmental review policies and
procedures and a comprehensive open space and park planning
strategy;
J. Any other duties and responsibilities as designated by the
City Manager.
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
Robert Leiter, Director of
Planning and Building
H:\shared\attorney\planbldl.wp
3 )'7-~
. - ---_._-_--.-_~.-.-- ------,----_..._,_.-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ) (f
Meeting Date 8/11/98
ITEM TITLE: Resolution /9/ i'ending the 1998/99 Budget to add three Assistant
Engineer II, one Public Works Inspector II, one Engineering Technician II
position and related equipment, and appropriating funds therefore
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public wory f
REVIEWED BY: . þ.t~ 0L (4/5ths Vote: Yes..x..No_)
CIty Mana er The additional staffmg needed to respond to the unprecedented surge in land development activities
has been brought before the City Council twice since March 31 of this year. Working with the Human
Resources Department, the Engineering Division was recently able to hire one Civil Engineer and two
Assistant Engineers to fill all currently budgeted positions in the Land Development Section. Staff has
looked at several options to solve the staffmg needs and believes that the best option is to hire
additional permanent staff.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Resolution amending the Fiscal Year
1998/99 Budget to add three Assistant Engineer II positions, one Public Works Inspector position,
one Engineering Technician II position and related equipment, and appropriating $255,000 from
Unanticipated revenue from developer reimbursements in the General Fund and $30,000 from the
unappropriated balance of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None
DISCUSSION:
Currently, the Engineering Division's land development section is actively processing 51 Final
and Parcel Maps through the entitlement process. These Maps encompass 2,176 dwelling units
and require approximately one hundred separate agreements. In addition, the Land Development
Section is currently reviewing 62 grading and improvement plans with an estimated construction
cost of $46,000,000 (mostly for infrastructure facilities to be owned, operated and maintained by
the City); Processing land development related assessment and financial districts totaling
approximately $23,800,000; Processing the formation of 5 Open Space Districts with a total
annual budget of $2,800,000 (In contrast, the total annual budget of our existing 25 Open Space
Districts is $1,850,(00); Reviewing and processing the engineering elements of all ongoing EIRs,
SPAs, TMs and Public Facilities Financing Plans (pFFPs). Staff has programmed these activities
around the Land Development Section core function of providing public services and public
assistance .
In addition, the Construction Inspection Section is now experiencing the effects of approval of
these plans and needs to inspect the projects to insure the facilities are built according to City
specifications. The Inspection Section includes two Senior Public Works Inspector, five Public
) ?,-j
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date 8/11/98
Works Inspector II's, and one 0.48 FrE Administrative Office Assistant ill (unbenefitted) (AOA-
III). The construction activities are such that an additional inspector is required to assure the
quality of the work. Also, due to the large amount of activity, the final paperwork on the
subdivision projects, including release of the developer's bonds, has not been able to be completed
in a timely fashion and a large backlog of final project clearances has built up. An additional
Engineering Technician II position is necessary to assist in the final clearance activities for all
projects and to assure that a future backlog is not built up. This position will help keep the
developer's costs down because it will enable the City to release bonds more quickly and they will
not have to pay unnecessary premiums. Developers also usually have a limit to the amount of
bonds that the bonding companies will issue and releasing the bonds frees up additional bonding
capacity for them.
Staff has looked at many temporary staffmg options which might temporarily help in meeting the
workload, and those have been approved by the City Council. However, at the August 4, 1998
City Council meeting when staff requested authorization to hire temporary staff, Council indicated
a strong preference for having full time, permanent staff available. Ai> a result of comments at that
meeting staff has reviewed in more detail the full staffing needs and believes that the workload
situation will remain a longer term problem. The development community does not predict any
near term down turn in the level of development activity and SANDAG's projections indicate that
the South Bay area of the county, and Chula Vista in particular, will receive the majority of the
growth in the County over the next few years. Therefore, staff now recommends amending the
budget to add the necessary full time, permanent staff necessary to handle the continuous
workload. Not only is the Land Development Section impacted, but so is the Construction
Inspection Section as the development projects have moved into the construction phase.
However, there are concerns about the timing of hiring permanent, full time personnel in that the
individuals staff needs to hire must be qualified to do the work efficiently. The Assistant Engineer
list, for example, has eight remaining names on it, but it may not provide enough individuals with
appropriate experience and qualifications to fill these three land development positions plus one
additional vacancy in another section. If additional names for any of the current eligibility lists
have to be obtained, it could take several months to fill all of the permanent positions. In that
case, staff would, in the interim, utilize the authority given on August 4, 1998 to hire Temporary
Expert Professionals or utilize consulting contracts. The Human Resources Department has just
begun the process for creating an Engineering Technician list and it will be several weeks before
that list will be available and an individual can be hired.
Based on workload projections, staff is recommending the addition of three Assistant Engineer II
positions in the Land Development Section, plus one Public Works Inspector II and one
Engineering Technician II position in the Construction Inspection Section. The cost of all the
positions will be fully supported by developer fees. The cost for the remainder of this fiscal year
for salaries and benefits for the three Assistant Engineer II positions is $160,000, for the Public
j Ý-- J--
Page 3, Item _
Meeting Date 8/11/98
Works Inspector II position is $50,000 and for the Engineering Technician II position is $45,000.
In addition, office furniture for all positions ($10,000) plus a vehicle for the inspector position
($20,000) is necessary at an initial cost of $30,000. The cost of the office furniture is a one time
cost and the initial purchase is an eligible expense of the Civic Center component of the Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDlF). The cost of the vehicle is also a one time cost and
is an eligible expense of the Corporation Yard component of the PFDlF.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The FY 1998/99 Operating Budget for the Public Works Department will be increased by a total
of $255,000 for the additional personnel and the costs are fully recovered under the City's Full
Cost Recovery Factor paid by developer deposits. $160,000 will be appropriated from
unanticipated revenue from developer reimbursements in the General Fund to account 100-1422
for salaries and benefits and $95,000 to account 100-1423, also for salaries and benefits. The FY
98/99 budget for the PFDlF will be increased by a total of $30,000 of which $10,000 for office
equipment will be appropriated from the Civic Center component of the PFDIF to account 850-
8502-5566 and $20,000 for the vehicle from the Corporation Yard component of the PFDlF to
account 850-8504-5565.
The full annual cost of the three Assistant Engineer II positions is $205,000, the Public Works
Inspector II position is $65,400 and the Engineering Technician II position is $59,000. The
ongoing vehicle maintenance/replacement is estimated at $5,800 per year. These positions will
continue to be fully funded from developer deposits.
H:IHOMEIENGINEERIAGENDAIST AFFIN2.CLS
August 6. 1998 (9:42am)
/ P~;J
",..-,.
RESOLUTION NO. 19/'11/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE 1998/99 BUDGET TO ADD
THREE ASSISTANT ENGINEER II, ONE PUBLIC WORKS
INSPECTOR II, ONE ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II
POSITION AND RELATED EQUIPMENT, AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
WHEREAS, the additional staffing needed to respond to the
unprecedented surge in land development activities has been brought
before the City Council twice since March 31 of this year; and
WHEREAS, the Engineering Division was recently able to
hire one Civil Engineer and two Assistant Engineers to fill all
currently budgeted positions in the Land Development section; and
WHEREAS, staff has looked at several options to solve the
staffing needs and believes that the best option is to hire
additional permanent staff; and
WHEREAS, therefore, staff now recommends amending the
budget the add the necessary full time, permanent staff necessary
to handle the continuous workload; and
WHEREAS, based on workload projects, staff is
recommending the addition of three Assistant Engineer II positions
in the Land Development section, and one Public Works Inspector II,
and one Engineering Technician II position; and
WHEREAS, the cost for the remainder of this fiscal year
for salaries and benefits for the three Assistant Engineer II
positions is $160,000 for the Public Works Inspector position is
$50,000 and for the Engineering Technician II position is $45,000;
and
WHEREAS, in addition, office furniture for all positions
($10,000) plus a vehicle for the inspector position ($20,000) is
necessary at an initial cost of $30,000; the cost of the office
furniture is a one time cost and the initial purchase is an
eligible expense of the civic Center component of the Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) and the cost of the
vehicle is also a one time cost and is an eligible expense of the
Corporation Yard component of the PFDIF.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby amend the 1998/99 budget to add
three Assistant Engineer II, one Public Works Inspector II and one
Engineering Technician II position.
1
/ g-¡j
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amount of $160,000 is
hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue from developer
reimbursements in the General Fund to account 100-1422 for salaries
and benefits and $95,000 to account 100-1423, also for salaries and
benefits; the FY 98/99 budget for the PFDIF will be increased by a
total of $30,000 of which $10,000 for office equipment will be
appropriated from the civic Center component of the PFDIF to
account 850-8502-5566 and $20,000 for the vehicle from the
Corporation Yard component of the PFDIF to account 850-8504-5565.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of ey
Public Works
H:\HOME\LORRAINE\CDRIVE\RS\STAFFING.ENG
2
/~--5
.,__,_.__.__,_____..____ n_ _._
,
A PETITION TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
We, the undersigned, are representative of residents of Chula Vista; tenants, employees, vendors,
customers and friends of the Autoplex Center on Broadway, City ofChula Vista.
We have been infonned that the City Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of its Design
Review Committee has approved plans for the construction of a building upon a lot 79 feet wide x
57 feet deep situated in front of the Autoplex buildings.
We hereby petition the City Council to rescind the approval of the City Planning Commission for
many reasons of which we have been advised, and of which we cite only the following:
I. The proposed building upon an undersized lot of less than 5,000 feet is apparently
prohibited by City Law.
2. The Autoplex buildings have nont yard set backs of75 and 160 feet. A building in nont
of the Autoplex obstructs the nontage visibility of the Autoplex.
3. The proposed building violates the existing architectural environment of open spaces by
allowing no side yards and no rear yard.
The violation of a law by special dispensation is injustice. The lowering of established architectural
qualities violates the spirit and guidelines of the Chula Vista Design Manual.
These and other violations shall cause losses for the businesses and the services provided in the
Autoplex.
~ <; ~ øR. í¿¡N ~
Printed Name Signature
,
It ðCV A-A f} 1/ IJ.
Printed Name
Printed Name Signature
Printed Name Signature
Printed Name Signature
A PETITION TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
We, the undersigned, are representative of residents of Chula Vista; tenants, employees, vendors,
customers and friends of the Autoplex Center on Broadway, City ofChula Vista.
We have been infonned that the City Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of its Design
Review Committee has approved plans for the construction of a building upon a lot 79 feet wide x
57 feet deep situated in front of the Autoplex buildings.
We hereby petition the City Council to rescind the approval of the City Planning Commission for
many reasons of which we have been advised, and of which we cite only the following:
I. The proposed building upon an undersized lot of less than 5,000 feet is apparently
prohibited by City Law.
2. The Autoplex buildings have front yard set backs of75 and 160 feet. A building in front
of the Autoplex obstructs the frontage visibility of the Autoplex.
3. The proposed building violates the existing architectural environment of open spaces by
allowing no side yards and no rear yard.
The violation of a law by special dispensation is injustice. The lowering of established architectural
qualities violates the spirit and guidelines of the Chula Vista Design Manual.
These and other violations shall cause losses for the businesses and the services provided in the
Autoplex.
Signed by:
Printed Name Signature
Printed Name Signature
Printed Name Signature
,
A PETITION TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
We, the undersigned, are representative of residents of Chula Vista; tenants, employees, vendors,
customers and friends of the Autoplex Center on Broadway, City ofChula Vista.
We have been informed that the City Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of its Design
Review Committee has approved plans for the construction of a building upon a lot 79 feet wide x
57 feet deep situated in front of the Autoplex buildings.
We hereby petition the City Council to rescind the approval of the City Planning Commission for
many reasons of which we have been advised, and of which we cite only the following:
I. The proposed building upon an undersized lot of less than 5,000 feet is apparently
prohibited by City Law.
2. The Autoplex buildings have front yard set backs of 75 and 160 feet. A building in front
of the Autoplex obstructs the frontage visibility of the Autoplex.
3. The proposed building violates the existing architectural environment of open spaces by
allowing no side yards and no rear yard.
The violation of a law by special dispensation is injustice. The lowering of established architectural
qualities violates the spirit and guidelines of the Chula Vista Design Manual.
These and other violations shall cause losse r the businesses and the services provided in the
Autoplex.
I
I
Printed Name
Printed Name Signature
Printed Name Signature
Printed Name Signature
Printed Name Signature
A PETITION TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
We, the undersigned, are representative of residents ofChula Vista; tenants, employees, vendors,
customers and rriends of the Autoplex Center on Broadway, City of Chula Vista.
We have been informed that the City Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of its Design
Review Committee has approved plans for the construction of a building upon a lot 79 feet wide x
57 feet deep situated in rront of the Autoplex buildings.
We hereby petition the City Council to rescind the approval of the City Planning Commission for
many reasons of which we have been advised, and of which we cite only the following:
I. The proposed building upon an undersized lot of less than 5,000 feet is apparently
prohibited by City Law.
2. The Autoplex buildings have rront yard set backs of75 and 160 feet. A building in front
of the A utoplex obstructs the rrontage visibility of the Autoplex.
3. The proposed building violates the existing architectural environment of open spaces by
allowing no side yards and no rear yard.
The violation of a law by special dispensation is injustice. The lowering of established architectural
qualities violates the spirit and guidelines of the Chula Vista Design Manual.
These and other violations shall cause losses for the businesses and the services provided in the
Autoplex.
Signed by:
.ED. {.v.STA
Printed Name
6' Itllt ~ /d. fT/lllt
Printed Name
%hhV (,
Printed Name
A PETITION TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
We, the undersigned, are representative of residents ofChula Vista; tenants, employees, vendors,
customers and friends of the Autoplex Center on Broadway, City ofChula Vista.
We have been infonned that the City Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of its Design
Review Committee has approved plans for the construction of a building upon a lot 79 feet wide x
57 feet deep situated in front of the Autoplex buildings.
We hereby petition the City Council to rescind the approval of the City Planning Commission for
many reasons of which we have been advised, and of which we cite only the following:
I. The proposed building upon an undersized lot of less than 5,000 feet is apparently
prohibited by City Law.
2. The Autoplex buildings have front yard set backs of75 and 160 feet. A building in front
of the Autoplex obstructs the frontage visibility of the Autoplex.
3. The proposed building violates the existing architectural environment of open spaces by
allowing no side yards and no rear yard.
The violation of a law by special dispensation is injustice. The lowering of established architectural
qualities violates the spirit and guidelines of the Chula Vista Design Manual.
These and other violations shall cause losses for the businesses and the services provided in the
Autoplex.
~~'
..;t!
Signature
Printed Name Signature
Printed Name Signature
Printed Name Signature
Printed Name Signature
A PETITION TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VIST A ~
We, the undersigned, are representative of residents ofChula Vista; tenants, emplovees, vendors, ~
customers and friends of the Autoplex Center on Broadway, City ofChula Vista.
We have been informed that the City Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of its Design
Review Committee has approved plans for the construction of a building upon a lot 79 feet wide x
57 feet deep situated in front of the Autoplex buildings.
We hereby petition the City Council to rescind the approval of the City Planning Commission for
many reasons of which we have been advised, and of which we cite only the following:
I. The proposed building upon an undersized lot of less than 5,000 feet is apparently
prohibited by City Law.
2. The Autoplex buildings have front yard set backs of 75 and 160 feet. A building in front
of the Autoplex obstructs the frontage visibility of the Autoplex.
3. The proposed building violates the existing architectural environment of open spaces by
allowing no side yards and no rear yard.
The violation of a law by special dispensation is injustice. The lowering of established architectural
qualities violates the spirit and guidelines of the Chula Vista Design Manual.
These and other violations shall cause losses for the businesses and the services provided in the
Autoplex.
Signed by:
..101: L~'P-~
Printed Name n ture
willi t &wof"6-ll./ioJ>< ~
Printed Name Signatur
Printed Name
I
A PETITION TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
We, the undersigned, are representative ofresidents ofChula Vista; tenants, employees, vendors,
customers and friends of the Autoplex Center on Broadway, City ofChula Vista.
We have been infonned that the City Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of its Design
Review Committee has approved plans for the construction of a building upon a lot 79 feet wide x
57 feet deep situated in front of the Autoplex buildings.
We hereby petition the City Council to rescind the approval of the City Planning Commission for
many reasons of which we have been advised, and of which we cite only the following:
I. The proposed building upon an undersized lot of less than 5,000 feet is apparently
prohibited by City Law.
2. The Autoplex buildings have front yard set backs of 75 and 160 feet. A building in front
of the Autoplex obstructs the frontage visibility of the Autoplex.
3. The proposed building violates the existing architectural environment of open spaces by
allowing no side yards and no rear yard.
The violation of a law by special dispensation is injustice. The lowering of established architectural
qualities violates the spirit and guidelines of the Chula Vista Design Manual.
These and other violations shall cause losses for the businesses and the services provided in the
Autoplex.
()¡", CoM ~~
Printed Name
,S
Printed Name
Printed Name Signature
Printed Name Signature
Printed Name Signature
A PETITION TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
We, the undersigned, are representative of residents of Chula Vista; tenants, employees, vendors,
customers and friends of the Autoplex Center on Broadway, City ofChula Vista.
We have been infonned that the City Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of its Design
Review Committee has approved plans for the construction of a building upon a lot 79 feet wide x
57 feet deep situated in front of the Autoplex buildings.
We hereby petition the City Council to rescind the approval of the City Planning Commission for
many reasons of which we have been advised, and of which we cite only the following:
I. The proposed building upon an undersized lot of less than 5,000 feet is apparently
prohibited by City Law.
2. The Autoplex buildings have front yard set backs o£15 and 160 feet. A building in front
of the Autoplex obstructs the frontage visibility of the Autoplex.
3. The proposed building violates the existing architectural environment of open spaces by
allowing no side yards and no rear yard.
The violation of a law by special dispensation is injustice. The lowering of established architectural
qualities violates the spirit and guidelines of the Chula Vista Design Manual.
These and other violations shall cause losses for the businesses and the services provided in the
Autoplex.
- -
A PETITION TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
We, the undersigned, are representative of residents of Chula Vista; tenants, employees, vendors,
customers and friends of the Autoplex Center on Broadway, City ofChula Vista.
We have been infonned that the City Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of its Design
Review Committee has approved plans for the construction of a building upon a lot 79 feet wide x
57 feet deep situated in front of the Autoplex buildings.
We hereby petition the City Council to rescind the approval of the City Planning Commission for
many reasons of which we have been advised, and of which we cite only the following:
I. The proposed building upon an undersized lot of less than 5,000 feet is apparently
prohibited by City Law.
2. The Autoplex buildings have front yard set backs of75 and 160 feet. A building in front
of the Autoplex obstructs the frontage visibility of the Autoplex.
3. The proposed building violates the existing architectural environment of open spaces by
allowing no side yards and no rear yard.
The violation of a law by special dispensation is injustice. The lowering of established architectural
qualities violates the spirit and guidelines of the Chula Vista Design Manual.
These and other violations shall cause losses for the businesses and the services provided in the
Autoplex.
\
(O~
Printed Name
Printed Name Signature
Printed Name Signature
Printed Name Signature
A PETITION TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
We, the undersigned, are representative of residents ofChula Vista; tenants, employees, vendors,
customers and friends of the Autoplex Center on Broadway, City ofChula Vista.
We have been infonned that the City Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of its Design
Review Committee has approved plans for the construction of a building upon a lot 79 feet wide x
57 feet deep situated in front ofthe Autoplex buildings.
We hereby petition the City Council to rescind the approval of the City Planning Commission for
many reasons of which we have been advised, and of which we cite only the following:
I. The proposed building upon an undersized lot of less than 5,000 feet is apparently
prohibited by City Law.
2. The Autoplex buildings have front yard set backs of75 and 160 feet. A building in front
of the Autoplex obstructs the frontage visibility of the Autoplex.
3. The proposed building violates the existing architectural environment of open spaces by
allowing no side yards and no rear yard.
The violation of a law by special dispensation is injustice. The lowering of established architectural
qualities violates the spirit and guidelines of the Chula Vista Design Manual.
These and other violations shall cause losses for the businesses and the services provided in the
Autoplex.
A PETITION TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
We, the undersigned, are representative of residents of Chula Vista; tenants, employees, vendors,
customers and friends of the Autoplex Center on Broadway, City ofChula Vista.
I We have been informed that the City Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of its Design
I Review Committee has approved plans for the construction of a building upon a lot 79 feet wide x
i 57 feet deep situated in front of the Autoplex buildings.
We hereby petition the City Council to rescind the approval of the City Planning Commission for
many reasons of which we have been advised, and of which we cite only the following:
I. The proposed building upon an undersized lot of less than 5,000 feet is apparently
prohibited by City Law.
2. The Autoplex buildings have front yard set backs of75 and 160 feet. A building in front
of the Autoplex obstructs the frontage visibility of the Autoplex.
3. The proposed building violates the existing architectural environment of open spaces by
allowing no side yards and no rear yard.
The violation of a law by special dispensation is injustice. The lowering of established architectural
qualities violates the spirit and guidelines of the Chula Vista Design Manual.
These and other violations shall cause losses for the businesses and the services provided in the
Autoplex.
Signed by:
, ",,-,," <.06 t.-
- GfV\,.<'
Printed Name
~
/
A PETITION TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
We, the undersigned, are representative of residents of Chula Vista; tenants, employees, vendors,
customers and friends of the Autoplex Center on Broadway, City ofChula Vista.
We have been infonned that the City Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of its Design
Review Committee has approved plans for the construction of a building upon a lot 79 feet wide x
57 feet deep situated in front of the Autoplex buildings.
We hereby petition the City Council to rescind the approval of the City Planning Commission for
many reasons of which we have been advised, and of which we cite only the following:
I. The proposed building upon an undersized lot of less than 5,000 feet is apparently
prohibited by City Law.
2. The Autoplex buildings have front yard set backs of75 and 160 feet. A building in front
of the Autoplex obstructs the frontage visibility of the Autoplex.
3. The proposed building violates the existing architectural environment of open spaces by
allowing no side yards and no rear yard.
The violation of a law by special dispensation is injustice. The lowering of established architectural
qualities violates the spirit and guidelines of the Chula Vista Design Manual.
These and other violations shall cause losses for the businesses and the services provided in the
Autoplex.
Printed Name Signature
Printed Name Signature
Printed Name Signature
,
I
,
A PETITION TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
We, the undersigned, are representative of residents of Chula Vista; tenants, employees, vendors,
customers and friends of the Autoplex Center on Broadway, City ofChula Vista.
We have been infonned that the City Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of its Design
Review Committee has approved plans for the construction of a building upon a lot 79 feet wide x
57 feet deep situated in front of the Autoplex buildings.
We hereby petition the City Council to rescind the approval of the City Planning Commission for
many reasons of which we have been advised, and of which we cite only the following:
1. The proposed building upon an undersized lot of less than 5,000 feet is apparently
prohibited by City Law.
2. The Autoplex buildings have ftont yard set backs of75 and 160 feet. A building in ftont
of the Autoplex obstructs the ftontage visibility of the Autoplex.
3. The proposed building violates the existing architectural environment of open spaces by
allowing no side yards and no rear yard.
The violation of a law by special dispensation is injustice. The lowering of established architectural
qualities violates the spirit and guidelines of the Chula Vista Design Manual.
These and other violations shall cause losses for the businesses and the services provided in the
Autoplex.
~¿ Signed by:
1ft.1-Ç P?- It-qß
Street Address Date
Printed Name Signature Street Address Date
Printed Name Signature Street Address Date
Printed Name Signature Street Address Date
Printed Name Signature Street Address Date
,
A PETITION TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
We, the undersigned, are representative of residents ofChula Vista; tenants, employees, vendors,
customers and friends of the Autoplex Center on Broadway, City ofChula Vista.
We have been infonned that the City Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of its Design
Review Committee has approved plans for the construction of a building upon a lot 79 feet wide x
57 feet deep situated in front of the Autoplex buildings.
We hereby petition the City Council to rescind the approval of the City Planning Commission for
many reasons of which we have been advised, and of which we cite only the following:
I. The proposed building upon an undersized lot of less than 5,000 feet is apparently
prohibited by City Law.
2. The Autoplex buildings have front yard set backs of75 and 160 feet. A building in front
ofthe Autoplex obstructs the frontage visibility of the Autoplex.
3. The proposed building violates the existing architectural environment of open spaces by
allowing no side yards and no rear yard.
The violation of a law by special dispensation is injustice. The lowering of established architectural
qualities violates the spirit and guidelines of the Chula Vista Design Manual.
These and other violations shall cause losses for the businesses and the services provided in the
Autoplex.
~-
Date
Printed Name Signature Street Address Date
Printed Name Signature Street Address Date
Printed Name Signature Street Address Date
Printed Name Signature Street Address Date
I
I
,
A PETITION TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
We, the undersigned, are representative ofresidents ofChula Vista; tenants, employees, vendors,
customers and friends of the Autoplex Center on Broadway, City of Chula Vista.
We have been informed that the City Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of its Design
Review Committee has approved plans for the construction of a building upon a lot 79 feet wide x
57 feet deep situated in front of the Autoplex buildings.
We hereby petition the City Council to rescind the approval of the City Planning Commission for
many reasons of which we have been advised, and of which we cite only the following:
I. The proposed building upon an undersized lot of less than 5,000 feet is apparently
prohibited by City Law.
2. The Autoplex buildings have front yard set backs of75 and 160 feet. A building in front
of the Autoplex obstructs the frontage visibility of the Autoplex.
3. The proposed building violates the existing architectural environment of open spaces by
allowing no side yards and no rear yard.
The violation of a law by special dispensation is injustice. The lowering of established architectural
qualities violates the spirit and guidelines of the Chula Vista Design Manual.
These and other violations shall cause losses for the businesses and the services provided in the
Autoplex.
Signed by:
Printed Name
Printed Name Signature
Printed Name Signature
Printed Name Signature