HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1996/07/09
"I declare binder penalty of perjury that I am
employed by the City of Cl1ula Vista in the
Office of the City Clerk and tlla~ I posted
this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin Board at
Tuesday, July 9, 1996 the Public ~~ces Bui'.ding and at City Hell on Council Chambers
6:00p.m.
DATED. ~ 'J ?~~~D ." Public Services Building
Re lar Meetin of the Cit of Chu isla C' Council
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Alevy _, Moot _' Padilla _, Rindone _, and
Mayor Horton _.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 29, 1996 (Special MeetinglWorkshop of the City Council), June
4, 1996 (City Council Meeting), June 10, 1996 (Special
MeetinglWorkshop of the City Council), June 11, 1996 (City Council
Meeting), June 18, 1996 (City Council Meeting), and June 18, 1996
(Joint Meeting of the City CouncillRedevelopment Agency).
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Proclamation commending the Chula Vista Police Explorers, Post 831. The proclamation will
be presented by Mayor Horton to Agent Carole Snyder and Officer Rubin Gama.
b. Proclamation commending the Chula Vista Fire Explorers. The proclamation will be presented
by Mayor Horton to Robert Bryant, Jr. and Greg Sedlacek.
c. Proclamation expressing congratulations to the United States Postal Service on its 25th
Anniversary under the Postal Reorganization Act. The proclamation will be presented to Chula
Vista Postmaster Don Marbrey by Mayor Horton.
*****
Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. The City Council must now
reconVene into open session to report any final actions taken in closed session and to adjourn the meeting.
Because of the cost involved, there wiU be no videotaping of the reconvened portion of the meeting. However,
final actions reported wiU be recorded in the minutes which wiU be available in the City Clerk's Office.
*""""""""
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 8)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by
the Council 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 Form" availabk in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete
the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to
the staff recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar wiU 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 Interim City Attorney stating that there were no reportable actions taken
in Closed Session on June 25, 1996. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed.
"
Agenda -2- July 9, 1996
b. Resignations from the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee - Rosalinda Nava and Douglas
Fuller. It is recommended that the resignations be accepted with regret and the City Clerk be
directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public
Library.
c. Letter of resignation from the Parks and Recreation Commission - Dan Sweetwood. It is
recommended that the resignation be accepted with regret and the City Clerk be directed to post
immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Library.
6. RESOLUTION 18353 REJECTING BIDS FOR "CONSTRUCTION OF AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) RENOVATIONS, PHASE II (MAIN
LmRARY, POLICE BUILDING, PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING, AND
PARKWAY RECREATION CENTER) AND DIRECTING THE
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND HOUSING TO READVERTISE THE
REVISED PROJECT - The City's ADA Coordinator, along with the Building
Projects Supervisor from the Public Works Department, reviewed the work to
be performed and determined to eliminate one project that is being done by a
different department. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director
of Building and Housing)
7. RESOLUTION 18354 APPROVING THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH SAN
DIEGO TRANSIT CORPORATION (SDTC) FOR UNIFIED TELEPHONE
INFORMATION SYSTEM - This third Amendment continues Chula Vista
Transit's participation in the regional transit information system at a cost of
$36,532. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public
Works)
8. RESOLUTION 18355 ADOPTING A CITY COUNCIL POLICY REGULATING THE
PRACTICE OF INSTALLING PLASTIC DELINEATORS AS TRAFFIC
CONTROL DEVICES ON CITY STREETS - On 1/16/96, Council requested
information regarding staff s plans to phase out existing delineator locations and
staff s intent regarding future instal1ation of traffic delineators. The report will
address those concerns. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director
of Public Works)
· · · END OF CONSENT CAI.ENDAR · · ·
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 jiJ1 out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City
Clerk prior to the meeting. (Compkte the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete
the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per
indivûlual.
9. PUBLIC HEARING ADOPTION OF THE OT A Y RANCH RESERVE FUND FEE - On 5/14/96,
Council established the Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program which has two
components: (a) a Reserve Fund fee to be paid by the developer/applicant, and
(b) the Otay Ranch Property Tax Transfer Agreement with the County of San
Diego. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading.
(Deputy City Manager Thomson and Director of Finance)
ORDINANCE 2683 ESTABLISHING THE OTAY RANCH RESERVE FUND FEE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION 18288, wmCH ESTABLISHED
THE OTAY RANCH RESERVE FUND PROGRAM /first readimz)
.--------".
Agenda -3- July 9, 1996
10. PUBLIC HEARING PCZ 96-B; REQUEST TO REZONE FROM R2PTO MHP PORTIONS OF
PROPERTY TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 25, 000 SQUARE FEET
LOCATED AT 415/445 ORANGE A VENUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ADDING THESE AREAS INTO AN EXISTING MOBILE HOME PARK-
TERRY ENTERPRISES - The proposal is to rezone two areas totaling
approximately 25, 000 square feet from the existing zoning designation of R2P
(Duplex residential with precise plan modifier) to MHP (Mobile home park
zone) in order to allow these areas to be officially consolidated into the existing
surrounding mobile home park. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance
on first reading. (Director of Planning)
ORDINANCE 2684 AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY
SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY REZONING
APPROXIMATELY 25,000 SQUARE FEET OF LAND LOCATED AT
415/445 ORANGE A VENUE, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ORANGE
AVENUE BETWEENBROADW A Y AND FOURTH AVENUE, FROMR2P
(DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL WITH PRECISE PLAN MODIFIER) TO MHP
(MOBILE HOME PARK ZONE) (lirst readim!)
11. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF MASTER FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE AND
RELATED CHANGES TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE - The Master Fee
Schedule is recommended to be revised as a result of adjustments in existing
fees and fines and additional fees and fines which were approved as part of the
adoption of the fiscal year 1996/97 budget. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Finance and Budget Manager)
RESOLUTION 18356 AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO EFFECT CHANGES
IN DESIGNATED EXISTING FEES AND ADDITION OF NEW FEES
12. PUBLIC HEARING ZAV-96-12; APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A
REQUEST FOR A V AR1ANCE TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF A
ROOFTOP SIGN FROM 3S FEET TO 42 FEET FOR THE
COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 396 "E" STREET IN THE CoT
THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL ZONE - MARTIN ALTBAUM - This
is an appeal from the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a variance
to al10w the construction of a rooftop sign to 42 feet in height for the
commercial building located at 396 'E' Street, within the CoT Thoroughfare
Commercial zone. The CoT zone limits the height of rooftop signs to 35 feet
above grade. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Planning)
RESOLUTION 18357 DENYING THE APPEAL OF COIN MART FROM THE DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEREBY DENYING A
V AR1ANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROOF-MOUNTED SIGN
TO 42 FEET ABOVE GRADE FOR THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING
LOCATED AT 396 "E" STREET WITHIN THE CoT THOROUGHFARE
COMMERCIAL ZONE
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an oppOr1unity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject matter within the
CouncU'sjurisdiction that is !UI1 an item on this agenda for public discussion. (State law, however, generally
prohibits the City Council from 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 yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications
Form" 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. Your time is limited to three
minutes per speaker.
"
-..
Agenda -4- July 9, 1996
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council wiU consider items which have been forwarded to them for considerotion 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 substanlÛli discussions and deliberotions by
the Council, sttiff, or members of the general public. The items wiU be considered individually by the CouncU
and staffrecommendaJions may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please
.fill out a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Cierk prior to the meeting.
Public comments are limited to five minutes.
13. RESOLUTION 18358 ESTABLISHING A COUNCIL POLICY REGARDING A TARGET
MINIMUM RESERVE LEVEL FOR THE GENERAL FUND - Although the
City has historically considered the need to maintain reserve levels when
arriving at budgetary decisions, it is felt that a written policy establishing a
target minimum reserve level would assist both the Council and management to
focus on the this important fiscal consideration in order to insure the continued
fiscal solvency of the City. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Finance)
14. RESOLUTION 18359 AUTHORIZING SALE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY NORTH OF "D"
STREET AND FIRST AVENUE TO BETTIE WARREN AT 89 FIRST
A VENUE - On 6/11196, Council denied an encroachment permit to Bettie
Warren to maintain a chain link fence she had constructed within a parcel owned
by the City and made a decision not to offer to sell the property to the adjacent
property owners. Ms. Warren has requested that Council reconsider their
decision and sell to her only the portion of the land enclosed by the fence. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
15. REPORT UPDATE ON THE SMARTCOMMUNITY PROJECT - The
SMARTCommunity project is a joint effort with Caltrans, SDSU. UC Davis,
and The Center for the New West. Staff has held two outreach meetings and
two discussion group sessions thus far and has compiled a list of potential
applications. Staff recommends Council accept the report. (Director of
Management and Information Services)
16. REPORT REVIEW OF DRAFT PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ORDINANCE
REGARDING DEVELOPMENT PHASING AND MONITORING -
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL INPUT AND DIRECTION - Given forthcoming
additional Tentative Map approvals for Otay Ranch and other projects, it has
become necessary to adopt methods by which the overall phasing of new
development can he managed in concert with needed circulation improvements,
so as to ensure threshold maintenance prior to construction of SR 125. Staff
recommends Council accept the report and direct staff to finalize the draft
proposed amendments to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance and
return them for formal public hearing adoption by September 1996. (Director
of Planning)
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City CouncU wiU discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar.
Agenda items puIIed at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers.
Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual.
,,\
Agenda -5- July 9, 1996
OTHER BUSINESS
17. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTIS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
18. MAYOR'S REPORTIS)
a. Ratification of appointments: Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee - Marco Polo Cortez;
and Youth Commission - Angela Kodicek.
b. Ratification of reappointments:
Commission on Aging - Ted Kennedy;
Board of Appeals and Advisors - Arthur H. Triplette;
Charter Review Commission - Jack Blakely and C.R. Campbell;
Child Care Commission - Nancy Cavanah and Cindy Johns;
Civil Service Commission - Jack Turner (Council appointment);
Cultural Arta Commission - Dency Souval;
Design Review Committee - John C. Rodriquez and John A. Stokes;
Economic Development Commission - Brene Patrick (Ex-Officio), Chuck Peter (Chamber), Mary
Wylie (Ex-Officio);
Board of Ethics - Richard D. Schulman;
Growth Management Oversight Commission - Elizabeth Allen (representing Southwest PAC);
Housing Advisory Commission - Robert C. Flaugher (Tenant);
Human Relations Commission - Michele Delehanty and Ricardo Jimenez;
Parks and Recreation Commission - Steve Palma;
P1anning Commission - John C. Ray;
Resource Conservation Commission - Viviane J. Marquez;
Safety Commission - Harriet Acton; and
Veterans Advisory Commission - Carmen Fedje.
19. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the regular City Council meeting on July 16, 1996 at
6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A Meeting of the Industrial Development Authority will be held immediately following the City Council Meeting.
----,--------
Agenda .{j- July 9, 1996
...*...*.
CLOSED SESSION
Unless the City Attorney, the City Manager or the City Councü stotes otherwise at this time, the Council will
discuss and deliberate on the following items of business which are permitted by law to be the subject of a closed
session discussion, and which the Councü is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the
interests of the City. The Council is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of.ß!H1l action
taken in closed "session, and the votes token. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed
sessions, the videotaping wiU be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from
closed session, reports of.ß!H1l action taken, and a4journment wiU not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report
of final action taken wiU be recorded in the minutes which wiU be available in the City Clerk's Office.
20. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
· Erxleben vs. the City of Chula Vista.
· Christopher vs. the City of Chula Vista.
· West Coast Land Fund vs. the City of Chula Vista.
2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
· Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: 1.
· DODD Gordon vs. the City of Chula Vista.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
. Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive
Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of
Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire
Fighters (IAFF).
Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
21. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
*"'''"*.
--"--< - -..---.
COMMENDING THE
CHULA VISTA POLICE EXPLORERS, POST 831
IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, in 1968, an Explorer Scout Post was established under sponsorship
of the Chula Vista Police Department; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the program is to acquaint young people, ages 15
through 21, with objectives of police in our community and to instill and promote sound
morals, ethical conduct, and respect for law and order; and
WHEREAS, explorers frequently work assignments at special events with regular
and reserve officers and perform a variety of civic tasks; and
WHEREAS, the Explorer Program is extremely beneficial to the Chula Vista Police
Department as well as the community. These young men and women are consistently
volunteering their time, to not only gain experience in law enforcement, but to give
something of quality to the community; and
WHEREAS, approximately 15 to 20 percent of explorers actually continue in a law
enforcement career:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, SHIRLEY HORTON, Mayor of the City of Chula Vista,
California, do hereby COMMEND THE CHULA VISTA POLICE EXPLORERS for their
outstanding performance of duty and call upon all citizens to join in giving recognition
for the many contributions our Police Explorers have extended for the betterment of this
community.
Ljc¿-/ C"
_~_~__.__.._.,..,. H. .. ,__._.-.-__,__..
COMMENDING THE
CHULA VISTA FIRE EXPLORERS
IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Fire Explorers Program was established April
of 1989 with twelve members, and currently has twenty-two members; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the program is to provide an opportunity for
young adults to assist Firefighters by responding to Code 3 on fire, medical and
citizen assist calls in addition to helping with miscellaneous community projects
such as parades, the Burn Run benefitting the Burn Institute, educating the
community on CPR, and demonstrating fire survival and prevention training
techniques; and
WHEREAS, through the Fire Explorer Program, young adults gain the
knowledge, ability, and skills to become full time firefighters; and
WHEREAS, 90% of Chula Vista's Explorers become full time firefighters,
EMT's, Paramedics or join a Firefighter Reserve Program; and
WHEREAS, Chula Vista has hired seven full time firefighters directly from
our Explorer Post:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, SHIRLEY HORTON, Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista, California, do hereby COMMEND THE CHULA VISTA FIRE EXPLORERS
for their outstanding performance of duty and call upon all citizens to join in
giving recognition for the many contributions our Fire Explorers have extended for
the betterment of this community.
1/1;-/
_.~~......, - -.---,-.-..---
EXPRESSING CONGRATULATIONS TO
THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ON ITS 25TH ANNIVERSARY
UNDER THE POSTAL REORGANIZATION ACT
IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the 237 employees of the Chula VISta Post Office are celebrating the
25th anniversary of the United States Postal Service, an organization founded more than
two decades ago; and
WHEREAS, we pause today to recognize the 25th anniversary of the Postal
Reorganization Act, for it was on July 1, 1971, that Congress replaced the outdated Post
Office Department with an independent federal agency called the United States Postal
Service; and
WHEREAS, the Postal Service has become a completely self-sustaining government
agency that requires no tax dollars to operate and provides all members of our
community with universal rates and services; and
,
WHEREAS, the employees and staff of the Chula Vista Post Office have served
this community and their organization with pride, honesty and dedication; and
WHEREAS, the Postal Service, using employee skill and knowledge combined. with
space-age technology, has transfonned itself into a unique public service, poised to meet
the challenges as it readies itself for the 21st Century:
NOW, THEREFORE, 1, SHIRLEY HORTON, Mayor of the City of Chula VISta,
California, do hereby EXPRESS CONGRATULATIONS TO THE UNITED STATES
POSTAL SERVICE ON ITS 25TH ANNIVERSARY UNDER THE POSTAL
REORGANIZATION ACT and extend our finest wishes for continued success.
Ic-/
\u
July 2, 1996
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Goss, City Manager t9~~
SUBJECT: city Council Meeting of July 9, 1996
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular
city Council meeting of Tuesday, July 9, 1996. Comments regarding
the written communications are as follows:
Sa. This is a letter from the Interim city Attorney stating that
there were no observed reportable actions taken by the City
council in Closed Session on June 25, 1996.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED.
Sb. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE RESIGNATIONS OF ROSALINDA NAVA AND
DOUGLAS FULLER FROM THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD PROJECT AREA
COMMITTEE BE ACCEPTED WITH REGRET AND THE CITY CLERK BE
DIRECTED TO POST IMMEDIATELY ACCORDING TO THE MADDY ACT IN THE
CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE PUBLIC LIBRARY.
Sc. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE RESIGNATION OF DAN SWEETWOOD FROM
THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION BE ACCEPTED WITH REGRET
AND THE CITY CLERK BE DIRECTED TO POST IMMEDIATELY ACCORDING
TO THE MADDY ACT IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE PUBLIC LIBRARY.
JDG:mab
~~~
': .d_ ~
~~~~
~~--~
CllY Of
CHULA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Date: July 1, 1996
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Ann Y. Moore, Interim City Attorney 4171.
Re: Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session
for the Meeting of 6/25/96
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss Fritsch v. city
of Chula Vista, Public Employee Release and labor negotiations.
The Interim City Attorney hereby reports to the best of my
knowledge from observance of actions taken in the Closed Session in
which the Interim City Attorney participated, that there were no
actions taken in the Closed Session of 6/25/96 which are required
under the Brown Act to be reported.
AYM: 19k
C:\lt\clossed.no
s;.. -I
276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA' CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5037 . FAX (619) 585-5612
i& Pœt.tøwnørAll;.)<:iJdP¡pr
._---_._-"-_..__.._--_..-.__..-.,~,-".",.._,,------_._.".----.---.,-".-...-.,- . -, -,-,..-.._-"._"...- "-". -_._----_._-,_.,_.-.-.._---~-~_.
ftECEIVED
MEMORANDUM Pl :15
'96 ....13
" If ~Å VISl; June 12, 1996
... I.. '$ eFfle;
TO: Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
FROM: Fred Kassman, Redevelopment Coordinator ~ ~
SUBJECT: Resignations from Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee
I have been informed via telephone conversations that members Doug Fuller and Rosalinda
Nava are resigning from the PAC, effective immediately. Mr. Fuller has undertaken additional
responsibilities with the Auto Dealers Association and has found that he cannot make the
meetings. Ms. Nava has accepted employment with the County of San Diego and also has
a problem making the meetings.
ak:kassmsn\memos\ovrpao.mem
5J;/ ¡
\I
~UH-13-96 THU 12:~e PH FULLER BUSIHESS OFFICE 6~6aø76 P.02
ftECEIVED
I_ '96 .... 13 P1 :37
Fuller Ford
II (-šA.~~~
StiiiC AUTO PARK DRIVi: . CHULA. VIS"A, CA v1911 . (6191 656-2~Q,D.
'''ClDD~ISa.6-:l92~
.June 13, 1996
The Honorable Shirley Hor~on
Mayor
City of ChuJa Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chui. Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor Horton,
I regret that 1 must submIt my resignation from the Otay Vailey
Planning Committee. I had Jooked forward to being a part of this
group so vitaiiy involved in ~hic regIon's development_
Unfortunately I have recently been called on to become President of
the California Motor Car Dealer. A..ociation earlier than I
originally anticipated due to the lli h.ealth of our inoomlng
President. While I wall honored to accept thlo position the
commitment In time and travel i. considerable. In faet, I haye
been out of town on Association business on each of our committee
meeting dates. It would be unfair for me to continue to occupy
this position without a reasonable el(peotaHon of my ability to
attend and contribute to the process.
I would 6uggest that you mIght oonsider either MIke Parguson or
Fred Borst aa possible replacements. Both would be exceUênt
selectJona and have indicated their wl11ingnes~ to SerYe.
Once again I apoloBize tor my unforeseen confiict and res18natlon.
Pi ease oontact me if J can be of any further assistance.
"e.o,o'y, ~
~~~FU1Jer
Ü /!J'1w.nA /J}'uIIøt fin /J}'rnád"
5b--;¿
"
,,>
._--~-~-_._--~-_..__.-
Parks & Recreation Department ~ECE IVE.. !r¡j I ¡, ~.lJJiJi¡] Iii'
City ofChula Vista 116....25 PJ.38iuU, J/JN?'/99" Iii::'
!' ,-,.0,
276 Fourth Ave. ' L'~
_IMAVIST,I -'. ¡
Chula Vista, CA 91910 _ _ _' ___., ',.F'i (.'.' ¡' ,,¡-,,'~-'~
· IFF~ ' '. c,.
".-__.l. r!,
.-----
June 20, 1996
To: Mayor Shirley Horton
Chula Vista City Council
Jess Valenzuela, Parks & Recreation Director
Chairperson Carmen Sandoval
Parks & Recreation Commissioners
It is with reluctance that I must tender my resignation from serving as a member of the
City ofChula Vista, Parks & Recreation Commission effective immediately. I was
honored to be selected and enjoyed the briefterm I was able to serve. However, for
reasons of employment challenges and family I find that I am not able to dedicate the
time and thought required to be an effective member of the commission.
I wish the Parks & Recreation Commission all the success you deserve for your
dedication and commitment to the enhancement or betterment of the City ofChula Vista.
We all benefit from your efforts. Thank you and God Bless.
Sincerely,
Dan Sweetwood
WRlnEN COi1\.MU~"iCA TIO~"S
ce' ;g~~(0 ~ ;!0~
Ð~ #+{
~~/ \-\
"
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ?
/B"..:tf'J Meeting Date 7/9/96
ITEM TITLE: Resolu tion Rejecting bids for "Construction of Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) Renovations, Phase 11 (Main Library,
Police Building, Public Services Building, and Parkway Recreation
Center) in the City of Chula Vista, CA (GG-144)" and directing the
Director of Department of Building and Housing 10 readvertise the
,,,'¡~d pmj", ~
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Building and Housi
REVIEWED BY: City Manager J~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.xJ
At 2:00 p.m. on April 3, 1996, in Conference Room 2 in the Public Services Building, the
Director of Building and Housing received sealed bids for project "Construction of ADA
Renovations, Phase 11 (Main Library, Police Building, Public Services Building, and Parkway
Recreation Center) in the City of Chula Vista, CA (GG-144)." The work to be done
consisted of modifying existing restrooms to accommodate individuals with disabilities. The
work included minor demolition work, construction of interior walls, plumbing fixtures,
doors, hardware, signage, and interior finishes.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council reject bids and direct the Director of Building and
Housing to readvertise the work.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Funds for modifying existing buildings to accommodate persons with disabilities were
included in the FY-94, FY·95 & FY·96 ClP programs (GG-144). Approximately 46
locations within various City facilities requ ire modifications to accommodate individuals wilh
disabilities in accordance with ADA. Plans and specifications for these modifications were
prepared by the Building and Housing Department. Bids for this project were received
from six contractors as follows:
Con tractor Bid Amount
1. Precise Construction Management $109,490.00
2. Parnell & Leonard, Inc. $112,399.00
3. CDM Construction $115,156.00
4. HAR Construction $119,645.00
5. Garhovac Construction $138,208.00
. .
.
¿-j ,
,:¡)
Page 2, Item (,
Meeting Date 7 /9/96
16. Adams Builders I $152,732.00 I
The City's ADA Coordinator, along with the Building Projects Supervisor from the Public
Works Department, reviewed the work to be performed and determined that the one of the
projects (Eucalyptus Park Restrooms) should not be performed at this time. The project
to modify the existing Eucalyptus Park Restrooms is no longer warranted due to Parks and
Recreation Department's intent to demolish the structure and replace them in the current
fiscal year (CIP PR-136).
The cost for renovation of the Eucalyptus Park Restrooms represented a significant portion
of the overall bId. As this change significantly impacts the overall bid, the City Attorney
has recommended these bids be rejected and the project readvertised.
When this project is readvertised it will include modifications that were not part of the
original bid package. The in-house design work for these additional projects had not been
completed at time the original package was advertised. Including these additional
modifications will result in a single bid package that covers all remaining work to be
completed under this Capital Improvement Project. Staff believes lhis approach will also
make the overall project more manageable.
FISCAL IMPACf: None
KGIJbwr
c:\wp511.d".cœl\ldarejcJ
,
. .
.
t .. ,2..
RESOLUTION NO. /8"'JfJ
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA REJECTING BIDS FOR "CONSTRUCTION
OF AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
RENOVATIONS, PHASE II (MAIN LIBRARY, POLICE
BUILDING, PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING, AND
PARKWAY RECREATION CENTER) IN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CA. (GG-144)" AND DIRECTING THE
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND HOUSING TO ADVERTISE
THE REVISED PROJECT
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on April 3, 1996, in Conference
Room 2 in the Public Services Building, the Director of Building
and Housing received the following six sealed bids for project
"Construction of ADA Renovations, Phase II (Main Library, Police
Building, Public Services Building, and Parkway Recreation Center)
in the City of Chula Vista, CA. (GG-144)":
Contractor Bid Amount
Precise Construction Management $109,490.00
Parnell & Leonard, Inc. $112,399.00
CDM Construction $115,156.00
HAR Construction $119,645.00
Garhovac Construction $138,208.00
Adams Builders $152,732.00
WHEREAS, the City's ADA Coordinator, along with the
Building Projects Supervisor from the Public Works Department,
reviewed the work to be performed and determined that one of the
projects (Eucalyptus Park Restrooms) should not be performed at
this time as the project to modify the existing Eucalyptus Park
Restrooms is no longer warranted due to Parks and Recreation
Department's intent to demolish the structure and replace them in
the current fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the cost for renovation of the Eucalyptus Park
Restrooms represented a significant portion of the overall bid; and
WHEREAS, the change affects the City's ability to make
fair bid comparisons; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that additional facility
renovations could be added to the project; and
1
~,;t
'\
\
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the City to
stimulate advantageous market place bid comparisons; and
WHEREAS, these changes significantly impact the overall
bids and are likely to affect the response of potential bidders,
the City Attorney has recommended these bids be rejected and the
project readvertised.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby determine that the bids received
for "Construction of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Renovations, Phase II (Main Library, Police Building, Public
Services Building, and Parkway Recreation Center) in the City of
Chula Vista, Ca. (GG-144) no longer accurately reflect the project
and therefore are rejected.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Building and
Housing is hereby authorized to advertise the revised project for
bids.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Kenneth Larsen, Director of ~~
Building and Housing
C:\rs\ADA.bid
2
tb~i
f
"
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item-L
Itf'"J..5ý Meeting Date 7/9/96
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving Third Amendment to Agreement Bètween
the San Diego Transit Corporation (SDTC) and City of Chula Vista for
Unified Telephone Information System
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager }~1(, (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ NoX)
On July 19, 1980 the South Coast Organization Operating Transit (SCOOT) entered into an
agreement with the San Diego Transit Cooperation (SDTC) for regional transit telephone
information service. This service provides Chula Vista Transit (CVT) riders with schedule
information both on CVT and on all fixed routes transit systems operating in the County. On July
1, 1993, SCOOT was dissolved and the agreement for this telephone information service was
changed beginning in FY 1993/94 to be between the City of Chula Vista and SDTC. This Third
Amendment to the Agreement for FY 1996/97 continues CVT's participation in this regional transit
information system at a cost of $36,532.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve Resolution approving Third Amendment to
Agreement between San Diego Transit Corporation and City of Chula Vista for Unified Telephone
Information System for FY 1996/97.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The following transit operators participate in the Regional Telephone Information System operated
by SDTC: San Diego Trolley, North County Transit District, San Diego Transit, County Transit
Suburban, Chula Vista Transit, National City Transit and the Coaster. Chula Vistans receive
schedule and transfer information on all systems operating in the County. The telephone information
system is available 7 days a week between the hours approximately 5:30am and II :OOpm.
The total estimated SDTC transit information system cost for next year is $1,003,624, a 2.6%
increase over the current total system cost of $978,439. The total system cost is allocated to each
transit operator based on the percent share of calls originating from each operator's service area.
These percent allocations are based on the previous three year total calls answered, and are updated
annually. As indicated on Exhibit A to the attached agreement, the City of Chula Vista's calls
increased from 3.18% of the total regional calls to 3.64% next fiscal year. Exhibit B shows the 3
year breakdown of calls for each transit system for the periods March 1993 to February 1996, and
March 1992 to February 1995. As shown on Exhibit B, the City ofChula Vista's percent of calls
7-/
Page 2, Item-2-
Meeting Date 7/9/96
increased 30.5% during these two periods (from 98,155 total calls between March 1992 and
February 1995 and 120,085 total calls during March 1993 and February 1996). The City's share of
the FY 1996/97 total system cost is $36,532 (3.64% x $1,003,624), an increase of$5,4l8 or 17.4%
over the current fiscal year cost.
Although Chula Vista's share of the total infonnation system cost for next fiscal year increased
17.4%, Chula Vista's total calls increased 30.5% between the two three year periods shown on
ExhibitB. The average annual number of calls between March 1992 and February 1995 was 32,718
(98,155 calls 7 3 years), and 42,696 (128,085 calls 73 years) between March 1993 and February
1996. Therefore, on an average cost per call basis, the current fiscal year cost was approximately
$.95 per call ($31,114732,718 calls); the average cost per call next fiscal year contained in the Third
Amendment will decrease to $.86 ($36,532742,696 calls), approximately 10.5%.
FISCAL IMPACT: The City of Chula Vista's share of the FY 1996/97 Unified Telephone
Infonnation System cost is $36,532. This cost is contained in the Transit Division budget, which
is funded by Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4.0 funds and farebox revenue. There
are no City of Chula Vista General Funds used to support transit operations.
File # DS035
M:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\3RDAMEND. WMG
7-;2 1'\
_.~_..._-~--
RESOLUTION NO. I ÝJ'>~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THIRD AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SAN DIEGO TRANSIT
CORPORATION (SDTC) AND CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR
UNIFIED TELEPHONE INFORMATION SYSTEM
WHEREAS, on July 19, 1980, the South Coast Organization
Operating Transit (SCOOT) entered into an agreement with San Diego
Transit Corporation (SDTC) for regional transit telephone
information service; and
WHEREAS, this service provides Chula Vista Transit (CVT)
riders with information on CVT schedules and routes and on all
other fixed route transit systems in San Diego County; and
WHEREAS, when SCOOT was dissolved on July 1, 1993, the
agreement for this telephone information service was changed in FY
1993-94 to be between the City of Chula Vista and SDTC; and
WHEREAS, this third amendment for FY 1996-97 continues
CVT's participation in this regional service at a cost of $36,532.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby approve the Third Amendment to
Agreement between the San Diego Transit Corporation (SDTC) and City
of Chula vista for unified telephone information system, a copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk as Document No._
- (to be completed by the City Clerk in the final document).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Amendment for and on behalf of the city of Chula vista.
Presented by Approved as to form by
(~~9--..Q
John P. Lippitt, Director of Ann Y. Moore, Interim City
Public Works Attorney
C:\rs\SDTC.tel
7-3~ f ,'\,
u
. ________,_ ...._~. - _..._.__.u_
Agreement between the San Diego Transit Corporation (SDTC)
and
City of Chula Vista
for
Unified Telephone Information System
THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT
In accordance with Sections 7A and 8 of the above mentioned agreement, the following
changes in the agreement as of July I, 1996, are hereby agreed upon:
Recitals
WHEREAS, City operates Chula Vista Transit (CVT), a fixed-route bus
system; and
WHEREAS, SDTC has jointly in the past maintained a Transportation
Infonnation System providing infonnation to telephone callers about CVT
operations and relating to fare, route and other operational infonnation; and
WHEREAS, such a relationship has benefited both SDTC and City in tenns
of effectiveness and efficiency; and
WHEREAS, SDTC and City desire to continue this relationship.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and the mutual
obligation of the parties set forth herein, SDTC and City agree as follows:
Section 2. Obligations of City
Delete Paragraphs A and B and replace as follows:
A. City agrees to pay to SDTC the sum of thirty-six thousand, five hundred thirty-two
dollars ($36,532) in return for the use of its Telephone Infonnation System (TIS)
to disseminate rider infonnation by telephone during the period of July 1, 1996
through June 30, 1997. The calculation of the $36,532 is shown on Exhibit A
attached to this agreement. This calculation is based upon the number of calls
received for each agency during a 36-month period--which for this year will be
from March 1993 to February 1996--and a first year estimate for the Coaster. This
36-month period will roll forward one year each successive amendment.
7d"
,
,
Third Amendment to the Agreement
between SDTC and City of Chula Vista
Page 2
B. Payment for this sum shall be made on a monthly basis no later than ten (10) days
after receipt of invoice from SDTC. Payment for each month shall be the amount
of three thousand, forty-four dollars and thirty-four cents ($3,044.34).
All other provisions of this agreement shall remain in force.
SAN DIEGO TRANSIT CORPORATION CITY OF CHULA VISTA
by
Mayor
Date: ¿/ 'Ý/1" Date:
, ,
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as to Fonn:
~~~Q
-
City Attorney
Attachment: Exhibit A
7-~
'"
EXHIBIT A
SAN DIEGO TRANSIT CORPORA nON
FISCAL YEAR 1997 TELEPHONE CONTRACTS
Proposed
FY97 FY97 FY96 FY96
Percentage Cost Percentage Cost
CHULA VISTA 3.64% $36,532 3.18% $31,114
COUNTY 6.14% $61,623 6.54% $63,990
NATIONAL CITY 1.64% $16,459 1.80% $17,612
NORTH COUNTY 13.72% $137,697 14.88% $145,592
COASTER 4.48% $44,962 2.04% $19,960
SDTC 59.04% $592,540 59.29% $580,116
TROLLEY 8.79% $88,219 9.24% $90,408
MTDB 2.55% $25,592 3.03% $29.647
TOTAL 100.00% $1,003,624 100.00% $978,439
7-7
,"\
---.- ..>--
«r "tetT e
TOTAL CALLS
3 Year Rolling Totals
Mar ' 93 to Mar ' 92 to Change in Total Calls
Feb' 96 Feb' 95 % #
CHULA VISTA 128,085 98,155 30.5% 29,930
COUNTY 216,133 201,846 7.1% 14,287
NATIONAL CITY 57,890 55,391 4.5% 2,499
NORTH COUNTY 482,949 459,133 5.2% 23,816
COASTER 157,669 63,000 ** 0/0 94,669
SDTC 2,078,687 1,829,023 13.7% 249,664
TROLLEY 309,453 285,050 8.6% 24,403
MTDB 89.685 93,394 -4.0% (3,709)
TOTAL 3,520,551 3,084,992 14.1% 435,559
** The Mar ' 92 to Feb ' 95 figure is an armualized estimate for the startup of Coaster services
?-~
.'
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 7/9/96
ITEM TITLE: Resolution / 8".J'.5' t::ting a City Council Policy Regulating the
Practice of Installing Plastic Delineators as Traffic Control Devices on
City Streets
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
I .
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~¡V1- (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
J:~
At the January 16, 1996 Council meeting, Council requested information regarding staff's plans
to phase out existing delineator locations and staff s intent regarding future installation of
traffic delineators. The report and proposed policy will address those concerns.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept staffs report and adopt the City Council Policy
contained therein.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The City currently has traffic control delineators (pylons) at ten locations, nine of which are
contained in the CIP summary provided in Exhibit A. With the exception of the traffic control
pylons on Otay Lakes Road south of East "H" Street, at Southwestern College, pylons have
been installed at these locations to prevent vehicle movements across painted medians (double
parallel solid double yellow lines). Vehicle movements across painted medians are prohibited
by Section 21651 of the California Vehicle Code. Staff generally installs painted medians in
locations where it is anticipated that turns will produce an unsafe situation or will interfere with
the flow of traffic. However, some motorists cross these painted medians to enter and exit
driveways, such as shopping centers and comer businesses. Part of the problem may be that
the motorists are not aware of the significance of "painted medians". In these situations, it is
necessary as an interim measure until more permanent medians are installed, to install traffic
control pylons to reinforce the prohibition at these locations. The pylons on Otay Lakes Road
south of East "H" Street were installed to prevent motorists from driving into the southerly
terminus of the existing two foot wide raised median.
The permanent solution to many of the situations is to remove the pylons and replace them
with raised concrete medians or islands. Included in the "traffic" portion of the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) plan, nine of these ten locations are scheduled for median
installation.
Phase I
For this Fiscal Year 1995/96 Phase I Delineator Removal Program, the three locations on
Country Club Drive have been designed and bid. Bids were received on May 1, 1996. The
Contract was awarded on June 18, 1996.
~-I
Page 2, Item 2'"
Meeting Date 7/9/96
Phase II
The Delineator Removal Program includes two locations; 700 block of Third Avenue in front
of the U.S. Post Office, and the 400 block of "L" Street in front of the Boys/Girls Club. Phase
II is scheduled for Fiscal Year 1996/97.
Phase III
Phase III is scheduled to be designed and constructed in Fiscal Year 1997/98 and includes the
following four locations; Otay Lakes Road north of Rjdgeback Road, "E" Street west of Fourth
Avenue, Fourth Avenue north of "E" Street, and Fourth Avenue north of "H" Street.
The temporary delineators at North Fourth Avenue and Brisbane Street will be removed with
the installation of the traffic signal and construction of rIDsed median islands. This work is
being done in conjunction with the Wal-Mart improvements and has been delayed due to the
need for additional right of way acquisition from Target. Construction is expected to be
completed by the end of this calendar year.
In addition, the temporary delineators on Otay Lakes Road south of East H Street will be
removed as part of the project to install dual left turn lanes at this location. This construction
is currently scheduled for Summer 1997.
City Council Policv
PURPOSE
It is the purpose of this policy, to regulate, control, and limit the installation of plastic
delineators as a means of controlling traffic on public streets. This policy is not to be
construed to regulate or control the use of plastic delineators as temporary traffic control
devices to guide or control vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic in construction zones, at special
events, or during a declared state of emergency. In these cases the City Engineer or the Chief
of Police may order such traffic control as may be determined to provide for the safe and
orderly movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic as provided for in Title 10 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code.
POLICY
1. Defmition
Staff currently has no plans to install pylons (delineators) in the future and has initiated regular
cleaning and mIDntenance of the existing traffic control pylons in order to lessen their negative
visual impacts until permanent traffic control improvements can be accomplished. Staff
believes that the delineators are a valuable tool for interim situations where permanent solutions
cannot practically be installed because:
2. Limitations
a. There are physical limitations to the installation of a concrete median islands (limited
right-of-way, etc.).
g--,;;..
Page 3, Item 8"
Meeting Dale 7/9/96
b. The cost of such installation is not financially if that area is due for major
reconstruction in the near future.
c. A severe safety hazard exists, which cannot safely be postponed until a permanent
median is installed.
3. PERMISSION
Staff understands Council's concerns, and will not install delineators on City streets without
first informing Council of the need and reasons permanent medians cannot be installed
immediately. It is anticipated that this will occur rarely and only in exceptional circumstances.
In those instances, the program for removing the temporary delineators and installation of
permanent medians wiU be set forth.
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of installation of delineators, either preliminary to or
in lieu of permanent medians cannot be estimated, since no specifics are known. As stated
above, staff will minimize their use.
The current CIP budget for Phase I removal of the delineators is $50,000. The proposed Phase
II CIP budget recommendation for FY 1996/97 is $60,000, and Phase III in FY 1997/98 is
currently $50,000.
Attachments: EXHmIT A
Proposed CIP Project Phase I (TF-222), Estimated Cost of $50,000.00
Proposed CIP Project Phase II (TF-238), Estimated Cost of $60,000.00
Proposed CIP Project Phase III(TF-239), Estimated Cost of $50,000.00
File No: 0760-95-CY029
CST:dmw
M:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA \PYLONREM.CST
~'3~1 ~\' (
RESOLUTION NO. / ~.:J3'~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADOPTING A CITY COUNCIL POLICY
REGULATING THE PRACTICE OF INSTALLING PLASTIC
DELINEATORS AS TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES ON CITY
STREETS
WHEREAS, at the January 16, 1996 Council meeting, Council
requested information regarding staff' s plans to phase out existing
delineator locations and staff's intent regarding future
installation of traffic delineators; and
WHEREAS, the City currently has traffic control
delineators (pylons) at ten locations, and with the exception of
the traffic control pylons on Otay Lakes Road south of East "H"
Street, at Southwestern College, pylons have been installed at
these locations to prevent vehicle movements across painted medians
(double parallel solid double yellow lines); and
WHEREÀS, vehicle movements across painted medians are
prohibited by Section 21651 of the California Vehicle Code and
staff generally installs painted medians in locations where it is
anticipated that turns will produce an unsafe situation or will
interfere with the flow of traffic; and
WHEREAS, some motorists cross these painted medians to
enter and exit driveways, such as shopping centers and corner
businesses and are not aware of the significance of "painted
medians"; and
WHEREAS, the installation of traffic control pylons may
be necessary as an interim measure until permanent medians are
installed to prevent vehicle movement from such locations; and
W.HEREAS, the permanent solution to many of the situations
is to remove the pylons and replace them with raised concrete
medians or islands.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt a City Council Policy as set
forth in Exhibit nAil, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as if set forth in full, regulating the practice of
installing plastic delineators as traffic control devices on City
streets.
Presented by Approved as to form by
~~
John P. Lippitt, Director of Ann Moore, Interim City
Public Works Attorney
c: \rs\pylon
8'" S'~ G
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: INSTALLATION OF DELINEATORS POLICY EFFECTIVE
NUMBER DATE PAGE
1 OF 1
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. xxxxx DATED: 6/18/96
PURPOSE
It is the intent of the City Council, and the purpose of this policy, to regulate, control, and limit the
installation of plastic delineators as a means of controlling traffic on public streets. This policy is not to
be construed to regulate or control the use of plastic delineators as temporary traffic control devices to
guide or control vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic in construction zones, at special events, or during a
declared state of emergency. In these cases the City Engineer or the Chief of Police may order such
traffic control as may be determined to provide for the safe and orderly movement of vehicular and
pedestrian traffic as provided for in Title 10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
POLICY
Definition
Currently there are no plans to install pylons (delineators) in the future and, for those currently in place,
a program of regular cleaning and maintenance has been initiated in order to lessen their negative visual
impacts until permanent traffic control improvements can be accomplished. Delineators are a valuable
tool for interim situations where permanent solutions cannot practically be installed because of the
following limitations:
a. There are physical limitations to the installation of a concrete median islands (limited right-
of-way, etc.).
b. The cost of such installation is not financially practical, if that area is due for major
reconstruction in the near future.
c. A severe safety hazard exists, which cannot safely be postponed until a permanent median
is installed.
PERMISSION
New delineators will not be installed on City streets without first informing Council of the need and
reasons permanent medians cannot be installed immediately. It is anticipated that this will occur rarely
and in exceptional circumstances. In those instances, the program for removing the temporary delineators
and installation of permanent medians will be set forth.
8'- ? "
._----.-- -
. --- -.. -- -.------ _._._----_._-_._------~---- -'.- -..--
~ . EXHI.'T A
I. a a . _ ,..0~1
t
I a a
..
t
I a a . '
! .. . ~ ~.
. t -
II ' 5T "'E~I''E L ~
- \\ \ . "
- . . ~ ,
¡ I. a a'~ - E ~
i,¡; t::,.1
.. _! I i
;j ; q- - I I
a . Iii II.
.j I~I ~ i i fd ~ i !
ii ~i~ i cil ¡¡. ,
; .¡l t ~~ 11 f
It>
I!s :I! $! :! ..! !! rt '"
5Π~IBI d ~ ~~ J
~ f~ i" 51 I
c ~ 8.~ I§ I!
§ ß~ · · H q Ii ~IH: I
i § .... .......... I,: ~ 1 I f
J<i , J ~
I ~ ~,. dJ .þ
II ~ ~ :I~i I! J f
aa 1 i .; 1';t ,
... j Ii I ¡ I i .Þ 1 ~. I
_ ~ n d J i IPH -!
i I .... I ~ I~ III I
~~§ ~ .. .. É ~ > i Ii I) if;
ð"''' l' . . c! If ~ ~ 'J eX :& ¡)
. A-I.
- .
, ~.
EXHI81T . A
a a
í ..'
t i~
.'
s s
I
IJ
..
t i-
S a
I~ I
I ¡ ~i
..
II t -
s a
ill ;
..
.J t
~¡I Ii 0 § §. ~ §. I I I~ . J š i i
i g
I i.' I I Ii III I
Ii ~iti
..
~¡ n~ t
· · Ii h! î '"
0
...
~II~
~I
... U Iii! i
fiD. ~I;
:I
-
I ·
~;i = · · ~.tll Ii t: '. I
J i~
J
J I d~ Hill J
r
!I I .
I
J {il .6i · ,
~ I
u ft· · J Ii I!I f
I
Ë I ill ~l~ t J
~
.. ~I ~ .. .. !! ~ ~ ~ i ~ I j tf f -
i ~
"
~ ¡
g:? A--1. . _.
I a a
t
I a a
..
t
I I a a
..
il t
fll I a 0 § § ! I I §
d . ¡ I
.. :¡ i
~
c" . ¡
Ii:i .. t I" - . '" I ~
¡i ¡if; " iiJ' lšj -"t
sl ~II t lõ Jjj I
; i · fõ I I I
~I I~ " H '~I ~
Oil!· ~ . M
~. ~I!~ IIi In I 0
... .
UG. ~~u sl
:I I ¡ ... 12'( ~
~ ~ I~~ ~ !
...... ..... J Bõ f ~
§ ;¡ · · H §¡I ~}f J' Jf · B
I I~ .."~. u Ii 'f! ¡,!
I ~ tj~ P i i'
J ~ i 1 Ifi J f f ·
~ ~I 11 I
f
f
~. f · f!~~'k ¡: If
I
, .
, .. J I ; ri hI! I f .
i.~ I ]fj):~ ~hil!n·J
~d L · . .» h IH¡ !l~q 'f -
~'/(l A-3 lIe Ii II . ' ;; .'
¡ ,
- .---.............---..
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item---1-
Meeting Date July 9. 1996
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing on Adoption of the Otay Ranch
Reserve Fund Fee
ordinance';<¡' ð"''''¡stabliShing the otay Ranch Reserve
Fund Fee in accordance with Resolution 18288, which
established the Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program
¿'
SUBMITTED BY: Deputy City Manager Thomson JI
Finance Director ~
REVIEWED BY: city Manager~~~ (4/sths Vote: Yes_ No_JLJ
At its May 14, 1996 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution
18288 which established the Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program. As
established by that Resolution, the otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program
has two components: (a) a Reserve Fund fee, to be paid by the
developer/applicant, adopted by ordinance by the City Council, and
(b) the Otay Ranch Property Tax Transfer Agreement between the City
of Chula vista and the County of San Diego. The Property Tax
Transfer Agreement was approved by the City Council on May 14, 1996
and by the County Board of Supervisors on May 15, 1996.
In adopting the Property Tax Transfer Agreement and establishing
the otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program on May 14, 1996, the City
Council also directed staff to schedule a public hearing to
establish the fee for the otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program. This
public hearing and the proposed ordinance are thus for the City
Council to consider establishing the fee for the otay Ranch Reserve
Fund Program.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Conduct the public hearing on the adoption of the otay Ranch
Reserve Fund fee, and
2. Place the ordinance establishing the otay Ranch Reserve Fund
fee on the first reading.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
The otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), approved by the
Chula vista city Council and Board of Supervisors on October 28,
9,/
- - --"._._._,---.._..__.__.~--
Meeting Date July 9. 1996
Page 2
1993, included the following policy on page 264 of the GDP: "All
city local services provided to the incorporated portions of otay
Ranch, including direct and indirect costs, and including capital
and operating costs, shall be covered by project revenues and
project exactions. Shortfalls shall be covered through a specially
designated fund established by the developer and through an
agreement between the City of Chula vista and the County of San
Diego. Capital costs for regional facilities shall also be covered
by the project revenues... "
The otay Ranch GDP also includes an Implementation Measure on page
265 that states: "A reserve fund program shall be established
concurrent with the approval of the first SPA, to correct any
annual operating deficiencies incurred by the applicable
jurisdiction. The reserve fund program shall finance the cost of
an annual review and updated fiscal impact analysis, and be the
basis for any transfer of monies from the reserve fund... "
The Property Tax Transfer Agreement previously approved by the City
Council and the County Board of Supervisors for otay Ranch, calls
for the city and County to jointly undertake an annual fiscal
impact analysis of the project area for twenty years commencing
with FY 1997-98 using the Fiscal Impact of New Development (FIND)
Model. The Property Tax Agreement also requires the County to
utilize a portion of its annual fiscal surplus to offset any
residual operating deficits incurred by the city through FY 2016-
17, subject to specified constraints.
The otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program, as adopted by the City Council
in Resolution 18288 on May 14, 1996, specifies that the Reserve
Fund Program shall consist of the following:
a. The developer and/or applicant shall pay a fee, adopted
by ordinance by the city Council, to pay for the
financing of the cost of an annual review and an updated
fiscal impact analysis, as performed by the Fiscal Impact
of New Development (FIND) Model. The FIND Model produces
a representation of City and County fiscal impacts for
any given year and throughout the otay Ranch Project's
build out period.
b. The otay Ranch Property Tax Transfer Agreement, entered
into with the County by Resolution #18261, wherein the
County has agreed to cover, subject to a number of
contingencies, the potential City operating deficits from
the otay Ranch Project that the City might incur through
FY 2016-17.
Resolution #18288 also indicates that the city Council may amend
9-.2
Meeting Date July 9. 1996
Page 3
the Reserve Fund Program, from time to time, to include additional
fees to cover any potential city operating deficits that may not be
covered by the adopted Reserve Fund Program. Considering the
provisions of the otay Ranch Property Tax Agreement, there are two
types of potential City operating deficits that could conceivably
result in such a need to amend the Reserve Fund Program:
- To cover any potential City operating deficits that may
not be covered by the County through transfer payments
during the first twenty years if the limitations in the
Property Tax Agreement prevent the City from being fully
covered by the County's transfer payments.
- To cover any potential city operating deficits that might
occur after the County's 20-year transfer payment
obligation period ends in FY 2016-17.
At this point, staff believes that it is likely that the Property
Tax Transfer Agreement with the County will cover any operating
deficits from the otay Ranch that the City might incur through FY
2016-17, and that the city will be in a surplus rather than a
deficit position in otay Ranch operating costs by then, so staff is
not recommending that the initial fee for the Reserve Fund include
a component to cover potential City deficits. Instead, staff is
recommending that the initial fee for the Reserve Fund be
established to cover the annual fiscal impact analysis discussed
above. While not reflected in the initial fee, the Reserve Fund
Program will allow for the possibility, if necessary at some future
point, to amend the Reserve Fund Program to include a Reserve Fund
fee component to cover any potential City deficits that may not be
covered by the County through transfer payments through the first
twenty years or to cover any potential city deficits that might
occur after the County's 20-year transfer payment obligation ends.
The Property Tax Transfer Agreement requires the City to pay for
the County's staff costs of participating in the annual fiscal
analysis unless the City arranges for another source, such as the
Developer Reserve Fund, to pay for the County's staff costs. The
County's staff costs are limited to $30,000 the first year, $15,000
the second year, and $10,000 for years 3 through 20 with these
maximums subject to an annual CPI adjustment and other potential
adjustments.
Attachment 1 provides an estimate of the cost of conducting the
annual otay Ranch fiscal analysis, jointly with the County for the
first 20 years and without the County's participation for years 21
through 35. These estimates include an estimate of contractor
costs for running the FIND Model. The cost estimate is the highest
9'3
Meeting Date Julv 9: 1996
Page 4
for the first year the FIND Model is run, decreasing in the second
year and also in the third year and then remaining flat until year
21, when the County' s involvement ends and the annual cost is
further reduced. As indicated in Attachment 1, the total estimated
cost of conducting the annual fiscal analysis over 35 years is
$626,000 in current year dollars. These costs will likely increase
over time depending on inflation rates.
Because the FIND Model projections indicate that the City's
deficits result from residential development, not commercial or
industrial, it is recommended that the fees for the otay Ranch
Reserve Fund be tied to residential units. The GDP indicates a
total of 18,367 dwelling units (both single family and multi-
family) on the portions of otay Ranch covered by the otay Ranch
Property Tax Transfer Agreement (most of the western parcel, the
"inverted L", and the ranchhouse area).
Dividing the $626,000 total estimated cost of conducting the annual
fiscal analysis by the 18,367 dwelling units would result in an
initial fee of $34.08 per dwelling unit. As discussed above and
illustrated in Attachment 1, however, the annual cost of conducting
the fiscal analysis is projected to be significantly higher in the
first two years than thereafter. Staff therefore proposes that a
higher fee of $124.00 per dwelling unit be charged for the first
1,500 dwelling units to cover the estimated first five years of
cost ($186,000), and $26.09 per dwelling unit be charged for the
remaining 16,867 dwelling units to cover the remaining estimated
cost ($440,000), as shown on Attachment 1. These fees would be
collected at the building permit stage and would need to be
increased over time to take into account the increases in the cost
of processing over the 35-year period starting in FY 1997-98.
The proposed ordinance specifies that the otay Ranch Reserve Fund
fee shall be suspended when the city council determines that
adequate funds have been collected for the otay Ranch Reserve Fund
or that no further expenditures will be required from the otay
Ranch Reserve Fund. At that time, the Finance Director would
provide a report to the city council summarizing the revenues and
expenditures up to that time for the otay Ranch Reserve Fund as
well as any projected funding requirements for the Reserve Fund.
At that time, if there are surplus funds available in the Reserve
Fund, the City Manager will provide a recommendation to the City
council on the most fair and equitable disposition of any excess
fees that may have been collected. For example, any remaining
balance of the Reserve Fund could be divided by the number of
residential units for each developer or applicant who has paid the
Reserve Fund fee.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the
9~i
Meeting Date July 9. 1996
Page 5
proposed ordinance is exempt under the provisions of CEQA
Guidelines section l506l(b) (3) .
FISCAL IMPACT: Based on the most recent Ralph Anderson FIND Model
analysis (1995) and the provisions of the adopted Property Tax
Transfer Agreement, the city is projected to receive a surplus of
approximately $18.4 million (in current year dollars) from
development in the parts of the Otay Ranch covered by the Property
Tax Agreement over a 30-year period. The City's actual fiscal
impact will depend on a myriad of factors involving the actual land
use mix and phasing of the development as well as city (and County)
cost and revenue patterns.
The Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program will provide the estimated
$626,000 in funding for the annual fiscal impact studies needed to
implement the adopted Property Tax Transfer Agreement, including
the County's costs for the first twenty years as well as the City's
costs of conducting the fiscal impact studies for up to 35 years.
The Reserve Fund Program, if amended to do so in the future, could
also potentially serve as an "insurance" fund should City deficits
in the buildout years exceed the levels the County is obligated to
offset by the Property Tax Transfer Agreement or should such
potential City deficits occur after the County's 20-year transfer
payment obligation ends.
Attachments:
- Calculation of otay Ranch Reserve Fund Fee
- Ordinance estàblishing Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Fee
- May 14, 1996 Council Agenda Statement
- Resolution #18288 adopted May 14, 1996 establishing the otay
Ranch Reserve Fund Program
- July 9, 1996 Public Hearing Notification Memo
- Reserve Fund Fee Property Owner Distribution List
M:\HOME\ADMIN\J1\RESERVE.OR
j-f
-;¡'
----------.-.._--;... _."-
ATTACHMENT 1
CALCULATION OF INITIAL FEE FOR OTAY RANCH RESERVE FUND
YEAR CITY COUNTY CONTRACT ANNUAL YEARS TOTAL
COST COST COST COST COST
1 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $80,000 1 $ 80,000
2 15,000 15,000 10,000 40,000 1 40,000
3-20 10,000 10,000 2,000 22,000 18 396,000
21 10,000 0 2,000 12,000 1 12,000
22-35 6,000 0 1,000 7,000 14 98,000
I TOTAL I I I I I 35 I $626,000 I
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO SPREADING THE COST: (B is Recommended)
A. Cost If Spread Equally Over 18,367 Dwelling units (DU)
$626,000 / 18,367 = $34.08 Per DU
B. Cost If 1st Five Year's Cost Spread Over 1st 1,500 DU's
(Recommended Approach)
$186,000 is Cost For 1~ 5 Years
440,000 is Cost For Years 6-35
$186,000 / 1,500 = $124.00 Per DU For 1st 1,500 DU's
$440,000 / 16,867 = $26.09 Per DU For Remaining 16,867 DU's
9-?
ORDINANCE NO. ø2 {p r .3
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING THE
OTAY RANCH RESERVE FUND FEE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION 18288,
WHICH ESTABLISHED THE OTAY RANCH
RESERVE FUND PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP)
approved by the Chula vista city Council and the Board of
Supervisors on October 28, 1993, required that: "All City local
services provided to the incorporated portions of Otay Ranch,
including direct and indirect costs, and including capital and
operating costs, shall be covered by project revenues and project
exactions. Shortfalls shall be covered through a specially
designed fund established by the developer and through an agreement
between the City of Chula vista and the County of San Diego;" and
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch GDP also requires that: "A reserve
fund program shall be established concurrent with the approval of
the first SPA, to correct any annual operating deficiencies
incurred by the applicable jurisdiction. The reserve fund program
shall finance the cost of an annual review and updated fiscal
impact analysis, and be the basis for any transfer of monies from
the reserve fund...;" and .
WHEREAS, the Chula vista city Council on May 14, 1996 adopted
Resolution 18288 establishing the Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program;
and
WHEREAS, Resolution 18288 specifies that the Reserve Fund
Program shall consist of the following: (a) The developer and/or
applicant shall pay a fee, adopted by ordinance by the City
Council, to pay for the financing of the cost of an annual review
and updated fiscal impact analysis, as performed by the Fiscal
Impact of New Development (FIND) Model. The FIND Model produces a
representation of City and County fiscal impacts for any given year
and throughout the Otay Ranch Project's buildout period. (b) The
Property Tax Transfer Agreement, entered into with the County, by
Resolution 18261, wherein the County has agreed to cover, subject
to a number of contingencies, the potential city operating deficits
from the Otay Ranch Project that the City might incur through FY
2016-17; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 18288 specifies that the City Council may
amend the Reserve Fund Program, from time to time, to include
additional fees to cover any potential City deficits that may not
be covered by the adopted Reserve Fund Program; and
1
7- ?
WHEREAS, Resolution 18288 specifies that failure to comply
with the terms of the Reserve Fund Program shall be considered a
violation of the GDP at which time the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals granted for the otay Ranch Project,
including issuance of building permits; and
WHEREAS, the otay Ranch Property Tax Transfer Agreement was
approved by the City Council on May 14, 1996 and by the County
Board of Supervisors on May 15, 1996; and
WHEREAS, said Property Tax Transfer Agreement calls for the
City and County to jointly undertake an annual fiscal impact
analysis of the project area for twenty years commencing with FY
1997-98 and for the County to utilize a portion of its annual
fiscal surplus to offset any residential operating deficits
incurred by the City through FY 2016-17, subject to specified
constraints; and
WHEREAS, the affected property owners were notified of the
proposed otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program prior to its being adopted
by the city Council on May 14, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the affected property owners have been notified of
the July 9, 1996 public hearing on the proposed otay Ranch Reserve
Fund fee; and .
WHEREAS, information regarding the fee and the estimated costs
required to provide the service for which the fee is to be levied,
was made available at the City Clerk's office; and
WHEREAS, Attachment 1 describes the calculation of the initial
fee for the otay Ranch Reserve Fund; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined, based upon the
evidence presented at the July 9, 1996 public hearing, including
but not limited to the various reports and other information
received by the city Council in the course of its business, that
imposition of the otay Ranch Reserve Fund fee on all developments
within the otay Ranch General Development Plan for which building
permits have not yet been issued is necessary in order to protect
the public safety and welfare, to ensure the effective
implementation of the otay Ranch General Development Plan and is
reasonably related to the development of the otay Ranch Project;
and
WHEREAS, the FIND Model projections indicate that the city's
operating deficits result from residential development, not
commercial or industrial, so the proposed fees for the otay Ranch
Reserve Fund are proposed to be tied to residential units, both
single family and multi-family, on the portions of the otay Ranch
covered by the otay Ranch Property Tax Transfer Agreement; and
2
9-y
/,' I
,--~ "-"'_._~_.__._--~------_._...,..._._.__.".-
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined
that this proposed ordinance is exempt under the provisions of
Section 15061(b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
section 1- Territory to Which Fee is Applicable.
The area of the city of Chula Vista to which the otay Ranch
Reserve Fund Fee herein established shall be applicable is the same
as the "Affected Territory" defined in the otay Ranch Property Tax
Transfer Agreement adopted by the Chula Vista city Council on May
14, 1996, which is summarized as "Areas subject to 1996 Otay Ranch
Property Tax Agreement" on the attached Exhibit A.
section 2. Purpose.
By Resolution 18288, the City Council established the Otay
Ranch Reserve Fund Program which is specified to include a fee paid
by the developer and/or applicant. The purpose of this ordinance
is to establish the Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Fee in accordance with
Resolution 18288 and in accordance with the Otay Ranch General
D~velopment Plan.
Section 3. Establishment of Fee.
An otay Ranch Reserve Fund Fee ("Fee") to be expressed on a
per residential dwelling unit basis, shall be paid prior to the
issuance of a building permit for a residential development project
within the Affected Territory.
Section 4. Determination of Dwelling Units
Each single family attached and detached dwelling unit shall
be considered one dwelling unit for purposes of this Fee. Each
mUlti-family attached and detached dwelling unit shall also be
considered a dwelling unit for the purposes of this Fee.
Commercial, industrial and other non-residential uses shall not be
charged an otay Ranch Reserve Fund Fee.
section 5. Time to Determine Amount Due; Advance Payment
Prohibited.
The Fee for each residential dwelling unit shall be calculated
at the time of building permit issuance and shall be the amount as
indicated at that time and not when the tentative map or final map
was granted or applied for, or when the building permit plan check
was conducted, or when application was made for the building
permit. The Fee shall be adjusted from time to time as the City
determines appropriate.
3
9-'
/,
section 6. Amount of Fee.
The Fee shall be calculated at the rate of $124.00 per
dwelling unit for the first 1,500 dwelling units within the
Affected Territory, and $26.09 per dwelling unit for the estimated
remaining 16,867 dwelling units, after said first 1,500 dwelling
units, within the Affected Territory.
The calculation of the initial Fee for the otay Ranch Reserve
Fund is shown in Attachment 1.
The City Council intends to review the amount of this Fee
annually or from time to time. The City Council may, at such
reviews, adjust the amount of this Fee as necessary to assure
compliance with the purposes of this Fee as set forth herein, the
otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program and the otay Ranch General
Development Plan. Adjustments to the above Fee may be made by
resolution.
section 7. Authority for Accounting and Expenditures.
The proceeds collected from the imposition of this Fee and any
interest earned thereon shall be deposited into a separate fund or
account ("otay Ranch Reserve Fund") which is hereby created and
such proceeds shall be expended only for the purposes set forth in
this ordinance.
The Director of Finance is authorized to periodically make
expenditures from the otay Ranch Reserve Fund for the purposes set
forth herein. Expenditures from the otay Ranch Reserve Fund and
any interest earned thereon shall be accounted for separately from
o~her City accounts.
section 8. Revision and Refund of Fees.
At such time as the city Council determines that this Fee is
no longer required to be collected for the purposes set forth
herein, the Fee shall be suspended.
If the Fee is suspended as provided above, the Finance
Director shall provide a report to the city Council summarizing the
revenues and expenditures to date resulting from the Fee. If there
are surplus funds available, the City Manager shall provide a
recommendation to the City Council on the most fair and equitable
disposition of any excess Fees that may have been collected. In
the absence of an alternative determination of fairness by the City
Council, a refund which divides the remaining unused balance by the
residential units for each developer or applicant who has paid the
Fee for the otay Ranch Reserve Fund shall be deemed a fair method.
section 9. Findings.
4
9-/¿)
1::'
The City council of the City of Chula vista does hereby finds
that the establishment of the Fee is necessary to protect the
public safety and welfare, to ensure the effective implementation
of the otay Ranch General Development Plan and is reasonably
related to the development of the Otay Ranch Project, for the
following reasons:
A. The otay Ranch GDP requires that a Reserve Fund Program
be established to correct any annual "operating deficiencies"
incurred by the City as a result of the development of the otay
Ranch Project and to finance the cost of an annual review and
analysis of the fiscal impact this Project is having on the city.
B. The FIND Model produces a representation of the otay Ranch
Project's fiscal impacts on the City and County for any given year
to the buildout of such project.
C. It is projected that the City's operating deficits will
result from residential development, not commercial or industrial,
so the proposed fees for the Otay Ranch Reserve Fund are proposed
to be tied to residential units, both single family and multi-
family.
D. The amount of the fee levied by this ordinance, to fund
the FIND Analysis does not exceed the estimated cost of providing
this service. It is anticipated that the FIND Analysis will be
more costly for the first five years of the otay Ranch Project.
E. The collection of the Fee established by this ordinance at
the time of the building permit is necessary to ensure that funds
will be available for the purposes described in Resolution 18288
and the otay Ranch GDP.
Section 10. Fee Additional to Other Fees and Charges.
The Fee established by this ordinance is in addition to the
requirements imposed by other city laws, policies or regulations
relating to the development of otay Ranch.
section 11. Time Limit for Judicial Action.
Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set
aside, void or annul this ordinance shall be brought within the
time period as established by Government Code section 54995 after
the effective date of this ordinance.
section 12. Expiration of This Ordinance.
This ordinance shall be of no further force and effect when
the City Council determines that the Fees are no longer needed for
the purposes stated herein.
5
9'-//
-------
section 13. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall become effective sixty (60) days after
its second reading and adoption.
Presented by Approved as to form by
~ 7U~~
Jim Thomson Ann Moore
Deputy City Manager Interim City Attorney
M:\ho.e\attorney\reserve.fee
6
9-1.2-
ATTACHMENT 1
CALCULATION OF INITIAL FEE FOR OTAY RANCH RESERVE FUND
YEAR CITY COUNTY CONTRACT ANNUAL YEARS TOTAL
COST COST COST COST COST
1 . $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $80,000 1 $ 80,000
2 15,000 15,000 10,000 40,000 1 40,000
3-20 10,000 10,000 2,000 22,000 18 396,000
21 10,000 0 2,000 12,000 1 12,000
22-35 6,000 0 1,000 7,000 14 98,000
TOTAL 35 $626,000
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO SPREADING THE COST: (B is Recommended)
A. Cost If Spread Equally Over 18,367 Dwelling Units (DU)
$626,000 / 18,367 = $34.08 Per DU
B. Cost If 1st Five Year's Cost Spread Over 1st 1,500 DU's
(Recommended Approach)
$186,000 is Cost For 1st 5 Years
440,000 is Cost For Years 6-35
$186,000 / 1,500 = $124.00 Per DU For 1st 1,500 DU's
$440,000 / 16,867 = $26.09 Per DU For Remaining 16,867 DU's
9-/3
') i,
. /
m
><
:::r
-.
C"'
-.
..' r-foo.
-.:
I',
I.: , »
J' - ,
,
--, .
. -
I ~ ....
-.
I :
Þ
......
0
-"
,
,
~... .
N -¡l!h
"
~ ~
I I I , I
CD ,
, I
III ,
,
, I
,
,
, I
,
. , r
In , I m
0 >"....> >"....> , C)
Co> i~gl~ ~z 0 co'" (I)... cc.,(Ø.., m
- c: ...OCOC1) ...O(l)C1) cn::c 00 z
Q C1)"c .þ.1I> C1)"c en II>
.þ. :::I C1) C1) =:11I C1)C1)OIll c;-' ;:;:r c
....
ëD I ~~ I\'" "C 3::1.11>11I 3::1.....11I (þ< "Cc:
en r (þ"C III c: (þ"C II> c: I\)~ riii
¡;Þ: II> :::I...._tT ¡:¡''''¡<,E: 311I 3:5
:::I ....ø (þ-. 1II;:aC1) 11I1\)
'1 .., )'/ Q. ><...~ ><11>1"1 :::I ::;(1)
. Q.
~ .... :::1- III -
- nõ· II>
0 :r
\)',),
-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
nemJÆ.A.- ,
Meeting Date May 14. 1996
:ITEM T:ITLE: 70-1 Resolution 18261 approving the Property Tax
Transfer Agreement with the county of San
Diego for the otay Ranch
70-2 Resoìution,~Rt1r establishing the otay Ranch
Reserve Fund Program
SUBMITTED BY: Deputy city M;RPwer ~homson
REVIEWED BY: city Manager " .f"\ íiG (4/5ths vote: Yes_ No~)
At its April 16, 1996 meeting, the city council considered the
proposed Property Tax Transfer Agreement with the county of San
Diego for the otay Ranch, and continued the item to the April 30
council meeting to obtain additional information from staff
regarding: comparisons with other property tax agreements; the
Fiscal Impact of New Development (FIND) Model and its methodology;
commercial- property in otay Ranch; and the proposed Developer
Reserve Fund and the provisions of the General Development Plan
related to the Reserve Fund. At the April 30 meeting, the Council
continued the proposed Property Tax Transfer Agreement until the
related Landfill Agreement could be further refined and brought
back to the city Council. The staff reports submitted to the
Council for the April 16 and April 30 council meetings are attached
for Council's information.
The Landfill Agreement is discussed in a separate companion item on
the council's May 14 agenda.
This report also addresses the developer-funded otay Ranch Reserve
Fund program, and recommends establishment of the Reserve Fund
Program with staff to schedule a subsequent public hearing
establishing the fee for the Program.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Adopt the resolution approving the Property Tax Transfer
Agreement with the county for otay Ranch.
.,
2. Adopt th~ resolution establishing the otay Ranch Reserve
Fund program.
3. Direct staff to schedule a public hearing to establish
the fee for the otay Ranch Reserve Fund.
~ - /~--
Item
Meeting Date May 14. 1996
Page 2
BO~/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On September 12, 1995 the Council
appointed Mayor Horton and Councilmember Moot as an ad hoc Council
Subcommittee regarding the property tax agreement with the County
for otay Ranch. This ad hoc council Subcommittee recommends
approval of the proposed Property. Tax Transfer Agreement.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed Property Tax Transfer Agreement is described in detail
in the attached staff reports submitted to the council for the
Apr il 16 and April 30, 1996 council meetings. The only changes
that have been made to the proposed Property Tax Transfer Agreement
since those previous reports have related to the contingencies of
the Property Tax Agreement covered in Section 5 of the Agreement.
The proposed Property Tax Agreement is still contingent on LAFCO's
approval of the addition of the panhandle area (excluding the
County Landfill), or at least a minimum of Village III and Planning
Area 18-B, to the city's Sphere of Influence by August 5, 1996.
The Property Tax Agreement is also still contingent on the approval
of a separate Landfill Agreement by both the City and the county,
and that Agreement is discussed in a separate agenda statement.
Instead of also being contingent upon the detachment of the otay
Landfill from the city, the revised property Tax Agreement applies
only to annexations or reorganizations occurring concurrent with,
or subsequent to, the detachment of the otay Landfill from the
city. This minor change is required to ensure that there is a
valid Property Tax Agreement in effect so that LAFCO can process
the annexation. The result is still that no Otay Ranch annexation
can occur prior to the detachment of the otay Landfill from the
city.
The only other change in the proposed Property Tax Agreement since
the Apr il staff reports is to provide a ·walk away' period that
allows either the City or the county to rescind its approval of
both the Property Tax Agreement and the Landfill Agreement at any
time prior to the date for which LAFCO has scheduled the
, commencement of a pearing on the first Otay Ranch annexation. To
exercise this ·walR away' provision, however, both the Property Tax
Agreement and the Landfill Agreement must be rescinded at the same
time.
As discussed in the April 16, 1996 staff report on the property Tax
Transfer Agreement, the first annual Otay Ranch fiscal impact
analysis will be jointly undertaken by city and County staff in FY
1998-99 for fiscal year 1997-98 to determine whether any transfer
~. ~ -;/~
__....____.._...m._.'..._
Item
Meeting Date Mav 14. 1996
Page 3
payments should be made from the County to the city for any city
deficits resulting from the otay Ranch project during fiscal year
1997-98. It is anticipated that an alternative, less expensive
procedure than that represented by the FIND Model may be used until
some minimum number (such as 500 to 1,000) of dwelling units are
occupied in the otay Ranch area. The Property Tax Agreement also
provides that the contract officers for the city and the County
may, by mutual consent, modify the FIND Model or replace it on an
interim or ongoing basis with another fiscal model or simpler
methodology. The Agreement also specifies that the County Board of
Supervisors and Chula vista City council may, at any time, agree to
discontinue the annual fiscal analysis described in the Agreement
upon mutually agreeable terms.
Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Proaram
As discussed in the attached April 30, 1996 staff report, the otay
Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) approved by the Chula vista
City councIl and the Board of Supervisors on October 28, 1993,
included the following policy on page 264 of the GDP: ·All City
local services provided to the incorporated portions of otay Ranch,
including direct and indirect costs, and including capital and
operating costs, shall be covered by project revenues and project
exactions. Shortfalls shall be covered through a specially
designated fund established by the developer and through an
agreement between the City of Chula vista and the county of San
Diego. Capital costs for regional facilities shall also be covered
by project revenues...·
The otay Ranch GDP also includes an Implementation Measure on page
265 that states: ·A reserve fund program shall be established
concurrent with the approval of the first SPA, to correct any
annual operating deficiencies incurred by the applicable
jurisdiction. The reserve fund program shall finance the cost of
an annual review and updated fiscal impact analysis, and be the
basis for any transfer of monies from the reserve fund...·
As described in detail in the attached April 16, 1996 Council
agenda statement regarding the proposed Property Tax Agreement,
, that Agreement calls for the City and County to jointly undertake
an annual fiscal impact analysis of the project area for twenty
years commencing with FY 1997-98 and for the county to utilize a
portion of its annual fiscal surplus to offset any residual
operating deficits incurred by the City through FY 2016-17, subject
to specified constraints.
~ 9-1/
Item
Meeting Date May 14. 1996
Page 4
The Developer Reserve Fund required by the otay Ranch GDP therefore
has three potential purposes:
1- To provide funds to conduct the annual fiscal impact
studies of the otay Ranch required by the GDP.
2. To cover any potential City operating deficits that may
not be covered by the County through transfer payments
during the first twenty years if the limitations in the
Property Tax Agreement prevent the City from being fully
covered by the County's transfer payments.
3. To cover any potential city operating deficits that might
occur after the County's 20-year transfer payment
obligation period ends in FY 2016-17.
Staff belfeves that the first item above, providing funding to
conduct the annual fiscal analysis, should clearly be a requirement
of the Developer Reserve Fund. The Property Tax Agreement requires
the City to pay for the County's staff costs of participating in
the annual fiscal analysis unless the City arranges for another
source, such as the Developer Reserve Fund, to pay for the County's
staff costs. The County's staff costs are limited to $30,000 the
first year, $15,000 the second year, and $10,000 for years 3
through 20, with these maximums subject to an annual CPI
adjustment.
Attachment 1 provides an estimate of the cost of conducting the
annual otay Ranch fiscal analysis, jointly with the County for the
first 20 years and without the County's participation for years 21
through 35. These estimates include an estimate of contractor
costs for running the FIND Model. The cost estimate is the highest
for the first year, decreasing in the second year and also in the
third year and then remaining flat until year 21, when the County's
involvement ends and the annual cost is further reduced. As
indicated in Attachment 1, the total estimated cost of conducting
the fiscal analysis over 35 years is $626,000 in current year
~ dollars. These _costs would increase over time depending on
inflation rates.
Because the FIND Model projections indicate that the city's
deficits result from residential development, not commercial or
industrial, it is recommended that the fees for the otay Ranch
Reserve Fund be tied to residential units. The GDP indicates a
total of 18,367 dwelling units (both single family and multi-
family) on the portions of otay Ranch covered by the proposed
9-/r
.~
Item
Meeting Date May 14. 1996
Page 5
property Tax Agreement (the western parcel, " inverted L" , and
ranchhouse area).
Dividing the $626,000 total estimated cost of conducting the annual
fiscal analysis by the 18,367 dwelling units would result in an
initial fee of $34.08 per dwelling unit. As discussed above and
illustrated in Attachment 1, however, the annual cost of conducting
the fiscal analysis is projected to be significantly higher in the
first two years than thereafter. Staff therefore proposes that a
higher fee of $124.00 per dwelling unit be charged for the first
1,500 dwelling units and $26.09 per dwelling unit be charged for
the remaining 16,867 dwelling units as shown on Attachment 1-
These fees could either be collected at the tentative map stage or
at the building permit stage, and will need to be increased over
time to take into account the increases in the cost of processing.
At this po_int, staff believes that it is likely that the Property
Tax Agreement with the county will cover any operating deficits
from the otay Ranch that the city might incur through FY 2016-17,
so staff is not recommending that the initial fee for the Reserve
Fund include a component to cover potential City deficits.
Instead, staff is recommending that the initial fee for the Reserve
Fund be established to cover the annual fiscal impact studies
discussed above.
Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution establishing the
otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program and direct staff to prepare the
necessary documents to be considered at a subsequent public hearing
to adopt the initial fee for the otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program.
While not reflected in the initial fee, the Reserve Fund Program
will allow for the possibility, if necessary at some future point,
to include a component of the fee for the Reserve Fund to cover any
potential city deficits that may not be covered by the County
through transfer payments through the first twenty years or to
cover any potential City deficits that might occur after the
County's 20-year transfer payment obligation ends. The proposed
resolution establishes the otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program as
described above.
- .
PIeCAL IMPACT: Based on the most recent Ralph Anderson FIND Model
analysis (1995) and the provisions of the proposed Property Tax
Transfer Agreement, the city is projected to receive a surplus of
approximately $18.4 million . (in current year dollars) from
development in the parts of the otay Ranch covered by this
Agreement over a 3D-year period. This is·$37.6 million more than
the potential $19.2 million deficit that would be projected if the
~ 9-/7
:Item
Meeting Date May 14. 1996
Page 6
1984 Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement applied to the otay
Ranch rather than the proposed property Tax Agreement. The city's
actual impact will depend on a. myriad of factors involving the
actual land use mix and phasing of the development as well as City
(and county) cost and revenue patterns.
The otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program will provide funds for the
annual fiscal impact studies needed to implement the proposed
Property Tax Agreement and potentially will serve as an "insurance"
fund should city deficits in the buildout years exceed the levels
the County is obligated to offset by the proposed Agreement or
should such potential city deficits occur after the County's 20-
year transfer payment obligation ends.
Attachments:
- Calculation of Initial fee for Reserve Fund
- April" 16, 1996 council Agenda statement on Property Tax
Agreement
- April 30, 1996 Supplemental Report on Property Tax Agreement
M:\HOME\ADMIN\JT\PROPTAX.A13
<
- .
-
~ ~-,,2Cì
RESOLUTION 18288
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ESTABLISHING THE OTAY RANCH RESERVE FUND
PROGRAM
WHEREAS. an application for adoption of the Otay Rancho Sectional Planning Atea
(SPA) One Plan, was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on July 27. 1994
by the Otay Ranch L.P.; and
WHEREAS. the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP). covering 22,9000 acres
of land, requires a Reserve Fund Program to be established concurrent with the approval of
the first SPA to correct any annual operating deficiencies incurred by the City of Chula Vista
("Project"); and
WHEREAS, a Property Tax Transfer Agreement has been entered into with the County
of San Diego. by Resolution No. 18261, wherein the County has agreed to cover, subject to
a number of contingencies, the potential City operating deficits from the Otay Ranch Project
that the City might incur through FY 2016-17; and
WHEREAS, the Reserve Fund Program shall finance the cost of an annual review and
an updated fiscal impact analysis, as performed by the Fiscal Impact of New Development
(FIND) Model as described in the Property Tax Transfer Agreement for Otay Ranch. The FIND
Model produces a representation of City and County fiscal impacts for any given year and
throughout the Otay Ranch project's build out petiod; and
WHEREAS, the GDP requires a Reserve Fund Program to be established concurrent
with the approval of the first SPA, to cortect any annual operating deficiencies incurred by the
City; and
WHEREAS, the GDP requires the applicant to be financially responsible for any
operating deficiencies.
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve, and order as follows:
I. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons:
A. THE PROPOSED OTAY RANCH RESERVE FUND PROGRAM IS IN CONFORMITY
WITH THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA
GENERAL PLAN
The Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program advances the goal of the Otay Ranch GDP that,
"new development pay its own way."
B. THE PROPOSED RESERVE FUND PROGRAM WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY
SEQUENTlALlZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
9 ~..2/
Resolution 18288
Page 2
!
The Reserve Fund Program advances the goals, objectives, and pOlicies of the Otay
Ranch GDP and the City of Chula Vista by assuring the efficient and timely provision
of public services and facilities to developable areas of the Otay Ranch concurrent with
need by identifying a funding source that will correct any annual operating deficiencies
incurred by the applicable jurisdiction.
II. ESTABLISHING OF RESERVE FUND
The City Council hereby establishes a Reserve Fund Program, in accordance with the
GDP, said Program shall consist of the following:
a. The Developer and/or Applicant shall pay a fee, adopted by ordinance by the
City Council, to pay for the financing of the cost of an annual review and an updated
fiscal impact analysis, as performed by the Fiscal Impact of New Devalopment (FIND)
Model. The FIND Model produces a representation of City and County fiscal impacts
for any given year and throughout the Otay Ranch project's build out period.
b. The Property Tax Transfer Agreement, entered into with the County, by
Resolution No. 18261, wherein the County has agreed to cover, subject to a number
of contingencies, the potential City operating deficits from the Otay Ranch Project that
the City might incur through FY 2016-17.
III. AMENDMENTS TO RESERVE FUND
The City Council may amend the Reserve Fund Program, from tima to time, to include
additional fees to cover any potential City deficits that may not be covered by the Reserve
Fund Program, as adopted herein.
IV. NONCOMPLIANCE
Failure to comply with the terms of the Reserve Fund Program shall be considered a
violation of the GDP at which time the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all
approvals granted for the Otay Ranch Project, including issuance of building permits.
Presented by S
.Gerald Jamri ka, Manager - . Bruce M. Boogaard
Special Plann g Projects City Attorney
9,,2..2
Resolution 18288
Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 14th day of May, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Alevy, Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Horton
NA YES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
Shirley Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
~ () flu-1/. (1l
Beverly . Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 18288 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 14th day of May,
1996.
Executed this 14th day of May, 1996.
." ~~~C f2~J
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
9--,2.3
".--._...,,-_.-....-._..~
~I~
-.-
~.-..,;;;..,..;::....,.;;::.....,;
~--
01Y OF
CHUlA VISfA
MRMORANDTTM
July 2, 1996
TO Distribution List /
FROM Jim Thomson, Deputy City Manager J!
SUBJECT Notification of July 9 Public Hearing Regarding Adoption of Fee for
Otay Ranch Reserve Fund
At the July 9, 1996 Council meeting, the Chula Vista City Council will conduct a public
hearing regarding the adoption of the Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Fee, and consider an
ordinance establishing the Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Fee. This fee would apply to residential
units within the Otay Ranch. The Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program was established by
Resolution 18288, adopted at the May 14, 1996 City Council meeting, in accordance with the
provisions of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan approved by the City Council and the
Board of Supervisors on October 28, 1993. The attached staff report provides additional
information regarding the Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Fee.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the July 9 public hearing, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Clerks' office at or prior to the public hearing.
The July 9 City Council meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue in the Chula Vista Civic Center. For further
information, call Deputy City Manager Jim Thomson at 691-5031 or Finance Director Bob
Powell at 691-5051.
Attachment
cc: Bob Powell
Jerry Jamriska
M:\HOME\ADMIN\JT\RESERFUN.OR
9 -,2 r
--.,. .......------..--.....-.----...--..--.-
Kim Kilkenny James R. Dawe Gregory T. Smith
Village Development Sehzer Caplan Wilkins & McMahon P.O. Box 2786
11975 EI Camino Real, Suite 104 750 'B' Street, Suite 2100 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
San Diego, CA 92130 San Diego, CA 92101
Christopher G. Patek John Knox, General Partner Pabick J. Patek, President
SNMB Ud. United Enterprises Ltd. Stephen & Mary Birch Foundation, Inc.
7811 La Mesa Boulevard, Suite B-3 1071 Sixth Avenue, Suite 258 3650 Silverside Road, Suite 1048
laM.... CA91941 San Diego, CA92101 Wilmington, DE 19810
Kei Uyeda Ed Dailey Jim D. Johnson
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker Colony Advisors. Inc. The Baldwin Company
555 South Flower Street, 23rd Floor 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1200 16811 Hale Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2371 Los Angel... CA 90067 Irvine. CA 92606
Suzanne 8. Farley Cynthia L. Eldred Debora Patek, Vice President
Lempres & Wulfsberg Solomon Ward Seidenwunn & Smith Jewels of Charity, Inc.
300 Lakeside Drive, 24th Floor 401 '8' Street, Suite 1200 705 Severn Road, Suite 1040
Oakland. CA 94612-3524 San Diego, CA92101 Wilmington, DE 19810
Don Worley
Stephenson Worley GaITatt Schwartz Heidel & Prairie
101 West Broadway, Suite 1300
San Diego, CA92101
RESERVE FUND FEE
PROPERTY OWNER
DISTRIBUTION LIST
9...~Ç
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /.9
Meeting Date 7/9/96
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCZ-96-B; request to rezone from R2P to MHP portions
of property totaling approximately 25,000 square feet located at 415/445
Orange Avenue for the purpose of adding these areas into an existing
mobile home park - Terry Enterprises.
Ordinance .2¿.,yr An Ordinance of the City of Chula Vista City
Council Amending the Zoning Map or maps established by section
19.18.010 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code by rezoning
approximately 25,000 square feet of land located at 415/445 Orange
Avenue, on the south side of Orange Avenue between Broadway and
Fourth A venue, from R2P (Duplex Residential with precise plan modifier)
to MHP (Mobile Home Park zone).
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ;liI!
, IL-
REVIEWED BY: City Managerf,.J~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes_No-.X)
The applicant has submitted a request to rezone from R2P to MHP portions of property totaling
approximately 25,000 square feet located at 415/445 Orange Avenue for the purpose of adding
these areas into an existing mobile home park.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has detennined that the proposal is exempt from
environmental review as a class 3(a) exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt ordinance approving the rezoning from R2P to
MHP.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On June 12, 1996, the Planning
Commission voted unanimously (5-0 with two Commissioners absent) to recommend approval
of the rezone in accordance with Resolution PCZ 96-B, attached hereto.
DISCUSSION:
The proposal is to rezone two areas totaling approximately 25,000 square feet from the existing
designation of R2P (Duplex Residential with Precise Plan modifier) to MHP (Mobile Home Park
zone) in order to allow these areas to be consolidated into the existing surrounding mobile home
park.
IP"'/
Page 2, Item I t:7
Meeting Date 7/9/96
The two areas are relatively flat and contain a combined area of approximately 25,000 sq. ft.
The properties are bounded to the south, east and west by MHP zoning and the existing
Continental Country Club mobile home park. The area to the north, across Orange Avenue, is
zoned Rl and developed with single family homes.
The General Plan for the existing R2 zoned parcels of property is RM (Medium Residential).
As such, the General Plan designation is consistent with the proposed MHP zoning designation.
The existing mobile home park, as well as all surrounding mobile home parks in the area, reflect
this same General Plan designation of RM.
The most westerly of the two subject areas was previously incorporated into the existing mobile
home park at the time the park was expanded back in 1974. For reasons unknown, this piece
was never officially recognized on the County zoning records at the time of the Montgomery
annexation to the City of Chula Vista. Thus, this property is still shown on the City's zoning
map as R2P.
The easterly area previously contained a single family residence which has since been
demolished. The parcel remains vacant at this time and is surrounded by the existing mobile
home park on three sides. This area would accommodate two additional mobile home park
spaces. An existing solid slump stone wall (approximately 6 feet height) will be continued along
the perimeter of this area in conjunction with its incorporation into the mobile home park.
Approval of the rezoning will provide for the addition of two mobile home spaces to the existing
park and the extension of an internal road to allow for through circulation via a completed loop
design. This will enhance the overall internal traffic circulation through the park as well as
increased accessibility for emergency vehicles to reach residents within the park.
Conclusion
Staff, along with the Planning Commission, recommends that Council adopt the ordinance
approving the rezone from R2P to MHP for the reasons stated above.
FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant has paid for all processing costs associated with this request.
Attachments
1. Council Ordinance
2. Exhibits: Locators, Site Plans, etc.
3. Planning Commission Minutes and Resolutions,
4. Ownership disclosure statement
(m:\home\planning\jeftìccrpt\mhp.rez)
)¿J "',2,.
ORDINANCE NO. ..2¿%'/
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION
19.18.010 OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE BY
REZONING APPROXIMATELY 25,000 SQUARE FEET OF LAND
LOCATED AT 415/445 ORANGE AVENUE, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
ORANGE A VENUE BETWEEN BROADWAY AND FOURTH AVENUE,
FROM R2P (DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL WITH PRECISE PLAN MODIFŒR)
TO MHP, (MOBILE HOME PARK ZONE)
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a rezone was filed with the City of Chula
Vista Planning Department on May 1, 1996 by Terry Enterprises; and,
WHEREAS, said application requests approval to rezone two areas totaling approximately
25,000 square feet from R2P to MHP for purposes of incorporating said areas into the existing
mobilehome park, for property located at 415/445 Orange Avenue, on the south side of Orange
Avenue as depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto; and,
WHEREAS, the Envirorunental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed
project is a Class 3(a) exemption (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) under
Section 15303 of CEQA; and,
WHEREAS, on June 12, 1996, the City Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend
that the City Council approve the rezoning in accordance with Resolution PCZ 96-B; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said rezoning
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 500
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 June 12,
1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and
said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find,
determine, and ordain as follows:
SECTION I: the City Council hereby finds that the rezoning provided for herein is
consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and that the rezoning is supported by public
necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice.
SECTION II: that the land areas at 415/445 Orange Avenue, as shown on attached
Exhibit A is hereby rezoned from R2P to MHP, Mobile Home Park.
/P"'3 Ij'
_..-_._--.._..._-~. - --~
SECTION III: this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force the thirtieth day from
its adoption.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Üv--~~o
Robert A. Leiter City Attorney
Director of Planning
(m: \home\planning\jeftìccord)
/¡J~f \' ,
. --""._-_.._.".--~-~. -------..-.------
Excerot from Plannin¡¡ Commission Minutes of 6/12/96
ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-96-B; REQUEST TO REZONE FROM R2P TO
MHP PORTIONS OF PROPERTY TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 25,000 SQ.
FT. LOCATED AT 415/445 ORANGE AVENUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ADDING THESE AREAS INTO AN EXISTING MOBILE HOME PARK -
Terry Enterprises
Principal Planner Griffin presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the rezone.
Commissioner Willett stated that he had visited the site and also recommended approval.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing
to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSC (WiIlett/Davis) 5-0 (Commissioner Ray not yet arrived; Commissioner Salas absent)
to adopt resolution PCZ-96-B recommending that the City Council approve the rezoning
in accordance with the draft Council resolution and the findings contained therein.
/ð"'¿'
---..---.......,-..
RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-96-B
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO REZONE TWO AREAS TOTALING
APPROXIMATELY 25,000 SQUARE FEET FROM R2P TO MHP FOR PURPOSES
OF INCORPORATING SAID AREAS INTO AN EXISTING MOBILE HOME PARK
ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 415/445 ORANGE AVENUE
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a rezone was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning
Department on May 1, 1996 by Terry Enterprises; and,
WHEREAS, said application requests approval to rezone two land areas totaling approximately
25,000 square feet from RZP to MHP for purposes of incorporating said areas into existing mobile home
park, for property located at 415/445 Orange Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed project is a
Class 3(a) exemption under CEQA; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said rezone 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 and residents within an area greater than 500 feet
of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 20 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely June 12, 1996 at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was
thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby
recommend that the City Council approve the zone change in accordance with the findings contained in the
attached draft City Council Ordinance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
this 12th day of June, 1996, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Tuchscher, Davis, Tarantino, Thomas, Willett
NOES: None
ABSENT: Salas, Ray
William C. Tuchscher II, Chair
ATTEST:
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
m: \home\planningljefflreso\mhp ItJ- 7
, i
THE c.. . Y OF 0ft1LA VISTA DJSa.OSURE 5"1.. œMEJIn'
You are required 10 file a Statemenl of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign
contriÞutions, on all mailers whiçh will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and
all other official bodies. The following informalion musl be di$cI05ed:
1. Lisl the names of all pcrsons having a financial interest in Ihe property which is the suhject of the application or the
conlract, e.I., owner, applicanl, contractor, subcontractor, material suppliet.
£AA/.i7v 7L.eÆv "oAJ!A¿ A.~ /1r v AA'''.>'
. r r _
ß.£v,u~~",. ðu'Zo J'4..LL hAlf} "'IV '" J.lA".S'ðA/
,
S~ .J4..AInrl/ A¿?A.A<f 1£
2. If any person" identified pursuant \() (1) ahove is a corporal ion 0( partnership, lisl the names of all individuals owning
more than 10% of the shares in the corporation Ot mo.·ning any partnership interesl ia the partnership.
3. If any person" idcntified pursuant to (I) ahove is non-profit organizalion Ot a Irust, list the names of any person
serving as director of Ihe non-profil organization or as Irustee or bcneftciary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than S250 worlh of busincss trans;¡cled with any member of the City slaff, Boards, Commissions,
Commillees, and Council wilhin the past twelve months? Ycs_ No _ If yes, please indicate pcrson{s):
5. Please idenlify each and evel)' person, including any agents, employees, consultanls, or indepcndent contractors who
you have assigned 10 reprcsent you before the City in this mailer.
6. Have you and/or your offieers or agents, in the aggregate, conlributed more than SI,ooo to a Couneilmember In the
currenl or preceding election period? Yes_ No_ If yes, state which Councilmember(s):
· . · (NOTE: AlIac:II adcIltioaal pap . D '.'1) · . ·
Date: s-/ - ?¿ ~~ Z/~-'·
gnature of coat r/appllcant
Æ#~~v -r2/.2~
. Print r type name of co raclor/applicanl
. fe!!! is tkfitled ØJ: "All>, ¡lItli~'"luø/, finn. cn-p41'ØlÞsh,p, joiN w.ea.rt, a.uncÙUInt&, SOCÎ/J/ club, frølml4/ OI'pIIWuion. COl'J'O'dliOlI, auuc, ...., tKtiw:r.1)ftA'lic1Ut.,
litis lIIuJ "'I)' odaer COIoI/&I)'. C;'Y œld COUll",', city trlwuàfHllil)'. dWicl. or oUler po/i,kø/ atbJi.v,OII, 01 OIry olhtr ~p Of cOlltbiniuioo 1Itnn, .. " wUL ..
J~-íf
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT /ï
Item
Meeting Date 07/09/96
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: considering amending the Master
Fee Schedule to adjust existing fees and add new
fees which were included in the FY 97 Adopted
Budget
Resolution No. 1~3..5"? Amending the Master Fee
Schedule to effect changes in designated existing
fees and addition of new fees
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Finance
Budget Manager.
REVIEWED BY: City Manage (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-X-)
During the budget process, staff developed numerous potential
revenue sources, including increases to existing fees and new fees,
to offset expenditures needed to maintain existing City service
levels. These proposed changes to fees and fines were discussed by
the appropriate commissions, and discussed by Council during budget
workshops and the public hearing adopting the budget (June 25,
1996). The fee increases and new fees which will be implemented
upon adoption of this resolution (detailed in Exhibit A) do not
include all the new fees included in the proposed budget, but only
include those that do not require further public noticing and
extensive implementation efforts. Upon adoption of the resolution
all proposed fees listed on Exhibit A will become effective, with
the exception of recreation fees which will become effective
beginning with the Fall Recreation brochure.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council conduct the public hearing and adopt
Resolution adopting the proposed fees as presented in
Exhibit A.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Proposed changes in Library
fees were discussed by the Library Board during the budget process.
Proposed changes in Parks and Recreation facility rental fees and
recreation fees were discussed by the Parks and Recreation
Commission during the budget process. All other proposed fees were
presented to and discussed with Council at various budget hearings.
DISCUSSION: Fees attempt to recover all or a portion of the cost
of providing special services to specific individuals or groups.
During the budget process, individual departments reviewed a number
of existing and potential fees in an effort to continue public
services at their current level. The fee proposals contained in
Exhibit A include only those fee increases and new fees that were
included by Council in the adopted FY97 budget and can be legally
implemented without additional ordinance amendments. Exhibi t A
lists each of the proposed fee changes and new fees by department
and provides information on the current fee as well as the proposed
fee. Failure to adopt this resolution will result in a revenue
shortfall in the FY97 budget, unless other revenue sources are
11--/
\\'
Page 2 Item ~
Meeting Date 07/09/96
identified to replace these revenues.
Other fees and revenue sources approved by Council during the FY97
budget discussions will be brought back to Council for approval and
implementation upon completion of the necessary staff work. Fees
not specifically discussed during the budget process will be
reviewed as part of a comprehensive Master Fee Schedule update and
will be presented for Council review and public input in mid-fiscal
year.
FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of the fees included in Exhibit A are
estimated to generate $113,145 in General Fund revenue in FY97,
which has been included in the adopted FY97 budget.
//...,;¿
RESOLUTION NO. I?J5~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
TO EFFECT CHANGES IN DESIGNATED EXISTING FEES
AND ADDITION OF NEW FEES
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section
66016, notice was mailed at least 14 days prior to the public
hearing to all parties which filed a written request for
notification of new or increased fees; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code sections
66018 and 6062(a), notice of the public hearing was published in a
newspaper of general circulation twice within 10 days prior to the
public hearing and said notices were published at least five days
apart; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section
66016, estimated cost data was made available for public review at
least 10 days prior to the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the proposed changes to the Master Fee Schedule
will recover all or a portion of the cost of providing the services
for which such fees are collected; and
WHEREAS, during the budget process, individual
departments reviewed a number of existing and potential fees in an
effort to continue to provide services at their current level; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly noticed and held on
July 9, 1996 to consider the changes in the Master Fee Schedule.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby amend the Master Fee Schedule to
effect changes in designated existing fees and addition of new fees
as set forth in Exhibit flAil, attached hereto and incorporated
herein, effective upon adoption of this resolution, except for
changes to the zoning permit fees and adjustment plat fees which
shall become effective sixty (60) days following adoption.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Dawn Herring, Budget ~ "1 rvlt~~
Ann Y. Moore, Interim City
Manager Attorney
C:\rs\.asterfee
J/-J4 L/
1
h,
.---"--
~
-'" -
0 '"
0 ~
.0 ""
- "
"
'" 0
C/o :;;; 0
'" g .~
'" ~ E "ii "ii "ii "ii "ii "ii "ii
.0 01, "ii
"" ~ ~ - " ~ ~ " " " "
<2 '" '" '" '" " '" '" '"
:: '" 0 :<2 ~ .- ~ .- ~ .- E ïii ~ ~ .- ~ .- ~ .-
'" ~ õ. 0 ~ ~ o ~ o ~ 0 o ~ o ~ o ~
'" v, c ~ ~ " ~ " ~ " 0 " " " " " "
Z "- 0 ~ '" \' "'. "'. "'. - '" \' '" \' '" \'
CO 0 0 .¡;; 0 .- 0 .¡¡; § 'új § " 0 .¡;; § .- 0 .- "
"" 0 v, 0 " 0 ~ g ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0
0 '" 0 v, - - 0 ~ 0 ~ " S .;: ~ " ~ " ~ "
'" õ. 0 <2 . . . . . Ei . . . , . .
0 CO
¡... 0 -,¡ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
¡¡¡ "'" '" ~ >, .e¿: ~ .c.c .c.c .e¿: ¿: .!! .!! ¿:¿: ¿:¿: ¿:¿:
0 N 0 .c Ô .c ~Ô V=ìô - -
'" Õ ~ ;;;¡~ ;.:¡ 00 0 0 0 00 00 å~
ª '" - M Mr- M '" '" '" ¡;¡~ - '"
"'" .... < .... ........ .... ........ ........ ........ .... .... .... ........
- C/o
C/o¡'" -'" '"
\0 :¡'" 0 æ
'" ~§ 0
.0
'" - ~
"
0 C/o¡:Q '"
"'.- :;;;
0 " " " " "
r- 0";' 0 ~ " " " " "
0 Z'" .0 '" " '" '" '"
-<"" '" ~ i:: '¡;j ~ .- ~ .- ~ .- ~ .-
'" 0 1: ¡;:: If) " ~ " ~ " ~
a 'F) ;>- " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " " f
",,,- "- '" '" \' '" \' '" \' " \' '" .
Q) Q) !?: C/o 0 - .¡;; 0 .- 0 .- 0 .¡;; 0 '¡;j §
.¡.J.¡.J "'0 '" co = " 0 ê g ~ g " 0 ~ ~ "
co "-", æ ~ - 0 - 0 .c
H '" 0 u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Vi ~ ~
Q ,,¡... '" - <C ~
'" >, .c.c .c.c .c.c .c.c '" 2::3
~~ '" ~ < < ô "" õõ ¿: òo ;;;õ õô .,; < < < <
Ö' ::0 0
- - - ¡;¡ , - '" '" - N N '" :;¡¡;¡; '" z z z z ¡;¡~
M I:: U '" "" z z ~ ....'" .... """" """" ""
....¡ ~~ - ~
Q).¡.J 0 '" v,
Ö'Q) ~ '" ~ ~
0 M
co Q) Z <C "
p,,:;: ;;;~ .. " "" 'ü
'" " v,
0 '" .5 <C .z! ª
~~ E v, .. >.
~
<Cü ;>- ~ " ~ " 'ü -
co ~
~~ ~ - 0 .z! " -
<.!! - -'" " "
~ 0. Z - >, ~ "
'"
Uo 0 " ~ "'" " u "
¡:Q " - '"' ~ u
~U :¡ ;, 0 ¡: '" .c
-'" ~ <C 0 :;¡ ;; .c
..;;.. Q " 0 ;;
~.~ ~ " 0. >- 0
15 "" " " >-
':.: Q .i - ò
,2 u ;:; 0 ò
z'" '" " .¡¡
~> v, '" 'õ:' " 0 .¡¡
v, " " " '"
0::0 '§ "" co 5 - Ei 0
U"," '" o( co " 5 Ei
-'" 0 .3 >
","'" '0 co C/o ~ 0 Ei
¡::~ " " ~ ,¿ '" u 0
"" '" -,¡ 0 u
" " ~ õ ~
C/o ~ - .0 ...J ~ ~
0< '" '" .0 ;:;: ~
Õ. ~.o .. -
'" v, 0 " ,¿ ;:;:
'" " ~
'f:¡ -'" - '" co "
0 0 " £-: 0 " :; "
0 > " -,¡ j .0 ð :;
.. .0 0 o - - ~
~ " co o 0 .0 " .c "
.... c. " :;; '" u
" 0 ~ E v, " :;;
" ~ è " ~ j .¡; ~ -
.. - ~ Ei 0 " .0 ~ ~ .¡;
. E ·E '" ~ co o.!! :;; ~ v, " :;; '3
- ~ " <.!!
-< " ".0 '" " oiJ - " o.!! " 0
- o.c '" " - ~ ~
C I:J):'::: .- - - ,¡ o.!! -,¡ ~ - '" '" '" ~
¡... $ ~ C '" ~ " " '3 -,¡ ~ :;; '"
0 :;; co v, :;; 0 0 - " Ei
¡¡; 0 ~ ~ 0", "" '" 0 " ~
- >, ~ 0 - - " '" '3 - 0
0.", ,: ~ - -,¡ - ~ ~ -¡¡ -,¡ .~
0:: .,8 - . " - .'ëi 0 "" 0
X <.!! 0 c 0 - "" Q "ii ~ .0 i!J ~ " "
" .0 -,¡
.~ "' c ,,~ - ~ 0 0 - " ~ Ei
'" Z 0 \I) If) - "ii ¡: Ü 0 '" Ei
æ o E " t co >,
0 "" 5 " 0 '" § iF 0 0 Ei ..
" ;, - ::: '" - co -,¡ ~ æ
0 - " c " '0 .~ 0 E
f-- .¡;; .:c; .l:: '" 0" '" co ~ .¡: .¡: .c 0 0
"'" v, c .¡;; -¡¡ ~ .8 c '" ;; - 0 -
" Q.t:) " - '" ,- ,E E E 0 0 Ei ~
õ2 2 <.!! 0. - '5 .8 ~
.0 '" C 0 :;; " 0 >, -
u 0 '¡) -,¡ 0 c " ~ >, õ "
" c- " 0 .!! :;; " '" .. "'"
CI) '" .c '" .c co "
'" " .c " 0 " '" '" '" '" ~ .c .c .c .c '"
.~ - ~.¡¡¡ .~ .~ .~ .~
0 v, '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'" :¡; 0 :.:::.,." co '" '" " " " :¡; :õ :¡; :õ "
'" " 0 .0 " 0 '" ~ " " " " '"
- ~ - " " " - - - - - ~ ¡;j ~ ~ -
'" co "' :;; tí 5- '" co co co .E co co ~ ~ ~ "
"- ..s '" '" '" ~ '" ..s ..s ..s ..s ..s '" '" '" w ..s
//.,5"
J
,.-.--
tTI tT1~ õm ;- g'¡;'TJ~ ~tTJt'T1 ii:tTJ'TJ
(I);!¡.o .....;!;. ('") ne:.o .....~x ~~m
S" ~..., .., þ¡ ..., (8,..., -., (¡¡ þ:I "0 ...... ~ rn
0" 0-;;; þ:I;:¡" ~ ;::::!~_(i¡ "'<:7'§ ~O"
.... .... (I) ~ .... '" =' (I) \D 1}; þ:I .... 0.. 0..:::;-: 0
¡g.. ¡g. (¡¡ ~ Þ- (t¡ ~. ('0 ~ f ) ~ ¡g.. "0 ç: ¡g.. rn
(t' þ¡ ¡:r :: þJ ~ ~ ~' ;;Q W· 9. þ¡ õ' ~ tz' t)
(b :::;:!) (¡¡ 0 0":::: S. ('t> þ¡ ~ ::3 ...... r. ;;0
~ 0 ~ þ¡ 0 ::;' =- Õ' n Õ' (t (t¡ ñ' ~::::.: -.
00.... £- (r.¡ ....,@., o..~", 7'~."'tI
.., 0.. @ (') !-', "0 'TJ., þ¡.... ~ -1 ::r IJ> '-< '""Ì
:::::t N (¡¡ 0 ::3 It e:. ( ¡ ;::t.;::::! :5. ('to œ. ~ ç: -
þ:I 0 ç:i}'Q..... -00:4 g.='..... ¡;.::r.O
3: ~ '£. g rt' 3 - ~ ::I 2 .....:J.!:!; ;::¡' r'~:z: t'!1
(j 0.. ~ '< l'Þ .... ~ ê. ::r ~ ::r:;.., ;;' -g ~
(') (Ð:-. ~ Õ (t' 0\ 0 0 õ' (to 2;. a: ::!t :!
g CD:I r:. ( ¡ ;:o;::! g.::3 Z (b ~ 2;. ~.
..... ..,fJQ =:Ð; (þ~¡;::e:. o,=",< þ¡-
.., S '::I". .... 'J1 (")....,:! 0 þ¡ .::;¡' þ¡ -
o ..... ( '-< (þ ..., (t) (0 '" :!..,..... _.......¡
~ g (Ø ~ ~ ~ -= -- §. þ:I ;. õ' ~. ~ .
-;::t. ;=;: <: ;::to ~ 3 ;::! ( ) ::::I C a: .JÞ
§ 0 P' _. 0 ("0 3 -c Z ~ :3 () I
,.,,:1 ..... 2.. ::s 0 _. þ.)::I "0 ..... _
'='" ::::r þ¡ 0'" .... ;::! ~ 0 ..... v: -' '"
re ~. õ .., e:.. (r.;¡ S e:. .:. ß. "
.., .., g,..., (") (J:r. '"" 0
Õ' þ:I'" ::r~ - ~§ ('þ g'E'"
:. ~~ E;~ ~ (þ"'C~ '<;;¿.;:>
(þ ;:::: ::r (i¡ (I¡ (Þ .., p¡ 0 .., íJ;¡
;::! e:. 0 - '" U') ..,::1 ....:;::" rf"J
0.. 0" þ:I -=-........, X"' þ:I ~;s;;¡... ~
~ o@ oS (t. (/;1- ~~ VI
I'/) 0 þ¡ (t¡ (t¡ ';Q :;:::'. "'f'j
" ~ 0" :r. (';) ::I 0 ';:t, v ~ tTj
:5" 0 ~::r õ' ::r ::; ¡1, ""0 t'!1
o '" þJ ..,"" "'t
¡:þ fJQ ~ ::I '"'C "";j ~, ;;::0 (")
þ¡ 8 ß. ~ ~ Q ~ ~. :::: C ;:t:
&. ;!;. _. (1) g '" ~ :- ....... ;¡;.
en%. (') 0 ro !\-it (l'j'Z
@ ~o ~ g~: ~ o~
e:. (,r> ~ ::3 '" 0.. ~ ....., tT
(1) þ:¡ :::: r.r:¡ (p -a ~ ::. ..:!'i ;0 'J:J
(,r> :::: C,f (p ('t ~ (p (I.. -' -< ..
- 0 ...... - cr. (p
~ ~ § 0 ~ ~ ...:. ~. n 2
(I) (1) Q.. ~ 2.:::; ;:j e:.. c ("")
("¡ -a D...., '" f'J'J (1) (') (t; ~
o ~ ~!!. (1) g" ~ :::, :=,.' ..0 'Z i'='
3 1:1:I "<:: (1) -a (1) r.r:¡ 0 "<:: E. _ ~
'0 ~ _ -n -'~ ¡:: _ "':::I \ .¡ ¡,¡;..
~ ~;!;. (r, -a "- ;;'>::1 C,f ;::::: - ::: :J::¡
::I - ~ (1) 0 ;¡. '" ::I - ;:! "-.
_. ('J - 0. ~ (') -, - ::;! .., ro t'f1
(1) (1) ~ -::I IJ ,w ?Ç" _ _ ':F:J
1:1'> _'t:I _ Cf'::¡:::I 1:1'> :::. Z ::s: "tJ
~ ~ ~. (') ~ ~ ?i. ~ Ž ro p¡
,þ. 0 ~ ('I'j C":J :=,.' ('J !1' @ rol.Q
~ ~ or ~ "'~ rtro
VJ ",I--~ ;¡.o >-,.
~ ~~~ ~rJ;~('I'j ~;r~~:=~g;.? ~()X;r¡~ .g'"
)- )-otf'j > V1'JJ n(1)WNO-~""'"'I ;pC::.......
-- t"!'! -ò :i (r, .a-.a- à Ë!. _ ;0 "'0
@ r.r. ro ~ ;=: ~ ~ Z þ;':::I , ;;0 ;;j::1 "
"" '"'I _:r. '-1'"'1 -~ ....... ""H
.. 3 _. - - - "1 ~ - '" ". "1 ~
_ g g. ê: 8: ('I'j Q.. ~ .g 'Z 0 ('I'j rt rt
~ _. '0 '0 tr1 ~ ro - -J 'T tT CD CD
'"'1::1 15 § f'J'J :=,.' ~ ro 'T1 -< 'JJ a
gV1__ ;:I"'~g. m ~
;:1"':::" O-ro m\C 0
:¡§::I@ s:?j."" 9'....J
(1);:! 0 '" (1) ~
(1) :::I -, ~ '" -...I
.., ..!¡ 0. 0 _ tT 0
(þ ( ¡ _, 1,,10,I f'J'J
- ~ ~ '" -^ § ~ \D
~ _. - _ V<oI: :-'J
I.C c.. '< "tJ. .... Ut ;¡¡.
'" ~ 0 """ ~ ,....... =' ,.....
;;. "'~~ .,~ ~
o t). ~ '" ~ ~ 0'\
"'............ :» r;;;- COCCI'" "''''''' °i~i¡~-C g¡
:::::-V1N_V1 n W 0_'0 N N.........;;;... ::t-l~ ;;0::
... ° VI VI ° _ ° 3 '-' W ° 8 þ,J 0;' " \4J
1:1'>________ ¡:: .:::;- _~~.-- o;j ..., @ .......0 ~
"0 - '"' '-' '0 __ __ _. --.. "='
-EA~s::r'~ e:. ro ~~~ ~ :;:r'::r'::r' ::I,,=,~"O,,=,(¡)-O
~ ~ e:.o (1) ~::! ~ V1"=' "0 .., '"'I '"'I, ~ (t õ'r¡¡ (1):! 0
(þ en ;- ~ 0:::1 Q.. ~ S. þ:¡ õ' 0'" ::! :::I ::! ::! Ë!, ~ 0
$I.) go Q.. 0. *" - ö '"q _. :¡ -S' ::I'" ("¡ ~ e. e:.. =. E. ~ b 'T
g. ~ ~ (1) S' {J') ~!:? ê: 15 0 g õ @ 2: h 2: ~ ~ z
$I.) ;; ~ Cf'::¡ ¡:: õ'] "0 - =7 ~ g- ~ ~ ~ þ.) þ,J '< ~ tt1
0. ..., S 0 3 -':::1 15 @ @ ( ¡ '"'I õ' "<:: (1) '< ,<, m ......
e-: a.... ~ :3 -g::; - '" (,1>. g ::I ' ~ ' , .., -<
=. S' ::I íiî (1) ::3 (1) :::I ë: E. e:. ::I !l @ :::I D; 'Tj
g ~ ê. .., -;!1. grog ,.4 g :;:- ~. g i3..: ('I'j
æ.. õ' 0 ~ ......... g ~ ..!¡ g - ~ ~ a: 0. ..!, (p rr1
(,I> :::I 1:3 2"' ~:::I:::I (1) ro (p (þ g (p g f'J'J
go :::: 0\*- 15: ~~~-~
(þ (') cr", ro _(1)0[(1)
- o::!iî :::I :;2'::3'"'1~::I
;!;. X ('þ - :=,.' :. "0 S' -
'"'I ::r' ~ (þ' ¡:: Ó ro
~ c ~ :n :r. .....j ""
n'" -. - '"
o ('þ, Õ'~-o
< 0 '"'I:n ::Þ
~ ~ ";j:n (1:.'
"<:: 3 5'
::!' [JQ
//-~
? ~
,'" ç
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item I:L
Meeting Date 7/9/96
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: ZA V-96-12; Appeal from Planning Commission
denial of a request for a variance to increase the height of a rooftop
sign from 35 ft. to 42 ft. for the commercial building located at 396 E
Street in the CoT Thoroughfare Commercial zone - Martin Altbaum
Resolution J 3'~Kenying the appeal and thereby upholding the
decision of the Planning Commission to deny the request for a
variance to increase the height of a rooftop sign from 35 ft. to 42 ft.
for the commercial building located at 396 E Street in the C- T
Thoroughfare Commercial zone
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ;!1!¿
REVIEWED BY: Ci~Manager~~j\ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.xl
This is an appeal from the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a variance to
allow the construction of a rooftop sign to 42 ft. in height for the commercial building
located at 396 E Street, within the CoT Thoroughfare Commercial zone. The CoT zone
limits the height of rooftop signs to 35 ft. above grade.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is exempt from
environmental review under CEQA as a Class 11 exemption.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the Resolution denying the appeal.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On June 12, 1996 the Planning
Commission voted 4-2 (1 absent) to deny the request for increased sign height in accordance
with Resolution ZAV-96-12.
BACKGROUND: This commercial building previously had a roof-mounted sign which was
originally constructed to 45 ft above grade (17 ft. above the building roofline). Although
this sign met the sign criteria at the time it was constructed, since 1972 the Zoning Code
has limited rooftop signs to a maximum of 35 ft. above grade. The building has been vacant
with no rooftop sign for a number of years, and Coin Mart now occupies the building. The
applicant is requesting a rooftop sign at 42 ft. above grade, which exceeds the maximum
height allowed for such signage.
/..2,-1 /Lo
"
Page 2, Item / :¿
Meeting Date J/1I'~
DISCUSSION:
Site Characteristics
The project site consists of a commercial building located on a site just over 25,000 sq.ft.
in area at the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and E Street. A commercial building
(formerly a bank) approximately 6,800 sq.ft. in size is located on the northwest corner of
the property. A drive area designed for former teller windows is adjacent to the building
on the easterly side, and a small kiosk building and site parking are located east of the drive
area.
Zoning and Land Use
North - CoT - Vacant (future fast food)
South - C-O-P- Residential & Offices
East - CoT - Commercial
West - CoT - Commercial
A vacant parcel upon which a fast food facility is proposed is located to the north across
E Street; a retail flower shop is located to the west across Fourth Avenue. To the south,
across an alley, are residential and office uses, and commercial service uses are sited on the
east side of the property.
E Street at this location is designated on the General Plan as a four lane major street and
serves as a main entry to the City from both 1-5 and 1-805. Fourth Avenue is also a main
entry from SR-54.
Proposal
The proposal is for the construction of a roof-mounted sign at 42 ft. above grade (17 ft.
above the building roofline) to accommodate business identification for the new occupant
of the commercial building on this site. The height of the proposed sign would be three
feet lower than that of the original roof-mounted sign. While that sign met zoning
regulations at the time of its construction, under current sign ordinance regulations
(adopted some 25 years ago) it would be considered nonconforming.
The building and site were originally designed with a rooftop sign in mind. The building
is located at the corner of the property abutting both Fourth Avenue and "E" Street, making
it impractical to locate a freestanding sign at the corner, and the building facia was not
designed to comfortably accommodate wall signage. However, the Planning Commission
pointed out that the facia could be modified to accommodate signs in a very tasteful
manner.
/.2....2
Page 3, Item /;L
Meeting Date '7,19,/7"
ANALYSIS:
Current Sign Rel!ulations
As stated previously, the C- T (Thoroughfare Commercial) zone restricts the height of roof-
mounted signs to a maximum of 35 ft. above grade. At the time that this regulation was
adopted, it was reasoned that roof-mounted signs should be accorded no greater height than
was permitted for ground-mounted freestanding signs, which are limited to 35 ft. high
throughout the City. The C- T zone is the only zone within the City which allows rooftop
signs.
Freestanding signs are currently controlled by three factors: roof-mounted signs are limited
to 35 ft. above grade in overall height; the height of the rooftop sign above the building on
which it is located may not exceed the height of the building; and the maximum area of any
roof-mounted sign is 150 sq.ft. The height of the proposed sign does not exceed the
building height, and thus is not an issue. However, the overall height of the sign above
grade exceeds the permitted height by 7 feet and represents a 20% increase in the maximum
allowed height. In addition, the proposed sign area depicted on the plans (153 sq.ft.)
exceeds the maximum area allowance by 3 sq.ft. and would have to be reduced by 3 sq.ft.
to comply with the maximum sign area allowed.
Signage Proposed
The highly visible building is sited directly on the northwest corner of the parcel,
overlooking the intersection of Fourth Avenue and E Street; the rooftop sign is proposed
to be located on the northwest corner of the roof. Further, there are no obstructions of
views to the building from the other corners of Fourth Avenue and E Street or the vicinity
of the intersection. As a result, a conforming sign's visibility does not appear to be at issue,
nor has the applicant argued such.
Planninl! Commission Action
The majority of the Commission did not favor increasing the height of the sign beyond that
required for legibility, particularly for a type of sign (rooftop) which they considered
inherently obtrusive and inconsistent with the attractive design of the building. There were
suggestions that an attempt be made to incorporate signs onto the building facia. (Note: the
Code would allow a minimum 60 sq.ft. facia sign facing "E" Street, and 110 sq.ft. facia sign
facing Fourth Avenue.
In response to the notice of the Planning Commission hearing for this project, the Planning
Department received three letters of objection from property owners and tenants on Guava
Avenue (see attached). These letters were presented to Commissioners at the hearing, and
express concerns regarding lighting and visual impacts.
/~.J
/. ,
/2..
Page 4, Item ~
Meeting Date /i{U,.'6 p#?
CONCLUSION:
The majority of other buildings located in the vicinity of the project site are of a relatively
small scale compared to the building on this site. Further, both the florist on the southwest
corner of the intersection and the gas station/mini-mart on the northwest corner have
monument signs in keeping with the lower profiles of the buildings they identify. In
addition, the Design Review Committee is currently processing plans for a new restaurant
to be located across "E" Street at the northeast corner of Fourth and E, with a low-profile
monument sign proposed. Staff has concluded that the height of the proposed roof-
mounted sign is not required for visibility and is not in keeping with other buildings and
signage in the immediate vicinity.
One of the requisite findings for approval of a variance is the existence of a hardship. No
hardship has been presented by the applicant, and as indicated in the previous discussion,
both staff and a majority of the Planning Commission were unable to find a hardship
justifying approval for the proposed height increase. Therefore, staff's recommendation is
for denial of the appeal as presented.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The applicant has paid all applicable processing fees.
Attachments
1. Council Resolution
2. Planning Commission Resolution ZA V-96-l2
3. Locator, Plans
4. Public Response
5. Disclosure Statement
(m:\home\planning\patty\zav9612.rep)
/.,2. . 'I ,
''\
"""¥--"---_. - ._-~.
RESOLUTION NO. J 83.57
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DENYING THE APPEAL OF COIN MART
FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
THEREBY DENYING A VARIANCE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A ROOF-MOUNTED SIGN TO 42 Fr.
ABOVE GRADE FOR THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING
LOCATED AT 396 E STREET WITHIN THE CoT
THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL ZONE
WHEREAS, a duly verified variance application was filed with the City of Chula
Vista Planning Department on April 12, 1996 by Valley Neon Sign Company, and;
WHEREAS, said application requests approval to construct a roof-mounted sign to
42 ft. above grade for the commercial building at 396 E Street within the C- T Thoroughfare
Commercial zone, and;
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this
proposal is exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class 11 exemption, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said
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
500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and;
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely June
12, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission, AND;
WHEREAS, after hearing public testimony and considering the project, the Planning
Commission voted 4-2 to deny the request in accordance with Resolution ZA V-96-12, and;
WHEREAS, on June 13, 1996 the applicant filed an appeal from the Planning
Commission decision with the City Council, and;
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the City Council hearing on
said appeal and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication
in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within
500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and;
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely July 9,
1996 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DOES
hereby find, determine, resolve, and order as follows:
1..2'-.5' '."",'
The above-described application for a variance is hereby denied based upon the following
findings and determinations:
I. Findings.
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the
owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing the property
for the needs of the owner consistent with. the regulations of the zone; but in this context,
personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring
violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never
have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on it individual merits.
No hardship peculiar to the property exists since rooftop signage within the height permitted
by the code would be visible to traffic in the area, although proportional requirements could
limit sign area. Additionally, the code would allow alternatives to this sign proposal; these
include the possibility of a freestanding sign elsewhere on the property, and wall-mounted
signage on the building parapet. Therefore, a hardship does not exist relative to this
property and the proposed signage.
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and
in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special
privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
The approval of this variance would not serve to preserve property rights for this owner
enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity; as other
properties in the immediate vicinity currently utilize freestanding signage which complies
with code requirements or is actually less than that allowed. If granted, the proposed
variance would therefore constitute a special privilege of the recipient.
3. That the authorizing of this variance would be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property, and would materially impair the public interest.
The approval of this variance would be detrimental to adjacent property in that it would
provide this property with a sign of excessive height and visibility and an advantage with
respect to business identification in comparison to other surrounding properties.
4. That the granting of this variance would adversely affect the general plan of
the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The approval of this variance would not be consistent with City policies and the General
Plan for the reasons outlined above.
II. A copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the applicant.
/;2-?
- ---~..._.__.
Presented by Approved as to form by
~~
Robert Leiter Ann Moore
Director of Planning Interim City Attorney
/..2 ·1 i)
}
COUNCil AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /3
Meeting Date Julv 9. 1996
ITEM TITLE: Resolution J %..:15.f;,stabliShing a Council Policy Regarding a
Target Minimum Reserve level for the General Fund
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Finance/l;f'
REVIEWED BY: City Manager q (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No..Å.._-'
Although the City has historically considered the need to maintain minimum reserve
levels when arriving at budgetary decisions, it is felt that a written policy establishing
a target minimum reserve level would assist both the Council and Management to
focus on this important fiscal consideration in order to insure the continued fiscal
solvency of the City.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the resolution establishing a target
minimum reserve level for the General Fund.
DISCUSSION:
The question of "What is a prudent reserve level for the City's General Fund?" has
been raised by Council several times over the last decade and one half, usually during
budget deliberations. For the sake of this discussion, reserves are defined as
unrestricted resources available for appropriation or spending. In a technical sense,
reserves would be defined as the difference between the City's liquid assets and
short-term liabilities, less any assets restricted by either legal requirements or Council
action. Each fiscal year, reserves either increase or decrease based primarily on the
results of operations. If revenues exceed expenditures, then reserves increase, while
the opposite is true if expenditures exceed revenues. The charts attached reflect the
General Fund Reserves over the last six fiscal years. In order to prudently protect the
fiscal solvency of the City, it is important to maintain some minimum level of reserves.
Reserves are necessary in order to mitigate the impact of economic fluctuations on
revenues, to fund unforeseen expenditure requirements, to provide a minimum level
of cash investment interest revenue, and to avoid the need to borrow for cash
management purposes.
/:3-1
"_..n_"_..__...___.__"._
Page 2, Item 1;3
Meeting Date 7/09/96
Regarding the practices of other cities, this varies widely from City to City. Some
cities have very meager reserves (EI Cajon appears to be setting aside only $50,000
for emergencies for fiscal year 1996-97), while others are able to maintain fairly hefty
reserves. Sometimes these larger amounts reflect reserves for other purposes such
as capital improvement projects, and sometimes they do not. The point in this is that
there is not a "standard" for what such reserves should be, and to the extent a City
develops such a "standard," it should be flexible and should be based on that City's
individual needs.
Economic Fluctuations
Several of the City's major revenue sources, such as Sales Tax, Property Tax, Motor
Vehicle Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax, and Development Related Permits and Fees,
are very sensitive to the economic climate in the region, especially when the economic
climate is subject to a variety of differing and counteracting influences as they are
currently. For this reason, it is very difficult to project these revenues with any great
degree of precision, although these revenues are fairly stable as far as long range
historical projections are concerned.
As reported in the Third Quarter Fiscal Status Report for fiscal year 1995-96, it was
projected that we would experience a $2.7 million revenue shortfall, which equates
to 5.1 percent of the total estimated revenues. In other words, our beginning of the
year projections were 95 percent accurate. We were able to absorb this shortfall
since we began the year with adequate reserves, because recent sales tax data
reflects a greater contribution from this source than previous indications, and because
we also were able to control expenditures well enough to generate almost $1 million
in savings as an offset. If we had started the year with inadequate reserves, the City
would have ended the year in a deficit situation and been forced to cure the deficit
through budget cuts in subsequent years.
Looking back over the last few years, a 95 percent accuracy rate in projecting
revenues is not unusual. It therefore appears that in order to have some degree of
comfort with our revenue projections and to protect against economic fluctuations,
it would be prudent to maintain a reserve level of at least five percent of total
estimated revenues, or approximately $2.85 million at this time.
13-2
----+_._.__._-~._--_._-_.._._-"---_..._..._.._-----_..-
Page 3. Item JJ
Meeting Date 7/09/96
Unforeseen Exoenditure Reauirements
The City has in place a fairly sophisticated system of expenditure control in order to
insure that overall expenditures remain well within budgeted levels. However, during
every fiscal year, requirements for additional expenditures arise, which necessitates
drawing down reserves. During fiscal year 1995-96, those requirements amounted
to approximately $1.7 million. The general nature of these unanticipated costs varies
greatly, but might include labor agreements, litigation expenses, etc. With this in
mind. it would seem prudent to begin each year with a reserve level of at least from
$1 to $1.5 million above what would be considered the minimum based on the
economic fluctuation criteria discussed above.
Cash Balances
Since there is a close correlation between reserve level and cash balance, it is
generally true that the higher the reserve level, the larger the cash balance. Adequate
cash balances are important for two reasons; generating investment interest revenues
in support of operations, and avoiding the potential cost of having to borrow money
on a short-term basis. As reported to you in different reports recently, the City's
small cash balances during recent months has led to a decrease in investment interest
revenues and the need to borrow by issuing Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes.
Although due to favorable market conditions at present, we expect to break even on
this borrowing, this is not always possible. It is estimated that the minimum cash
balance required at the beginning of the fiscal year in order to avoid borrowing
additional money for short-term needs is between $5 and $6 million.
Summarv
Based on the factors discussed above, it appears that the goal for the minimum
reserve level for the City's General Fund should be in the range of $4.6 to $5.7 million
at this time, or approximately eight to ten percent of the operating budget on an
ongoing basis. The Policy recommended for Council adoption includes eight percent
of the operating budget as the target minimum reserve level for the General Fund.
Although only four of ten other cities surveyed had a formal policy, the minimum
reserve levels in those policies ranged from five to fifteen percent.
FISCAL IMPACT: Although adoption of this policy may affect future budgetary
decisions, this action will have no immediate fiscal impact on City operations.
/ J':J....1
RESOLUTION NO. Ie-33ft'
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A COUNCIL POLICY
REGARDING A TARGET MINIMUM RESERVE LEVEL FOR
THE GENERAL FUND
WHEREAS, although the city has historically considered
the need to maintain minimum reserve levels when arriving at
budgetary decisions, it is felt that a written policy establishing
a target minimum reserve level would assist both the Council and
Management to focus on this important fiscal consideration in order
to insure the continued fiscal solvency of the city; and
WHEREAS, it appears that the goal for the minimum reserve
level for the city's General Fund should be approximately eight
percent of the city's operating budget on an ongoing basis; and
WHEREAS, the Policy recommended for Council adoption
includes eight percent of the operating budget as the target
minimum reserve level for the General Fund.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby establish a Council Policy
regarding a target minimum reserve level for the General Fund, as
set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as if set forth in full.
Presented by Approved as to form by
a -^- ~ Í\I\.A 9<9-< 0
Robert Powell, Director of Ann Y. Moo e, Interim
Finance City Attorney
C:\rs\reserve.pol
/.3-5~ ~
_ _ __ 0_'_____.' __ _.._.~._._.__u
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: POLICY EFFECTIVE
NUMBER DATE PAGE
GENERAL FUND MINIMUM RESERVE LEVEL lof1
ADOPTED BY: DATED:
Backaround
In order to prudently protect the fiscal solvency of the City, it
is important to maintain some minimum level of reserves. Reserves
are important in order to mitigate the negative impact on revenues
from economic fluctuations, to fund unforeseen expenditure
requirements, to provide a minimum level of cash investment
interest revenue, and to avoid the need to borrow for cash
management purposes. Although the City has historically considered
the need to maintain minimum reserve levels when arriving at
budgetary decisions, it is felt that a written policy establishing
a target minimum reserve level would assist both the Council and
Management to focus on this important fiscal consideration in order
to insure the continued fiscal solvency of the City.
PurDose
The purpose of this Policy is to establish a target minimum reserve
level for the city's General Fund.
Policy
The city will attempt to maintain an undesignated fund balance
available for appropriation (Reserves) in the General Fund of at
least eight percent of the operating budget.
Discussion
For the purpose of this policy, Reserves are defined as
unrestricted resources available for appropriation or spending. In
a technical sense, reserves would be defined as the difference
between the City's liquid assets and short-term liabilities, less
any assets restricted by either legal requirements or Council
action.
J3'?
: ."
·
GENERAL FUND RESERVES
10000000
w
() 8000000 .... .......--.--.......................--.----..-...-...........................-.-..................................-........-........-.....................-.....
Z
~
« 6000000 ... .....-..................-.-.......
cc
w
> 4000000 ....
0::
W
en
w 2000000 ....
0::
0 91-2 92-3 93-4 94-5 95-6 96-7
FISCAL YEAR
-
13-8'" .
,1¡
Reserves as a Percentage of Budget
0.2
0.15m ..................u.......... .................................. .......... ....mm............................. m.................... .............................................
0.1 .....00......................................
0.05 ..m
0 91-2 92-3 93-4 94-5 95-6 96-7
Fiscal Year
/5-1' , ~.
üi
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item J 1
Meeting Date_7 /9/9£
ITEM TITLE: / ~J.Þ9
Resolution authorizing sale of City owned property north of D
Street and First Avenue to Bettie Warren at 89 First Avenue
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public wor~ ~
REVIEWED BY: City ManagerCtfb (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ NoX)
At the June 11, 1996, meeting Council denied an encroachment permit to Ms. Bettie Warren to
maintain a chain link fence she had constructed within a parcel owned by the City and made a
decision not to offer to sell the property to the adjacent property owners. Ms. Warren requested, at
the June 25 Council meeting, that the City Council reconsider their decision and sell to her only the
portion of the land enclosed by the fence. Council directed staff to return with a recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the subject resolution authorizing the sale of
approximately 450 square feet of City-owned land north of First Avenue and D Street to Bettie
Warren.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None.
DISCUSSION:
At the Council meeting on June 11th, Council adopted Resolution No. 18333 denying an
encroachment permit requested by Ms. Bettie Warren to allow her chain link fence to remain on the
City-owned parcel adjacent to her property at 89 First Avenue. Based on staff s original
recommendation, that resolution originally included the authorization to sell the portion of the entire
40-foot-wide property to the owner of each abutting parcel. The resolution was amended to not
include the sale of the land. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of the agenda statement on this item
from that meeting. Also attached as Exhibit B is a plat showing the area Ms. Warren has requested
we sell to her.
The chain link fence erected by Ms. Warren replaced a split rail fence which had been in place for
several years, and maintained in good condition by the Warrens. Ms. Warren replaced the wood
fence with a five-foot high chain link fence for security reasons. This was done after her
encroachment permit to place a gate and fence across the City's parcel was revoked and foot traffic
was allowed to pass through. It is her contention that there are a lot of transients and homeless
people using this area as access to the wooded areas to the north, and her security is compromised
by the lack offencing and lighting. Ms. Warren states she also would like to keep the front yard she
has enjoyed over the years; her house is approximately eight feet east of the front property line
adjacent to the City owned strip of land.
1'1-/ ,
'\~ "('
------+
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 7 /9/96
Originally staff recommended selling only the entire portion of the City owned strip of land adjacent
to each property owners abutting frontage. Staff now believes that selling 450 square feet of this
property will have little impact on the neighborhood and would be reasonable. The sale of this
property also serves a public purpose in that the City does not have to maintain or be responsible for
the property.
As part of the June 11 agenda statement staff discussed the value of this piece of property. The
value of R-1 residential land in this area based on comparable sales evaluated by staff runs from
$3.50 per square foot to $4.50 per square foot with an average value of $4.10 per square foot for
the unencumbered land. It should be noted that appraisers contacted by City staff were unwilling
to express an opinion of value without doing a full evaluation. As an alternative, in order to
encourage the sale of the property to eliminate any problems of ownership of a parcel of land with
no actual value to the City, the sale could be made based upon the value of the parcel to the City
as a separate and distinct parcel. Since the value to the City for a 40 foot strip of land with certain
encumbrances is very little, the land could be sold for a nominal value, say $1.00 per square foot.
However, in this case, the recommendation is no longer to sell the entire parcel, but only
approximately 456 square feet. The cost of having the property appraised would not be practical
because of its size and the effort involved. Based on the partial sale staff recommends that the
City request full value.
Mrs. Warren has enclosed a strip of land approximately 49 feet long enclosing approximately 456
square feet (the piece is not square, having a triangular point at the south end). This portion of
her frontage would have an approximate value of $1,870 at the average value of $4.10 outlined
above.
In summary, staff recommends using the estimated value of $4.10 per square foot for the
unencumbered land (using staff's comparables). This equates to $1,870.00 ($4.10 x 456 s.f.) for the
12' x 49' irregularly shaped piece of land. Staff does not recommend getting a full appraisal. Staff
further recommends that Ms. Warren pay any and all additional escrow or out of pocket costs which
the City could incur, including the cost to prepare documents at full cost recovery. Staff does not
have an estimate of those costs at this time, but believe it will be in the neighborhood of$l,OOO. If
authorized by Council, staffwill contact Ms. Warren with the offer and request her to make a deposit
sufficient to cover the cost of the land and estimated City out of pocket expenses.
FISCAL IMP ACT: The sale, if authorized, will contribute $1,870.00 to the General Fund and all
City expenses involved in closing the sale will be covered.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - June 11, 1996 agenda statement
Exhibit B - Plat showing the property M:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\W ARREN.JWH
J 'I'" .)... ~
, 'I
n_._.__
RESOLUTION NO. ¡g--:J57
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING SALE OF CITY OWNED
PROPERTY NORTH OF D STREET AND FIRST AVENUE TO
BETTIE WARREN AT 89 FIRST AVENUE
WHEREAS, at the June II, 1996, meeting Council denied an
encroachment permit to Ms. Bettie Warren to maintain a chain link
fence she had constructed within a parcel of land owned by the City
and made a decision not to offer to sell this property to Mrs.
Warren; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Warren requested, at the June 25 Council
meeting, that the City Council reconsider their decision and sell
to her only the portion of the City owned land that is enclosed by
the fence as shown on Exhibit "A" ("Property") ; and
WHEREAS, staff has determined that the Property does not
have an impact on the neighborhood and is not needed by the City
for any public purpose; and
WHEREAS, the sale of the Property serves a public purpose
in that the City does not have to maintain or be responsible for
the Property; and
WHEREAS, staff had determined, based on comparable sales
evaluated by staff, that the average value of R-1 residential land
in this area is $4.10 per square foot; and
WHEREAS, the cost of having the Property appraised would
not be practical because of its size; and
WHEREAS, the City owns the fee title to the Property, and
said property is not subject to any deed or dedication restriction;
and
WHEREAS, staff further recommends that Ms. Warren pay any
and all additional escrow or out of pocket costs which the City
could incur, including the cost to prepare documents at full cost
recovery.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby authorize the sale to Mrs. Bettie
Warren of approximately 450 square feet of City owned property as
shown on Exhibit "A" north of D Street and First Avenue at 89 First
Avenue.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sale of the Property be
based upon $4.10 per square foot and that Ms Warren pay any and all
additional escrow or out of pocket costs which the City could
incur, including the cost to prepare documents at full cost
recovery.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of ~~ ~<rÇ}
Ann Y. Moore, Interlm Clty
Public Works J~~3 Attorney
C:\rs\warren,sal --¡t
~.,...
~.
I: "" ~ ~~ \.... ~-. r '"
f';' ~"... ""'", ';-'fo,
. ,.~..::t. ~f'~, ,~: 0') LIJ
"';¡,.;. "jì1ii "'IS"',' z ~
" '.. . '.. ". .
n"~ .....,,, "'I~" 00 .
~ ":\.-' i" a.. t¡.... >-
' . . .~ . -. ..~¡. ,
i . ';i¡;¥.J}.} °if·····' '''',1 1
' .:II; ~'. 0.' . '. . ,
~"'...~'~. ;r;:¡:z¡¡~:r" o'(:Q.",~u l
',"",- 2. - .... t--Lo.I:r~",
' ~ '*.,. :I:,"",·o::.t; (&1.aI 0t-I- Z
-/ ..,,~, "I401(ZOx o~· 4It:~O ùJW
", ,. , ':II;¡¡¡¡Gi",~...§ !1i"'=>~oa>
-'" {"~I!~¡. :.t:1;~~!:ì~Ii", iQ1d~",~;j
A . ð ã~OLIJ~o ~C~OU~
""'; :.It)u~fi!:~"" a::~Q:;l>-Z'"
I . ~ ðr æ.. U~ O~Ofl) a::
¡ "'( ~ ZO....,Z~ rnU~t)::E_~O
. . ~ ik.tC-z W . .....~
~ . ,,' 0 ZO_ C_ O::Z.... ~
", (.). -CI1-"0:) 0 (.) W
';"" I ·.,~.·~i; "'~ I !
.', ['" · '~C'i""!!hl . 0ì' ! ¡
". '·~"·h,.,~.,...." 'V i " ,
h ....>....0....... , " !
' . 'to' "'0 . . " , , "' ,
· ," ' ,'! i " I
". ", ~ , I I' ...e ...
. ".
" "' " '" , " .
'V ". " , "
,.. " ., , . ., t
Z_.. 1 ~
... " ", · i '.... J
": '. , .
~, , 0 I I
o . , , . ,
o , I ,
~, ~v' , ':. '¡ !
::I ~ I ~.....
o 2:,~ .
' ", i
.' ~ 2- j
'! 0 ~~ ,
!
." i
Z", I
Ww ~ <,
'" a. ~. E-- I
'" 0 ~: ¡¡¡,
" . II ..~. ~ if ~ ~ ~ :; !_
^ e' ~ I N
· ~j i:;
!I ~~ i"
!' .. w:r: ,
~ 0 iJ.. U I
"::. ¡'''I 0 !
. .'. .' ~ tL, I
',oy i ~o,
· ,2, . , !
· W'I ~ ;
, ",I.. e .
¡ l" U J
· "C," ..' , !
· .. ~ .. ,
' , .. , ! ..
'. ; ¡
· , ; "
· '. ,
00 ~ !
..~ , i
u ,
~ò' , ; . '" I
~ ~ ,
M I
· '.~ ,
· .. .. . .-. . !
"'.. '" ,
h~¡ :c.¡.:. ~ a·,>, ò I
· a».d...... " !
I. we',.,:!.. '~. ò' ."d 00 0 !,
' .~'~¡~. m ¡ I
'f - --"'0, ""0.. r.1
' '5.., .... " ,
· -1.··".... ã !
¡F,....,.:..~ .,.' J
t.··'.· o,~.:,~.~'....':J.. .~~... ..i .~. '5. f~; J'I~t/ ''d., /1\
. .,. '~i"'···' .. ~ 7 ..
. , , '" ..... "- ,
. ,....... "
.' ...'" 't·· .0:. · U ö! .. ~.... ......
~.i; !è,i ~ Q ë§ ¡;
" '-..> ....,.... .
""" i!"""..,-,:,
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item \ 3
Meeting Date 06/]1/96
ITEM TITLE: Resolution I ~ 332. authorizing the construction of a pipe gate and
additional posts to prevent vehicular access on City property in ·the D
Street/First Avenue area.
Resolution I ~ 33 3 denying an encroachment permit to Bettie Wanen for
a fence within City property and authorizing the sale of City owned land in
the D Street/First Avenue area subject to certain easements.
SUBMITIED BY: Director of Public works¿l ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/Sths Vote: Yesßo..K.)
At the April 16, 19960 Council meeting, the City Council revoked an encroachment permit issued
to Ms. Bettie Warren for a fence and gate across a City owned parcel of land north of the
intersection of D Street and First Avenue. The conditions of the revocation, however. allowed
the gate to remain in place until staff was able to return with a report on alternatives to prevent
vehicular access so long as pedestrian access was not interfered with. This item addresses those
alternatives.
In addition, the residents indicated that Ms. Warren had erected a fence that enclosed a portion
of the City owned parcel without a permit. Ms. Wanen has applied for an encroachment permit
to allow that fence to remain. This report also addresses that issue and a related recommendation
to sell a part or all of the City owned land to the adjacent owners.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the resolutions: 1) authorizing the
construction of a pipe gate and addiûonal posts in place of the existing chain link fence gate; and
2) denying the encroachment pennit for the fence enclosing the City owned land, and authorizing
the sale of the City land: a) to the adjacent property owners to the east, b) subject to certain
easements, c) at a price reflecting the value of the land as a separate parcel, and d) only for
portions fronting entire holdings.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None
DISCUSSION:
In January 1996, an encroachment pennit was issued to Mrs. Bettie Warren for the installation
of a chain link fence and gate across a City (Jwned parcel of land adjacent to her home at 89 First
Avenue. When the fence was installed, several of the residents in the area complained that the
City. by issuing the permit, delÙed access to walkers, joggers, and bicyclists, to an area enjoyed
/~5'
· Page 2, Item l3..
Meeting Date 5111/96
by local residents for many years. The appeal of the issuance of the encroachment permit by these
residents was heard by the City Council at the April 16, 1996 Council meeting.
At that meeting, the Council adopted a resolution revoking the permit, however, the Council
indicated a concern over allowing uncontrolled vehicular access to the area. The Council
instructed staff to remove the fence to the west of the gate, but allowed the gate to remain
temporarily, until staff could come back with a report on an acceptable alternative to the chain link
gate. Mrs. Warren was required to supply keys to the lock on the gate to the owners of the
landlocked parcels to the north of her home and attach a Knox box to the· gate for emergency
crews. Staff has removed the fence to the west of the gate, reinstalled some of the posts to
prevent vehicles from going around the gate, but in a manner which allowed for pedestrian access,
and Ms. Warren has met the requirements she was required to fulml regarding the keys and Knox
box.
In addition to the issue of the encroachment permit for the gate and fence across the City owned
parcel, the residents indicated that Ms. Warren had installed another chain link fence enclosing
some of the City owned parcel as part of her property within the week before the Council
meeting, after staff ~ld checked the site and taken pictures. Subsequent to the April 16 meeting,
staff verbally advised Ms. Warren that her new fence was on City property and that she had 30
days to either remove the fence or apply for an encroachment permit. By the time staff had the
letter prepared as a follow up, Ms. Warren had applied for the encroachment permit and a formal
notification letter was never sent to her. Staff then scheduled and held an administrative hearing
on the new encroachment permit and reviewed solutions for alternatives to the chain link gate.
CHAIN LINK GATE ALTERNATIVES
As a pennanent solution to prevent vehicular access, but allowing pedestrian and bicycle access,
staff has reviewed the following alternatives:
1. Removing all barriers and gates.
2. Placing removable bollards across the driveway and remaining portion of the City owned
parcel.
3. Installing wood posts on each side of the driveway with a locked chain and reflectors
between the posts.
4. Allowing the existing chain link gate and fence to remain in place as modified by the City
crews and currently exists.
5. Installing a pipe gate across the driveway. The pipe gate is shown in Exhibit A.
The ÍITSt option of removing all barriers would be a reversion to the original state with
unobsbUCted passage by vehicles as well as pedestrians. Since Council clearly indicated a concern
with allowing unobstructed vehicular access, this option was not considered further and is not
recommended.
The second option of placing bollards was considered and discussed with the Police Department.
In order to be effective in preveming access to the area by noisy dirt bikes as well as automobiles,
/¿j-(,.
- - ~__._..__. - ~.___._~ _u.··_,,_.
Page 3, Item ..l3
Meeting Date SI11/96
the bollards would have to be spaced at approximately 24"-26" intervals, be removable to allow
for passage of authorized vehicles, but lockable to prevent unauthorized drivers from removing
them. Because of the number of bollards that would be required, the Police Department had a
concern over this alternative. Having to remove several of these obstructions would seriously
delay their response time. While staff did not discuss this alternative with the Fire Department,
it is believed that their response would be similar. This alternative is not recommended for those
reasons.
The alternative of installing wood posts on each side of the driveway with a chain between the
posts was also considered. Since visibility of the chain was a problem, reflectors would have to
be fastened onto the chain as an aid to prevent vehicles from running into it. It would be difficult
to add the reflectors to the chain in such a manner that they would remain visible at all times and
not twist such that they would no longer be seen. The Risk Manager and City Anorney's offices
both opined that, due to the lack of visibility of the chain, this alternative would present potential
liability problems. For this reason this alternative is also not recommended.
After consideration of the above, the only two alternatives that remained viable were to leave the
existing chain link gate in place and the installation of a pipe gate. Staff considered the possibility
of leaving the existing chain link gate in place, in as much as it is already existing, has been
effective in prohibiting unauthorized vehicular traffic, allows pedestrians to access the area and
would be easier for City sewer crews and emergency velúcles to open. While this alternative may
be considered the least aesthetically pleasing of the two remaining alternatives, it is a viable option
and the least costly since no additional costs would have to be incurred.
The last alternative of placing a pipe gate as illustrated in Exhibit A is more costly than leaving
the existing fence in place, however, it is less visually displeasing than the chain link gate. In
fact, the City uses this type of gate in the City parks, at maintenance drives to open space areas,
and at sewer access roads in the newer subdivisions. In addition, the pipe gates are sturdier and
less prone to damage by vehicles running into them. There would also be only one lock for City
crews and police and fire personnel to unlock to gain access to the area. Some of the residents
have indicated a concern that the existing opening cannot be seen from First and D and that the
appearance of the chain link gate may discourage residents from the area from using the path
because they are unaware that a pedestrian opening has been provided. By the nature of the pipe
gate, it will appear less imposing to those who may wish to access the river valley, but are
unaware that a pedestrian opening has been provided. While pedestrians will be able to walk
around the gate, the pedestrian opening is not visible from the intersection of D Street and First
Avenue. The pipe gate would at least give the impression they can get through the gate by going
under.
The cost of purchasing and installing the pipe gate is estimated at approximately $400. However,
including the additional posts that would be required to prevent motorcycles from going around
and removing the existing gate and fence posts, the total cost is estimated to be approximately
$1,000. Therefore, staff recommends the pipe gate alternative to prevent unauthorized vehicular
access to the City parcel. The existing lock and Knox box placed by Ms. Warren would be
/'1- 7
Page 4, Item ,'3
Meeting Date S/11/96
utilized to insure all the owners of property to the north that require access have it.
At the Council meeting of April 16, 1996, the Council also indicated that staff should look at
placing a sign on the fence indicating, in both English and Spanish. "Pass at your own risk." This
issue has been reviewed by both the Risk Manager and the City Attorney's offices who have
indicated that, while such a sign does not create any more City liability, it could increase the
possibility of a lawsuit because of the presence of the sign. Therefore, staff does not recommend
that such a sign be put up. If, however, Council determines that such a sign is appropriate, the
cost would be less than $200.
NEW FENCE ENCROACHMENT PRRMIT
As indicated, after issuing the first encroachment permit to Mrs. Warren for the fence and gate
across the City's parcel, she had another chain link fence erected that encroached approximately
12 feet into the City land along the frontage of her property (see Exhibit B). According to Mrs.
Warren, this new fence replaced a wooden, split rail fence that had been in the same approximate
location. The new chain link fence is five feet high. Mrs. Warren applied for an encroachment
pennit to allow the fence to remain in place on April 29, 1996. In her application (Exhibit C)
Mrs. Warren stated the fence is needed:
"to enhance my safety because of the remote area where I live with no lights or
police patrol. It will also enhance the looks of my front yard (as it is too skinny
and would look strange.) It will also keep out coyotes and stray dogs, i.e. pitbulls
from which I have run on two occasions."
Because of the sensitivity of the previous encroachment issue, staff determined that an
administrative hearing should be held before making a decision on the new encroachment permit.
Notices were mailed to residents within a 1,0000foot radius of the fence and the hearing held on
May 22nd. Eleven individuals attended the hearing held before the City Engineer, including Mrs.
Warren and her attorney plus nine individuals from the neighborhood. Michael Roark, Mrs.
Warren's attorney, indicated that his client wished to have the encroachment permit issued because
of her security concerns. The other attendees generally all appeared to be in opposition to
issuance of the permit, although that point could not be absolutely ascertained since two of them
did not speak. A transcribed summary of the meeting is attached as Exhibit D. A summary of
the reasons the neighbors appeared to be in opposition to the permit issuance are:
1. The fence is illegal, the City's procedures on illegal fences should be followed requiring
the removal of the fence before the encroachment permit is issued.
2. The fence is not fair to anybody.
3. The fence should come down or the property owners on the other side of the City property
should be able to add 12 feet to their lots.
4. By approving the encroachment permit Mrs. Warren is receiving preferential treatment.
S. The City should not make a decision on this land until the big picture of what the City is
going to do with the land in the valley is determined.
6. Mrs. Warren does not need the fence on City property for her security.
1'1- or
Page 5, Item 13..
Meeting Date 5111/96
7. Allowing some property owners to encroach would create an aesthetically unpleasing
situation with some fences in and some fences farther out.
8. The residents have never seen a coyote in 12 years, there is no vandalism in the
neighborhood and very seldom do cars go in there.
9. The fence is over the height allowed in the front yard setback.
The opponents also presented a petition signed by 32 area residents. The petitions are attached
as Exhibit E.
After the opponents completed their statements, Michael Roark requested an opportunity to speak
and indicated, in summary, that the fence does not inteñere with any of the reasons given in
opposition, pointed out that the City is not using the land, and that any encroachment permit
would be issued under condition that the land can be reclaimed by the City's demand that the
fence be removed. He also indicated that the proposed encroachment does give her a little more
privacy in that it moves people that much farther away from her residence.
Following completion of the administrative hearing, City staff investigated another alternative to
issuing the encroachment pennit and other background infonnation that came to light. The
alternative to issuing the encroachment pennit is to sell, or offer to sell, all, or part, of the land
to the adjacent property owners to the east of the City property. The other background
infonnation included an application made on Mrs. Warren's behalf for an addition to her residence
in 1985. That application was made by Harold Winterbottom and indicated that Mrs. Warren's
house was set 20 feet back from the property line (Exhibit F). The Planning Department had
approved the plan on the basis of the required IS foot setback in the front yard being met. The
application used this 12 foot strip of land as part of the front yard setback. According to old
aerial photos on file in the Engineering Division, the residence was built sometime between 1958
an 1960. The land now owned by the City was dedicated prior to that time and, apparently, the
setback from the actual property line of only 8 to 10 feet was satisfactory, although no records
can be found of the building pennit. This infonnation is important because of the questions
brought up by the area residences concerning whether or not the fence was in the front yard
setback. As such the maximum height fence allowed in the front yard setback is 40".
PROPOSAL TO SELL THE CITY LAND
An integral part of staff's recommendation on whether or not the City should issue the
encroachment pennit is the proposal to sell the City land to the adjacent property owners to the
east of the land. Staff has looked into a couple of variations, including selling all, or only part
of the land. Since it would be very difficult to put in a full street without condemning property
to the south, and there are only five total parcels which require access from the City land, it,
therefore, appears that there is no practical need for the City to continue to own the land. As far
as constructing a road that would serve the properties to the north in the Sweetwater Valley, the .
access through First Avenue to the south ofD Street is inadequate to handle the larger volumes
of traffic that such a road would generate. While selling the property to the abutting owners
would place the property back on the tax roles, it would also m,ake it more difficult for the City
to construct a street in the area if the abutting property were ever to further develop. On this
/J/-'J
Page 6, Item '3
Meeting Date 5/11/96
latter point, however, all the property would be under the control of the abutting owners requiring
the street and it could be rededicated as a street as part of any overall development plan.
Therefore, it appears feasible to staff that the strip of City land be offered for sale.
If the land were to be sold, the City would need to retain a sewer easement and an easement in
favor of the other abutting property owners on the east and to the north for access. The properties
abutting the City parcel on the west have adequate frontage on Minot Avenue and are fully
developed. It would be recommended that the City sell outright a strip 12 feet wide and either
retain the remaining 28 feet or sell the entire 40 feet and encumber it with public service and
access easements. The encumbrance could also prohibit the erection of baniers and fencing
across the width of the 28 foot easement without a permit. Staff had a concern ahout retaining
an easement for pedestrian facilities because that might put the City in a position of having to
maintain the property in a safe condition in order to prevent liability. Also, staff's concern was
that selling the remaining 28 foot strip with the encumbrances would allow the property owners
to fence the area off to totally prevent access by the public similar to the situation which existed
when the area residents appealed the earlier encroachment permit to the City Council. However,
in consultation with the City Attorney's office, it was suggested that the City could retain a "trails
easement" as part of a public service easement. The sale of the westerly 28 feet would be subject
to an easement to all the property owners abutting the property on the east for access and a
"Public Service easement" including the right to own and maintain a sewer and for non-vehicular
recreational trail use by the public. Under the non-vehicular trail easement, the City would have
certain immunities under Sections 831.2 and 831.7 of the Government Code from liabilities
resulting from use of the trail by the public. The main situation in which the City would have any
potential liability results from continuance or maintaining a known dangerous condition. There
is no more liability in this latter situation than the City otherwise now has by allowing the public
to use the property to access the Sweetwater Valley, although there could be an increased risk of
future litigation by encouraging its use by the public. There would, however, be no duty of the
City to maintain the trail so long as no dangerous condition exits.
Based on issues that arose during the administrative hearing on Mrs. Warren's second
encroachment permit, the residents may be opposed to the sale on the basis that if the properties
to the east are allowed to increase the size of those properties, they also should be allowed to
purchase 12 feet of the City parcel. Staff explained that for several reasons this did not appear
to be a reasonable option. First, the 40' strip of land which the City now owns was originally
dedicated in fee title to the City from the original parcel which includes all of the properties
adjacent to the east. Second, the location of the City sewer is 10 feet east of the west property
line and the sewer easement plus access easements would totally encumber any portion of the
property that could be offered to the property owners to the west. Third, the map which
subdivided the property to the west (Map No. 2376, El Rancho Villas, 1946) included a "30'
easement for Proposed Road" on the easterly edge of their property adjacent to the City parcel
(See Exhibit G). Although the map does not clearly indicate that the easement was offered to the
City, and the City did not accept the eaement, it appears that the City would be the beneficiary
of the easement in the event a road was to be constructed. If any offer of sale is to be made for
any of the City parcel, therefore, it should be made only to the owners of the properties adjacent
I 'I-It)
Page 7, Item )3
Meeting Date 5111196
to the east. The City Council may, however, wish to explore the possibility of vacating or
quitclaiming any easement rights the City may have to the 30 foot strip in question on the El
Rancho Villas Tract.
City staff sent a letter to all of the abutting property owners to the east requesting their input on
a possible recommendation to sell the land to them. The only response the City receivc;d was
from Mrs. Warren who indicated a desire to purchase at least some of the property. Based on the
lack of input from the other abutting owners, it does not appear that there would be any objection
to the sale by the abutting owners, nor any particular desire for the other owners to purchase the
property at this time. It also appears to make no difference whether the City can seU the entire
parcel, or only part of it, to the adjacent owners. The existing property does not have any direct
street access or use and sale of only parts of the property would not change that condition. Staff
does reconunend, however, that any offer for sale be made only for the portion of the City land
abutting the entire adjacent parcel rather than smaller purchases. The would require Ms. Warren
to purchase the land along her entire frontage rather than only that portion which she has enclosed
with the fence. The City would continue to have access for the sewer easement.
As part of the considération of the question of selling the City owned parcel, staff explored the
potential revenue to the City. The value ofR-l residential land in this area based on comparable
sales evaluated by staff runs from $3.50 per square foot to $4.50 per square foot with an average
value of $4.10 per square foot for the unencumbered land. The portion of the land encumbered
by the easements would have only a nominal value because of the little use it would have to the
owners. It should be noted that appraisers contacted by City staff were unwilling to express an
opinion of value without doing a full evaluation. As an alternative, in order to encourage the sale
of the property to eliminate any problems of ownership of a parcel of land with no actual value
to the City, the sale could be made based upon the value of the parcel to the City as a separate
and distinct parcel. Since the value to the City for a 40 foot strip of land with certain
encumbrances is very little, the land could be sold for a nominal value, say $1.00 per square foot.
Therefore, before any actual sale is made, the offer should be made subject to an evaluation of
value by an appraiser under one of the approaches to value outlined above. HistoricaUy the City
has sought the higher value of land, but that has also been where the adjacent property owners are
initiating the sale.
Using a price of $4.10 per square foot for the usable land based on its value as part of a larger
parcel, each rurming foot would have a value of ($4.10 x 12') $50 including a nominal value for
the remaining 28 foot width encumbered by the easements. Mrs. Warren has enclosed a strip of
land approximately 49 feet long enclosing approximately 456 square feet (the piece is not square
having a triangular point at the south end). This portion of her frontage would have an
approximate value of $1,800 to $2,000. If Mrs. Warren purchased the entire strip along her 320
foot frontage, the City could realize $16,000 in revenue from the sale if the property is sold based
on its value to the adjacent parcel. If the propertY were sold at its value to the City as a separate
parcel, the revenue could be between $500 and $4,000.
)¥-//
Page 8, Item \ '3
Meeting Date 5/11/96
RECOMMENDA nON ON SALE OF LAND AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
Because staff does not see a need for public ownership of this strip of land, other than the
described public service easement for sewer and recreational trails, staff recommends that the
property be offered for sale to the owners of the property abutting the parcel to the east subject
to the following conditions: a) the price shall reflect its value as a separate parcel and, b) any sale
be for that portion along the entire frontage of the abutting parcel. Coupled with this
recommendation, staff also recommends that the encroachment permit be denied. Mrs. Warren
erected the fence in violation of the City ownership and has at various times declared the land to
be hers or the City's as it met her needs. Staff believes that if Mrs. Warren wishes to use the land
to benefit her property by moving foot and vehicle traffic farther from her home she should do
so in a manner which benefits the City also. This is accomplished through the sale of the land.
Regardless of whether or not Mrs. Warren purchases the property, if offered, staff will continue
to pursue the other issue of the height of the fence in a front yard setback.
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of erecting the pipe gate and additional posts across the City
easement in place of the exixting chain link gate is approximately $1,000. If a sign is added to
the gate indicating "Pass at your own risk" the cost would be an additional $200. Funds are
available in the operating budget to erect both the pipe gate and the sign. If the existing chain link
gate were allowed to'remain there would be no cost to the City, other than for the sign.
If the City denies the encroachment permit and offers to sell the property to the abutting owners,
the potential revenue to the City from such a sale to Mrs. Warren is between $500 and $16,000
depending upon the value assigned to the land and the amount of land purchased. Based on staff's
recommended conditions, the estimate of revenue to the City would be $4,000 - $5,000.
Auachments :
Exhibit A - Pipe gate drawing
Exhibit B - New fence encroachment
Exhibit C - April 29 Fence encroachment permit application
Exhibit D - Transcribed summary of Administrative Hearing
Exhibit E - Petition in opposition 10 encroachment permit
Exhibit F . 1985 Bldg Pumit application
Exhibit G - Diagram showing 30' easement and sewer location
M:\HOMEIENOINEEIlIAOENDAIW AlUtEN3.CLS
0710-40-PE340
0710-40-PE376
073S-10-JY022
/'1' /.)..
.---..-.-....--...---..--..-.--.-..---.-
~ /'-/
July 9, 1996
Madam Mayor and Council Members,
You will not see many memhers of the Rosehank community here
tonight. We have walked two petitions; we have attended council
meetings and engineering meetings-owe hav,' atli;mpted 10 make our
arguments clear to you, You have already voted on this issuc oncc--
this has hecome a procedural matter as milch as a neighhorhood
issue. We simply ask that YOII be reliahle and consistent--thal you
allow the June II vote to stand,
Rosebank Organizing Committcc
/---~7~-~ fj'L/C::=:;-______ ---;:- iq?~-
v· {
(,/u~~ a /~ \\~ ~ /~~~,
1 A . f;/~tiß' OJ ~~/
~~ ~o CJG~ _ --I
.. . . -' ,., f( (::7''''{. ¿ ;ry/z u
ftúvIYP/rr/IJ--
,
Cc : s T'£..U £ (fALfY\Pr
"
/f/ 1~'
-._---------- .
COUNCIL AGBNDA STATEMENT
Item /5
Meeting Date 07/09/96
ITEM TITLE: Report Update on Smart Community Project
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Management & Information service~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager q;~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ NO XX)
At the Council Meeting of October 24, 1995, Council approved the SmartCommunity
contract with San Diego State University. The SmartCommunity project is a joint
effort between Caltrans, San Diego State University, the University of California
at Davis, the Center for the New West, and the City of Chula Vista. The City of
Chula Vista's role in this project is to obtain feedback from citizens concerning
their wants and needs with respect to online services. Staff along with the
outreach consultant has held two outreach meetings, two discussion group sessions
and placed an online survey on the Internet to determine the wants and need of
the citizens of Chula Vista in respect to online systems.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept the report and direct staff to:
a. Proceed with a minimum implementation of SmartCommunity
without additional funding.
b. Pursue additional funding for phase II.
c. Actively explore merging the telecenters and the Library
to enhance technology resource availability for the
community.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable
DISCUSSION:
Backaround
A SmartCommunity is a community that employs on-line services (for example, the
Internet, World Wide Web, America On-Line, Compuserve, Electronic Bulletin Board
systems) to promote local participation and cooperation among residents,
government, business, education, health care and others. A SmartCornrnunity
provides information and a way for residents and businesses to communicate
electronically with people in local government, schools, businesses, industry,
non-profits and other community organizations.
Potentially a SmartCommunity could produce benefits such as the following:
· access to public information at least regarding City services and
potentially other community organizations and interests as well
· interactivity between the city's residents/customers and City
departments for various items such as permitting, paying fees, etc.
· greater community participation in public policy issues, and
· accommodation of mobility demand via the information highway.
/5'..-/ )
___ _____~______.~__.,_ ..._,._.."'__ H '"" _____
Page 2, Item If
Heeti.ng Date 07/09/96
In addition, the Smart community project would also allow the City to determine
what technical improvements would need to be in place to meet the goals of:
· Providing better service to residents and serving the needs of the
community in a more efficient manner.
· Reducing walk-in/counter traffic
· Reducing auto trips to city Hall
· And attempting to do so in a cost-neutral or revenue-generating
manner.
Because of Chula Vista's noteworthy supply of already existing "smart"
facilities, (including the libraries, the telecenters, and local schools such as
Clearview Elementary and Juarez-Lincoln Elementary), CalTrans offered the City
the opportunity to become a "test community" for determining the vision, needs
and demands for on-line services for residents and businesses.
OUtreach PurÐose
To gather as much information and reach as large a portion of the community as
possible and to work within the limited budget and time constraints, staff held
two workshops, one directed at the general community and one directed toward key
community leaders including the City Council, two discussion groups, one directed
at bilingual citizens and one directed toward the "computer disenfranchised"
residents and business owners and placed an online survey on the City's Internet
home page. In addition, a final community workshop was held on June 27 to update
prior participants with the results of the outreach process.
The information the outreach intended to gather included the following:
· Do Chula Vista residents and business people currently utilize on-
line computer services?
· What is the profile of the Chula Vista computer user and 000-
computer user?
· Are the residents and business people interested in gathering
information and utilizing services on-line?
· What kind of services and information do people have a need for on-
line?
· How much would Chula Vista residents and business people be willing
to pay for on-line city and community services/information?
· Is the City capable of providing on-line services desired by the
community?
15'..2
,
\
."- -'--- ^~--^--- -. '-"---- ---- ---~-'.'---.....---~----------,------
Page 3. Item If
Meeting Date 07/09/96
· What are the obstacles and challenges to providing online services
and information?
· How can the City overcome the obstacles and challenges?
Communitv OUtreach Results
Chula Vista residents who participated in the outreach by attending a workshop
or discussion group and/or completing a survey had several common
characteristics:
· Almost all were receptive to the idea of a SmartCommunity, even
those with little or no computer experience
· There was little or no resistance to the proposal of offering City
and community services on-line
· Communicating with City officials and participating in public issues
consistently ranked among the top interests for on-line services
· Access and training are vitally important to the success of a
SmartCommunity
· Chula Vista residents have a high opinion of their community and are
eager to play a role in this project
The workshops and discussion groups resulted in a substantial amount of
information about access, computer knowledge, interest in on-line services,
potential applications, willingness to pay for on-line services, community
support of the project, interest of individuals, and needs and desires of
residents for on-line services. The following points cover, in abbreviated form,
the basic information gathered during the outreach process regarding the above
questions.
A. Some residents, although willing to utilize on-line services, need
or want to be provided with physical locations for access.
B. The range of knowledge about computers and information technology is
very wide.
C. A wide variety of services and information needs and desires were
reported by outreach participants including:
· communication with City Council members
· Voting by electronic mail
· Traffic reports
· Public transportation schedules and cost
· Communication with teachers, including lesson plans and
homework assignments
· Employment training
1~3 " \\
.···.~m.·_"____.._'"_______~_____
Page 4, Item )J
Heeting Date 07/09/96
· Library databases, book reserves and payment of library fines
· Employment opportunities and information
· On-line job application
· Home shopping/retail information
· Health clinic directories
· Disease prevention programs
· Housing availability
· Crime reports
D. Most outreach participants expressed a willingness to pay Borne
amount of money to access information and services on-line.
E. Many residents and business people expressed enthusiastic interest
in the SmartCommunity project and indicated that they would like to
l)stay involved in the project; or 2) stay informed of the progress
of the project.
F. Most outreach participants indicated there are on-line services they
would be interested in receiving which they cannot do currently or
they would like to be able to do on-line.
G. The quality of the content of the information and services available
through SmartCommunity was of utmost importance to outreach
participants.
The outreach portion of the Smart Community project was successful in attaining
a substantial amount of information about community desires for on-line services
and how the City can make these services accessible, available and appealing to
City residents and business people. In addition, the final outreach meeting
helped the city to identify members of the community who are willing to assist
with implementation of the SmartCommunity project. Eleven people expressed
interest in helping with design, access, education and technology issues related
to the SmartCommunity project. In order to accomplish these on-line services,
computers, software and staff resources will be needed.
Internal Outreach
In addition to the outreach focused at the general community, staff also
performed an "internal outreach" to determine the needs of City departments in
the area of on-line services which might improve efficiency and effectiveness of
City staff. Information expected from the internal outreach included the
following:
· How could service be improved by offering various services on-line?
· Could staff efficiency be improved by offering services on-line?
· Could staff efficiency be improved by providing City staff with
access to the Internet and to Internet e-mail?
/f-r
._,.._.__._~.__. .--.......-- "'--"---'-~'-'-~-~~-'--~"'''-'- "^ -~--_._._~.._-
Page 5, Item J5
Meeti.ng Date 07/09/96
· What are the obstacles and challenges to providing Internet
servi.ces?
staff from all departments were interviewed on several different occasions and
were very interested in the concept of a SmartCommunity. Applications identified
for possible implementation ranged from moderately easy to very difficult and
from only slight efficiency increases to large efficiency increases. A list of
suggestions is attached to this report, however a sample of suggestions includes:
· Internet e-mail for key employees in each City department to help
improve communication of City departments with other agencies and
Chula Vista residents and businesses.
· Internet access for key employees in each department to be used for
information, research, etc.
· Install self-service kiosks to reduce counter staff time, printing
costs etc.
· Install informational telephone lines (voice mail automated
attendants) for residents and businesses who need information from
the City but do not necessarily need to speak to a live person.
· Add additional information to the City's home page and web site
including regulations and codes, energy saving techniques,
employment opportunities, events and other such information.
· Accept electronic payments over the Internet for items such as
paying parking tickets, business license fees, Parks & Recreation
activities, library fines, building permits etc. to reduce trips to
City Hall by City residents.
Prioritization of ADDlications
The outreach effort, both internal and external, yielded a large list of
potential applications for the City to implement during subsequent phases of the
project. City staff as well as members of the public ranked the list in order
of priority with the following items being ranked the highest.
· Access to Library services such as library catalogs, on-line data
bases, research services and reserve books.
· Vote electronically.
· Access local newspapers, magazines, TV and radio.
· Report community disruptions, graffiti and other non-emergency
problems.
· Use links to other government agencies.
/5' f
--.-------.--..,.".----..----- .- - --- - ---..
Page 6, Item IÞ
Meeting Date 07/09/96
· Receive information on City events such as Music in the Park, Harbor
Days etc.
· Receive public hearing notices via a-mail.
· Learn about city future planning and infrastructure.
· Report potholes via e-mail.
· Communicate with City Council members.
· Get election results, municipal code, charter and other information.
· Obtain neighborhood watch information.
· Report outages of street lights, traffic signals etc.
Overall, the results of the application survey show a positive attitude on the
part of both the citizens and the staff of Chula Vista toward on-line services
in particular and the SmartCommunity project as a whole.
Benefits of SmartCommunitv
The SmartCommunity project will help streamline internal operations, improve
delivery of services to citizens and businesses, reduce traffic congestion and
air pollution and promoting economic development by helping local businesses
prosper in a global marketplace.
Economic Developnent: This project will help to promote the City via the Internet
as a tourist spot, a great place to live, work and do business. It will allow
local businesses the opportunity to reach local and global markets at a very low
cost thus enhancing economic development.
Internal efficiency and productivity will be gained by presenting information on
the word wide web. Using electronic mail will increase the staff efficiency by
lowering phone calls that need to be answered and answering e-mail all at once
instead of being constantly interrupted by the telephone. E-mail will also
enhance the communication between the City of Chula Vista and other governmental
agencies, the public and local businesses.
Residents will see improved services through the use of self-service functions,
24 hours a day, 7 days a week, which can be done from their own home or business
instead of requiring a trip to City Hall. For instance, developers could check
on the status of their project online, potential employees could apply for a job
online, businesses could pay their business license fees online, etc. Allowing
these types of transaction to be done online could result in reduced phone calls
to City departments and reduced trips to City Hall by the public.
15"~ <'}
----"-----
Page 7, Item If
Heeting Date 07/09/96
In addition, electronic democracy could increase participation in the government
process. Constituents cold have better communication with City council members
without having to attend council meetings.
Potential income could be generated from renting space on the City's server to
other cities and local businesses, selling GIS maps online etc.
Fundina Alternatives
City staff has been exploring the feasibility of various funding sources
including continued funding from CalTrans, funding from the State of California
and from private partnerships. CalTrans has expressed interest in continuing the
SmartCommunity project by providing funds to various cities around the state to
implement a SmartCommunity. Staff will attend a meet ing via teleconference
concerning this possibility in the near future.
Staff is also working with elected officials at the State level as well as with
the chief information officer for the State of California to try to obtain
funding for phase II. To date, however, no firm funding sources have been
identified for the continuation of the SmartCommunity project.
Suaaestions for Implementation
Implementation of a Smartcommunity is a very complex issue with varying
alternatives, levels of sophistication, costs and benefits. The following
alternatives are based upon the outreach information gathered, both internal and
external, technology available at the present time as well as costs associated
with those alternatives. Currently, the City's home page is located on a server
from a company called Connectnet. This costs the City about $900 per year and
is budgeted in the MIS department. In addition, Council approved $819 for e-mail
for the Mayor and City Council members which is budgeted in the Mayor and Council
budget. Each alternative listed below assumes that the funding level from City
operations will continue at about $1,719 for FY 1996-97 and that any additional
funds would be from sources such as the State of California, CalTrans or other
such grants.
The concept of a SmartCommunity includes not only City services, but the services
of schools, hospitals, business etc. Staff envisions keeping in contact with
each of these areas of the community and to work in partnership with them to move
toward the building of a SmartCommunity. In all of these areas, as well as City
government, resources are scarce. While SmartCommunity cannot be completed
overnight, it can be accomplished if we all work together.
Another way to help make SmartCommunity a reality is to involve the citizens of
Chula Vista in the effort. Staff will be asking the citizens for their help and
input in the coming year on ways to make Chula Vista a SmartCommunity. This
citizen team can be of assistance in generating additional interest in the
community and possibly assist the City with ways to fund the project.
/ý?
"
,
._._----------~-~----- -.. -------- - -- - -----------
Page 8, Item If
Meeti.ng Date 07/09/96
Level 1 - No additional funding
Phase II of the SmartCommunity project can continue without additi.onal funding
and still provide benefits to the City of Chula Vista and its residents by
continuing the following activities:
· Continue to maintain the City's home page and web site providing up
to date Council agenda's and minutes as well as enhanced
departmental information. Currently, the city receives over 600
"hits" per month on our web site. Several of the top-ranked items
included providing additional information via the internet. Staff
from various departments will need to be involved in the creation of
the information to be included on the internet. They will then
forward the appropriate information to the Management & Information
Services Department for inclusion on the web. Staff is also working
toward translating the information currently on the web into Spanish
for our Spanish speaking residents.
· Establish Internet e-mail accounts for the Mayor and City Council
members.
· Actively explore merging the library and telecenters to enhance
technology resource availability.
Citizen surveys and discussion groups identified a need for improved
access to technology resources. A top priority identified in this
process is the need for improved public access to computers and the
internet. As a result, the library and telecenters are exploring a
merger in order to provide direct access, conveniently located
throughout Chula Vista. This concept also meets the City Council's
desire for the two departments to collaborate on enhanced service
provisions.
Because the public library's traditional role is to provide free
access to information, and the telecenter's role is to provide
access for state-of-the-art technology and a convenient workplace,
there is a natural synergy between the two entities. Under this
concept, the telecenters might become virtual libraries, providing
a world of information without the traditional book collections,
while continuing to offer telecommuting, reducing traffic and
pollution by bringing the libraries closer to home.
As information delivery becomes increasingly reliant upon computer-
based technology, this collaboration becomes more logical. As part
of Smart Community implementation, staff recommends:
a. The library and the telecenter actively explore merging to
enhance technology resource availability for the community.
b. during fiscal year 1996-97, the library and telecenters will
establish an internal staff committee to coordinate
15"'Y
,
/}
---- - -- -_._.,....._..._--~-----_. --~---
Page 9, Item /5
Meeting Date 07/09/96
activities, identify funding, cost savings, and enhance
services that can be provided through the telecenter.
c. Staff will review this potential merger and present
recommendations to Council during the FY 1997-98 budget
process.
· Staff will continue to research and possibly implement some of the
requests related to the library. Staff will explore the possibility
of making the on-line catalog available through the internet as well
as providing additional services as well. It is likely, however,
that implementation of this item could only be accomplished at a
funding of level 2 or above.
Level 2 - Medium funding
If medium funding were available, staff would recommend obtaining an internet
file server and software. This would allow staff to bring the home page and web
site onto a City-owned server (it currently resides on a server from Connectnet,
an internet provider based in San Diego) as well as offer internet access and e-
mail accounts to several employees in each department. As part of our internal
outreach it was brought out that world wide web access and a-mail access could
be very beneficial to departments in allowing staff to perform research and have
better communications with staff from other agencies as well as the citizens and
businesses of Chula Vista. This level of funding would require departments to
use existing equipment to access the internet. In some departments the level of
automation is sufficient to handle this type of application. In others, the
existing level of automation will not function very well and may need to be
upgraded. In addition, funding at this level assumes that universal access to
this technology will be provided by the library and telecenters at the level
currently provided. The cost associated with this portion of the project would
be as follows:
· Unix Hardware for Internet file server $ 20,000
· internet software for web hosting, e-mail etc. $ 10,000
· Tl telephone lines
(installation, monthly fees for 1 year) $ 20,000
· Additional staff person to design, install and
maintain the internet network for one year. $ 60,000
· Upgrades to the Library system to allow access to
the online catalog, data bases etc. S185.000
$295,000
Ongoing costs for this option would be about $70,000 for the staff person and the
yearly costs for the telephone lines.
Level 3 - Significant Funding
Should more than $295,000 be available for the continuation for this project,
then the next level of priority would be to provide departments with additional
computing capabilities to handle the internet efficiently as well as to provide
outside training to City staff. In addition, this next level of funding would
/5'~f
- - ----------. -"-.._----,._----~------_._-------_....- .~
Page 10, Item If
Meeting Date 07/09/96
allow staff to research the process to accomplish on-line monetary transactions,
such as paying for business licenses or paying parking tickets through the
internet. Funding at this level assumes adding three additional sites for
universal access to the internet as well as a limited outreach/public awareness
campaign. The costs associated with this next level are as follows:
· Funding required from level 2 $295,000
· Additional hardware and software for departments
to efficiently access the internet. This amount
covers the cost of 2 additional computer and
software for each of the 15 departments. $130,000
· Training for up to 300 employees on the use
of the world wide web, internet a-mail etc. $ 22,500
· Additional staff to research and possibly
implement monetary transaction processing. $ 60,000
· client hardware and software for three
sites to be used for universal access $ 12,750
· One new staff person to staff the
universal access site $ 45,000
· Training for the public $ 45,000
· limited outreach/public awareness campaign S 48.000
$658,250
Ongoing costs associated with this option are $115,000. This incudes the $70,000
mentioned in level 2 (above) plus $45,000 for staff to supervise the universal
access locations.
Level 4 - Full Funding
If additional funding beyond $658,000 can be found, staff would recommend adding
two additional sites for universal access and to increase the public awareness
campaign. The costs associated with this option are as follows:
· Costs associated with Level 2 & 3 funding $658,250
· two additional universal access sites $ 53,500
· costs to increase public awareness campaign. S 36.000
$747,750
Ongoing costs associated with this option are $160,000. This incudes the
$115,000 mentioned in level 3 (above) plus $45,000 for staff to supervise the
additional universal access locations.
Piscal Impact
As recommended, this item has no fiscal impact for FY 1996-97 beyond what is
already included in the budget. This amount includes $900 in the MIS budget for
support of the city's home page and web site and $819 in the city Council budget
for Internet e-mail for the Mayor and Council.
Should additional funding become available from the State of California,
CalTrans, or other sources, staff will return with additional information as well
as a formal request to accept any grants.
;5" /tl
,..~._-. -.., -..--"....- ._------~--------..._...,--~--_._---._----
Page 11, Item ).5'
Meeting Date 07/09/96
Attachments:
la. Original SmartCommunity survey distributed at all outreach meetings and
made available through the Internet.
lb. Results of SmartCommunity survey.
2a. Application survey distributed to individuals who expressed interest in
assisting with the SmartCommunity project. This list is a compilation of
all that was learned through the online surveys as well as the outreach
meetings.
2b. Results of the application survey as compiled by San Diego State
University.
3. SmartCommunity implementation ideas from City Departments.
c:\louie\smfinrpt.a13
1.5'//
.--.---" --- --.._.._-~~--~--_..__._---
3
City ofChula Vista
Some Smart Community implementation considerations
City server Consider setting up the City's own public access and/or web server...it will be
easier to connect City databases to the Web...and it could be a source of
income by storing web sites for Chula Vista businesses...would also allow for
setting up listservs, newsgroups, chat rooms, etc.
Web site design Consider redesigning the City's website for user-fìiendly, easy access (e.g.
information architecture methods, search engine (a la
www.ca.gov/govlhello.html, etc.», it's easy to put all sorts of City
INFORMATION on current website so the web site will grow tremendously
Consider hiring an information architect to design the websites...content, way
finding, goal attainment, creativity, ease of use, marketing the City
interactive Consider making Chula Vista's website very interactive, not just information
links Consider linking the City's website to nwlink.comlepicenter for emergency
preparedness information
Consider linking the City's website to www.oes.ca.gov:8001/htmJIcvicc.html
and www. fema.gov
City forms Consider putting all city forms on-line, with instructions for use
City F AQs Consider writing an F AQ page for each department
no redundancy Consider linking with existing resources, take advantage of existing sites, don't
reinvent the wheel
maintenance Consider setting up procedures so that each department can maintain their
own web pages
electronic Consider accepting on-line electronic payments...perhaps simply offer banking
payments customers the ability to pay their fees via their Bank's bank by phone service
(e.g. Bank of America)
Consider working with bank A TM systems to accept City payments, like banks
in supermarkets or kiosks
promotion Consider promoting the City ofChula Vista website to the Internet community
(search engine keywords, newsgroups, listservs, etc.), use it like you would a
flyer, brochure, or video....developing public awareness of City site
global. doc 1 14 - 12. 06/ W96
.
~..-...__.~--.--- ,.__...______ m____.
Telephone Consider more informational phone lines for those residents and businesses
information who just want info and don't need to speak with a person, especially those
without computer access, duplicating the information on the website
Fax on demand Consider fax on demand for information for those without computer access
Teaming Consider tying in with San Diego telecommunications projects
Consider being integrated and transformational by joining with local banks re:
payment processing, other government networks, CVESD and universities to
share ideas, resources, work load (lots of duplicate efforts going on, let's work
together)
Consider having parks and recreation class registration at the schools, via
Internet
Dispersed Consider geographic dispersion of services, e.g. application forms of all sorts
servIces at outlying locations, with submittal there or by mail.
Consider kiosks at Home Depot, hardware stores, etc. for information and
transactions for the Fire department and Building and Housing
Access Consider distributing communications software and browser software on disk
to all Chula Vista residents who want it (paid for by the software and ISP
companies), with CV community homepage pre-loaded
Consider doing a FreeRide-like coupon system for free Internet access for
residents
globaLdoc 2 06/14/96
IS - ('3 I
-_...^~_. - --_._-,~ ..-.,...._~-'- ... - _.~-_..
Internal efficiency
Self-serv Consider reduce counter staff time, printing costs by providing self-service
kiosks
Internal Consider provide City network access to every employee, encourage email
network use, providing better time management and increased productivity
(communicating via email creates fewer interruptions from phones and in-
person interruptions)
employee email Consider email access for all City employees (or by department or by
process/function) who could benefit: increased productivity, better customer
service, etc.
public email Consider start asking for email addresses on all city fonns that ask for
addresses phone/addresses (change databases to store this new data).
training Consider providing City employees with training on Internet use, search
engine use, email use, etc. (could be classroom, tutorials, handbooks, etc.)
messagmg Consider holding conference calls or email or newsgroup or listserv
conferences instead of meetings that employees must drive their cars to
intranet Consider setting up an intranet for interdepartmental infonnation exchange,
project collaboration, and posting of internal documentation.
Consider using open-system Internet technology in all applications
Internet Consider having City employees use the Net for infonnation, research,
research discussion.. .internal and external
live council Consider televising the Council and other meetings LIVE and allow folks to
meetings call in to speak.
global doc 3 }'5 -ILf 06/ W96
"..~_..--._._......_..- -- - ~ - - - ... .-.-.-...--^ --~---"-^"-"..... "..-..---..---
City ofChula Vista
Some Smart Community implementation considerations
for: Building and Housing
Distributed Consider putting kiosk systems at Home Depot, Home Base, etc. for
services processing of building pennits for water heaters, patio covers, etc.
Website Consider adding more information to the Building and Housing department's
web pages on the City site, to make it more complete, including regulations
and codes, sample plans for minor projects, energy conservation techniques,
home improvement projects, and earthquake-resistive construction methods,
special announcements, etc.
Consider providing the ability to apply and pay for a building pennit via the
World Wide Web, at least placing the forms on-line for printing, saving a trip
to the building and housing department
Consider providing the ability to track the status of a building pennit
application, via the World Wide Web
Dialog Consider providing a forum for residents and businesses to communicate to
the department. Could be via email, listserv, newsgroup, or chat.
bldgnhsgdoc 1 June 28, 1996
¡5-·t-~
_.~..- ~_.._.._.__..--.--..- - ---_._----~-~. ,-- .-.-.._.,-~.._----_.--
City ofChula Vista
Some Smart Community implementation considerations
for: City Clerk
Website Consider adding more infonnation to the web pages on the City site, including
the Municipal Code, City Charter, Council Agenda Statements with
attachments, Board/Commission meeting schedules, locations of meetings and
vacancies. Also, all election infonnation to include filing dates, requirements
for running and candidates manual.
For internal use on an Intranet, provide Council Policies, Municipal Code,
Board/Commission agenda and draft Council Agenda Statements.
Telephone Consider providing a telephone-based infonnation line with answers to
rrequently asked questions, relieving staff to do their work.
cityclk.doc 1 June 28, 1996
J 5 -, I~
City of Chula Vista
Some Smart Community implementation considerations
for: Economic Development
City promotion Consider more fully promoting the City (a Smart Community!) to the Internet
community via a website (with a promotional/marketing purpose), listservs,
newsgroups, search engines, directories, contests, and Web site awards, to
bring businesses, tourists, and residents to the City (answer the question: why
should I move to Chula Vista?), thus, generating leads for the Economic
Development department to follow up. (Current Economic Development
web site pages are informational only)
Consider creating a Smart Community brochure for Community Development
to distribute to developers and businesses, educating them on Smart
Community technology
Consider using public relations to get more exposure for the City's website
Consider promoting educational opportunities available in Chula Vista
Consider using the website as a demo at Trade Shows
Consider including City URL on all documents, brochures, ads, trade show
materials
Consider adapting the City promotional video for the website
tax revenue Consider that the Smart Community implementation can stimulate economic
development and thus increase tax revenue
Consider researching ways to get sales tax £Tom web transactions by Chula
Vista residents
Chula Vista Consider facilitating commerce in Chula Vista with a community
marketplace website.. .including interactive City pages that sell products or solicit
donations, perhaps in cooperation with the Chamber of Commerce
Consider issuing an RFP to do a Chula Vista web site Marketplace (a la
Planetearth Chula Vista) for local businesses to get on the Web.
Consider helping local companies expand using the Internet for resesarch,
learning, marketing their business, selling their products or services
econdev.doc I June 28, 1996
1:S - 17 ---
r
Consider facilitating a Chula Vista "commercial real estate availability "site on
the Web
business Consider alerting Internet businesses that citizens want access, training,
opportunities information, and advertising on the Internet so that businesses can provide it
Consider distributing mass transit information with MCA theater tickets
access Consider facilitating physical telecommunications infj-astructure building and
development by technology partners
Consider facilitating fTee public access for those who need it (Freenet)
Consider linking to www.bbb.org/bbb/ for the Better Business Bureau
Consider creating community forums such as alt.chula-vista.cultura1.events or
alt.smartcommunity
miscellaneous Consider using the Internet to do research on industries, other government
agencies, etc.
Consider checking to see if there is a current business in Chula Vista that could
add computers to their location to become a Cyber Cafe. (This was a
suggestion fTom Economic Development which has already happened. "Just
Java" on Third Avenue has added Internet access to their cafe.)
Consider develop a mailing list for announcements to local businesses (e.g.:
Fair Housing workshop)
Consider offering Internet training to local businesses to help them use it to
expand their business.
econdev.doc June 28, 1996
)5 - t~
"-,
'-¿
--_._-~--_.._-----
City ofChula Vista
Some Smart Community implementation considerations
for: Finance
Website Consider providing the ability to apply and pay for business licenses, vending
machine licenses, yard sale permits, animal licenses, etc. on-line
Consider posting and receiving responses to RFP, RFQ, and bid requests on-
line
Consider adding infonnation to the existing infonnational web pages, including
how-to do business with the City, New/existing business infonnation and
services, costs, fonns, etc.
Consider partnering with San Diego County's on-line projects
Consider maintaining a bidder list on the website
Consider posting surplus property for sale, on the Web
Consider self-service payments at the counter
Use the Consider researching electronic data interchange (ED!) via the Internet (versus
Internet expensive private networks)
Consider continuing to use the Internet to do research to find unlicensed
businesses
Electronic Consider arranging with banks who do bank-by-phone processing, to accept
payments payments for City pennits, licences, parking tickets, sewer bills, etc.
Consider accepting other fonns of on-line payments currently available (First
Virtual, Discover Card, Ecash, Cybercash, etc)
finance. doc l5 - 19 06/14/96
. __ _··~_"W_.___~.__ _ _ _
City of Chula Vista
Some Smart Community implementation considerations
for: Fire
Web site Consider providing access to Fire and other safety related links to agencies
such as FEMA, etc..
Consider providing safety and EMS related infonnation directly on the home
page.
Consider providing infonnation concerning the Fire Explorers (boy scouts),
infonnation on how to join, meetings etc.
Consider providing infonnation such as brush management, weed abatement,
protected land statutes etc.
flfe.doc June 28, 1996
, 15" .. :Ie)
é, ì
City of Chula Vista
Some Smart Community implementation considerations
for: Library
Website Consider providing the public with access to the Library's card catalog and
other data bases..
Consider providing Internet access to the public at the libraries. (This is in
progress and should be implemented soon.)
Consider a connection from the Library to schools and day care facilities.
Consider conducting Internet training for the public at the libraries.
Consider establishing a listserv and chat group within the Library to facilitate
communication among the 130 staff members of the library.
Consider allowing library staff to use e-mail to communicate with other
libraries and agencies in order to improve communication.
library. doc July I, 1996
JS-.RI
,---.-.-"' . ..._._--~..._~.-.- - - - ,-.---..-.-.-
City of Chula Vista
Some Smart Community implementation considerations
for: Nature Center
Website Consider putting some of the Center's electronic exhibit information on-line so
visitors can review it before or after they visit
Consider selling gift shop items via the Web
Consider providing classroom rental via World Wide Web
Use the Consider researclúng electronic data interchange (EDI) via the Internet (versus
Internet expensive private networks)
naturctr.doc June 28, 1996
I~ -;J,.
- --- -----....-.........."..-----.....-....-...--.--.-.--
City ofChula Vista
Some Smart Community implementation considerations
for: Parks and Recreation
Website Consider providing the ability to register and pay for Parks and Recreation
activities on-line, at school locations or ITom home/office computers (at a
minimum, put registration fonns on-line for printing and mailing in with
payment)
Consider park rules online
Consider providing class/activity infonnation on-line, such as sports rules,
where to get equipment and supplies, class educational content, etc.
Consider asking sporting goods suppliers to help sponsor the web-site in
return for a small advertisement on the web pages.
Consider providing to reserve parks, facilities, and picnic shelters, via
World Wide Web
Consider adding classes about the Internet, perhaps taught by the computer
club at the Nonnan Park Center
Communication Consider using email to communicate to other City departments such as the
Police department to report park problems or needs for polic service at
events, etc.
Consider using email to receive reports ITom residents and businesses about
week abatement problems, broken sprinklers, etc.
parknrec.doc June 28, 1996
J 5 - 2.3
"-'i\
City ofChula Vista
Some Smart Community implementation considerations
for: Personnel
Website Consider automating the Interest List process via the World Wide Web
Consider providing the ability to learn about and apply for job openings via the
World Wide Web, at least placing the fonns on-line for printing, saving a trip
to City Hall
Consider listing Chula Vista job openings on other websites that list career
opportunities. Link to these sites fÌ"om Chula Vista's site.
Consider listing Chula Vista educational opportunities on the website, where
to get typing and other certifications, etc.
Consider adding job search infonnation to the Personnel pages, e.g., job tip
sheet
Dialog Consider providing text ofMOU's, employee benefit infonnation and
processes on-line via an Intranet..
Consider using email to communicate with interviewers that come fÌ"om other
government agencies to assist in the recruitment process...e.g., notification of
interview times, discussion of applicants, etc.
Use the Consider using the Internet to find applicants, to research laws, to find training
Internet infonnation and products, etc.
personnl.doc , July 1, 1996
)~-:ì.lf
,
'J'
^"~_~m...,__,,_ "._.._____
City ofChula Vista
Some Smart Community implementation considerations
for: Planning
Website Consider providing the public with access to city data bases such as land use
and GIS .
Consider allowing citizens to file applications for sign permits, conditional use
permits, zoning variances and others electronically through the Internet.
e-mail Consider allowing staff to use e-mail to communicate with developers and
other agencies in order to improve communication.
planning.doc June 28, 1996
15 -~
. j
^......--,. ."--.-
City ofChula Vista
Some Smart Community implementation considerations
for: Police
Website Consider adding more information to the Police Department's web pages on
the City site, to make it more complete, including information about
lost/found/unclaimed property, career oportunities, Neighborhood Watch,
volunteer opportunities, spay/neuter informaiton, other information about the
Animal Center, non-profit businesses, special events on streets, crime
prevention, crime statistics, etc.
Consider providing the ability to apply and pay for an alarm permit via the
World Wide Web, at least placing the forms on-line for printing, saving a trip
to the Police Department
Consider providing the ability to apply and pay for a pet licenses via the World
Wide Web, at least placing the forms on-line for printing
Consider providing information on pets at the Animal Shelter that are
lost/found/available for adoption
Consider providing the ability to buy Neighborhood Watch signs, via the
World Wide Web
Consider providing the ability to fundraise for South Bay Community Services
and other special Police Department programs, via the World Wide Web
Dialog Consider providing a forum for residents and businesses to communicate to
the department. Could be via email, listserv, newsgroup, or chat.
Consider using email to communicate with County and other agencies via
email, including electronic document sharing
Telephone Consider providing a voice mail information line for the Animal Shelter with
answers to frequently asked questions, relieving staff to do computer work.
police. doc June 28, 1996
ItS -,:;(.
..
City of Chula Vista
Some Smart Community implementation considerations
for: Public Information
Website Consider adding more infonnation to the web pages on the City site,
including public interest surveys.
Telephone Consider providing a telephone-based infonnation line with answers to
iTequently asked questions, relieving staff to do their work.
Press Releases Communicate with the press via e-mail.
Use Internet or a fax modem to send press releases. (Will be implemented in
early July)
Newsletter Disseminate Quarterly newsletter via e-mail or the web.
telectrs.doc June 28, J 996
)'5-:2.7
'-----------------~-----_._--_.._.-
City of Chula Vista
Some Smart Community implementation considerations
for: Public Works
Website Consider providing information concerning traffic patterns, accident analysis,
street lights etc..
Consider providing citizens the ability to report burned out traffic or street
lights, graffiti, sewer problems, street tree problems etc. via the forms
capability of the Internet.
Consider providing citizens the ability to apply for permits via the Internet.
Consider allowing staff to use e-mail to contact developers and other agencies
to improve communication.
pubwork.doc June 28, 1996
) S -:l'?
d_'... --..-......_---_._-.-"._....,--~_.._--
City of Chula Vista
Some Smart Community implementation considerations
for: Telecenters
Consider creating a website especially for the telecenters and market/promote
it to the Internet community
Consider marketing the video teleconferencing service to the City's
departments to reduce car trips (e.g.: Community Development, Planning,
Engineering)
Consider researching/considering local Internet access providers or the CCY
Library for Internet access at the telecenters
telectrs.doc June 28, 1996
)"-27
---~--.-+~--~~,- ....--...-..
let y----
://
City of Chula Vista
SMAR TCommunity Survey
How important would it be for you to be able to do each of the following activities, using low cost,
easily accessible on-line services, ITom the comfort of your own home, office, or local community
facility? (circle the number, I to 5, with 5 being Very Important)
Very Imponant < > Not Imponant
Education and learning
I. communicate with your child's school? ............................. 5 4 3 2 ]
2. get your clùld's homework assignments? .......................... 5 4 3 2 1
3. . Iù d? 5 4 3 2 ]
access City story recor s. .............................................
4. k . . I ? 5 4 3 L I
ta e a tratmng course on sport ru es. ...............................
Business/work
5. apply for and pay for a business license? ......................... 5 4 3 2 I
6. apply for and pay for building pennits? ........................... 5 4 3 2 1
Health Care Services
7. communicate with your health care provider? ................. 5 4 3 2 I
8. obtain health infonnation?.............................................. 5 4 3 2 I
Governmental issues and sef\ices
9. k' . k ? 5 4 3 2 I
pay a par mg tIC et. .....................................................
10. . . . I I . ? 5 4 3 2 I
partIcipate In oca Issues. ..............................................
]1. obtain voting infonnation? ............................................. 5 4 3 2 I
12. communicate with elected officials? ............................... 5 4 3 2 I
13. d 'nfì . b .. ? 5 4 3 2 I
rea I onnatlOn a out cnme In your area. ....................
14. read emergency preparedness infonnation? ................... 5 4 3 2 I
Community acti\ities and events
15. . fì . I ? 5 4 3 2 1
sIgn up or recreatIon c asses, teams, events. .................
16. obtain infonnation about community organizations? ...... 5 4 3 2 1
17. learn about community affairs? ...................................... 5 4 3 2 I
Social relations
18. meet new people?..... .... ... ... ..... ....... .... ...... ................ .... 5 4 3 2 I
19. communicate with friends and family? ............................ 5 4 3 2 I
20. send the same message to many people? ....................... 5 4 3 2 I
Entertainment and Leisure
21. buy movie, theater, sports tickets? ................................ 5 4 3 2 I
22. find move, theater, sports time schedules? ..................... 5 4 3 2 I
23. . ? 5 4 3 2 I
reVIew restaurant menus. ...............................................
24. ask for infonnation on skiing, carpentry, or other hobby? 5 4 3 2 1
--
25. learn about sporting events?........................................... 5 4 3 2 I
Other
26. other, please specify 5 4 3 2 I
27. other, please specify 5 4 3 2 1
28. other, please specify 5 4 3 2 I
;!\~~ 29. other, please specify 5 4 3 2 I
"':'
Please note that the services above are for use as examples only. The Cit)' 01 Lhula Vista does not in any way
guarantee that they will be implemented at any time in the future.
pagel~ /~~/3
)b
Sheet1 Chart 2
Questions 1-26
Activity Importance.
12-comm w/elected
10-part in local issues
11-voting info
B·hlth info
7..comm wI health care
17-comunity affairs
13-crime info
22-schedules
14-emergency prep info
1S-comunity org info
19-comm w/fmds & tam
>- 23-review menus
:::
.:: 21·buy tkts
-
u
ca 15-s19n up for ree classes
9-pay prkng tkt
'-Communicate w/school
24-hobby info
2-get childs h·wk assign
20-mass mailing
3-sceess city his recrds
a-apply for bldg permit
5-apply for busns lie
25-sporting events
18-meet people
4-sport rule Img course
0 0.5 , 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
1= not Important, 5=very Importa"r
Page 1 .jJ:Yr /Þ~D
___h_ _ _ _ _ _ __.~.._....__._"". ,._..".. _ __.____,___
20...-
City of Chula Vista
SmartCommunity Applications Survey
What is a SmartCommunity?
A SmartCommunity is a community that employs on-line services (for example, the Internet,
World Wide Web, America On-Line, Compuserve, Electronic Bulletin Board systems) to promote
local participation and cooperation among residents, government, business, education, health care
and others. A SmartCommunity provides information and a way for residents and businesses to
communicate electronically with people in local government, schools, businesses, industry, non-
profits and other community organizations.
What is Chula Vista's role in SmartCommunity?
The City of Chula Vista has joined forces with San Diego State University, CalTrans, the Center
for the New West and University of California at Davis on a project called SmartCommunity.
This project will use the City ofChula Vista as a model community for Smart Communities that, if
successful, may bring to its citizens on-line services throughout the City for city and community
services. A SmartCommunity gives people control over their lives, more convenience, and it can
save them time.
-
How can you help?
The City of Chula Vista is asking its residents, businesses and community groups to participate in
tills project through a series of publjc workshops and through the following survey. The answers
to tills survey, in conjunction with information gathered at the workshops, will refine the vision,
needs and demands for on-line services for residents and businesses. Please take a moment to
complete tills survey. Your input is very valuable and greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Louis Vignapiano
Director of Management and Information Services
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 476-5319
Fax: (619) 585-5612
Email: Ivignapiano@ci.chuJa-vista.ca.us
World Wide Web: http://rohan.sdsu.eduldeptlintlcomm/smart.html
http://www.ci.chula-vista.ca.us
~ /-ç~) ?
Smart Community Applications Survey
How important would it be for you to be able to do each of lhe following activities, using low
cost, easily accessible on-line services, ITom the comfort of your own home, office, or local
community facility? (Circle the number, I to 5, with 5 being Very Important. If the activity is one
that you do not participate in, please circle 0 for Not Applicable.)
City Government
(Goals: better service, economic development, fewer c:lr trips)
Not
Building and Housing: Very Important< >Not Important Applicable
Access building pennit fOl111s, requirements,
fee schedules, instructions 5 4 3 2 I 0
Submit building pennit fOl111s 5 4 3 2 1 0
Pay building pennit fees 5 4 3 2 1 0
Access building codes 5 4 3 2 I 0
Monitor progress of building permit 5 4 3 2 I 0
Request building inspections 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access infol111ation about sign permits 5 4 3 2 I 0
Alal111 pennits 5 4 3 2 I 0
Report code violations 5 4 3 2 I 0
Inquire about/track City construction underway 5 4 3 2 I 0
City Attorney:
Get referrals to proper authorities 5 4 3 2 I 0
Report noise and animal complaints 5 4 , 2 I 0
J
Request public information 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read public information: Charter, municipal code, 5 4 3 2 I 0
election resolutions, campaign info, economic
disclosure statements
City Clerk:
Access Council Agendas 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access information about the Agenda process 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access full package{¡nformation council members 5 4 3 2 I 0
get, with all bad.-up information
Access Council núnutes 5 4 , 2 I 0
J
Access information about Boards and commissions 5 4 3 2 I 0
personnel, agendas/minutes
Access financial interests reports 5 4 , 2 I 0
J
Access City lústory records research 5 4 , 2 I 0
J
Community Development:
Promote Chula Vista business 5 4 3 2 I 0
Participate in public forums 5 4 , 2 I 0
-'
Access economic development information 5 4 3 2 I 0
~ /3-/5
··'__________r_· --~----_.-
Not
Very Important< >Not Important Applicablc
Access housing information and availability 5 4 3 2 1 0
Access Redevelopment information 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access City marketing information/brochure 5 4 3 2 I 0
Receive building notifications...building going on 5 4 J 2 I 0
near you
Buy event tickets 5 4 J 2 1 0
Read tenant guidelhandbook 5 4 J 2 1 0
Read demograplûc info 5 4 J 2 I 0
Read business resource guide 5 4 3 2 I 0
Receive public hearing notices 5 4 3 2 1 0
Read smaJl business info 5 4 J 2 I 0
Promote tourism 5 4 ~ 2 I 0
~
Council:
Communicate with city council members 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read Council member platforms 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read Council voting record for 3 -4 year period 5 4 3 2 I 0
(found in the minutes)
Read about Council term duration 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read on-line posting'ofletters to the Council 5 4 3 2 1 0
Participate in Council meetings live on TV or radio 5 4 3 2 I 0
or telephone
Environmental Information:
Read consumer recycling education 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read telec.o.mmuting information 5 4 J 2 I 0
Read Van pool information 5 4 J 2 I 0
Provide Community feedback on environmental 5 4 ~ 2 I 0
~
Issues
Read hazardous waste information 5 4 J 2 1 0
Read teleconferencing information 5 4 ~ 2 I 0
~
Participate in interactive video 5 4 3 2 I 0
Finance:
Pay for your business license 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read business license information and fees 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read about sign permit information and fees 5 4 ~ 2 I 0
~
Pay for your sign permit 5 4· 3 2 I 0
Read about vending maclûne licenses and fees 5 4 3 2 I 0
Pay for your vending maclûne permit 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read about City aJann information and permit 5 4 3 2 I 0
Pay for your aJarm permit 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read about yard saJe permit information and fees 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read about animaJ license information and fees 5 4 3 2 I 0
Pay for your animal license 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read about parking citation information and fees 5 4 3 2 I 0
o.i~i96 '~ literc!..;b:
/~'i/
No!
Very lmpolUIll< >Nollmponanl Applicable
Pay for your parking citation 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access your accounts payable status 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access the City's annual auditing report 5 4 3 2 I 0
Pay sewer bills 5 4 3 2 I 0
Sell your product or service to the City 5 4 3 2 I 0
Respond to City bid requests, RFPs, RFQs 5 4 3 2 I 0
Pay hotel occupancy ta.x on-line 5 4 3 2 I 0
Fire:
Read about what the fire department does 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read fire safety inspection information 5 4 3 2 1 0
Read about fire codes 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read about fire prevention informalion 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read disaster preparedness info 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read about CPR information 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read about emergency preparedness 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read about hazardous materials 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read the events calendar 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read about safety tips 5 4 3 2 I 0
On-line tutorials on home escape plans 5 4 3 2 I 0
Schedule fire inspections 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read information to developers on landscaping 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read about fire-related business fees 5 4 , 2 1 0
~
Find out about a career in the fire service 5 4 , 2 I 0
~
Apply for career in the fire service 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read aboul. volunteer activities and opportunities 5 4 , 2 I 0
~
Find out about who to call in the fire department 5 4 , 2 1 0
~
Library:
Access to catalogues 5 4 3 2 I 0
Learn about availability of books, tapes, etc. 5 4 3 2 I 0
Reserve books via inter-library loan 5 4 3 2 I 0
Reserve books for future pickup 5 4 3 2 1 0
Access library event information, new books, 5 4 3 2 I 0
changes, etc.
Read information about available library services 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access library hours of operation, departmental 5 4 ~ 2 I 0
~
phone numbers
Pay library late fees, on-line 5 4 3 2 I 0
Learn about the Museum of Chula Vista 5 4 3 2 1 0
Access research services 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access to on-line databases for research 5 4 3 2 I 0
Participate in the Library as a community gathering 5 4 , 2 I 0
~
point via on-line forums
Participate in story time on-line 5 4 3 2 I 0
Contribute to the Friends of the Library 5 4 3 2 1 0
0410,,96 .~ l-?~O 1ù:at:!.ÕJI:
""U' _,__,_. ....,_~.___..~_.__ _____,___,.
.
Not
Very Imporwtt< >Not Important Applicable
Buy books, etc. ITom Friends of the Library 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access Friends of the Library information 5 4 3 2 I 0
Learn about events at the library 5 4 3 2 1 0
MIS:
Access the City employee phone directory 5 4 3 2 I 0
Market my business on the Internet, via the City's 5 4 3 2 1 0
Web Server
Nature Center:
Read about event information and registration 5 4 3 2 I 0
Make a contribution to a fundraising campaign 5 4 3 2 1 0
Learn about science 5 4 3 2 I 0
Sign up for classroom rental 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read membership info and payment 5 4 3 2 I 0
Become a Nature Center member 5 4 3 2 I 0
Buy a product ITom the bookstore giftshop 5 4 3 2 I 0
Parks and Recreatiqn:
Read about acti.ities, schedules, registration 5 4 3 2 I 0
Learn sports rules 5 4 3 2 I 0
Schedule picnic shelters, parks 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read about Project Care 5 4 · 2 I 0
.)
Respond to a survey on parks and recreation needs 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read volunteer and part-time employment info 5 4 3 2 I 0
Sign up fOLYolunteer and part-time employment 5 4 3 2 I 0
Make open space complaint reports 5 4 · 2 I 0
.)
Read about winter stonn and flood information 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read parks and recreation policies 5 4 3 2 I 0
Buy maps 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read about amenities at each facility 5 4 · 2 I 0
.)
Read Fee schedules 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access resource and referral brochures 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read league results 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read sporting events infonnation 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read about services available at senior centers 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read Senior center calendar of events and changes 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read a listing of clubs, their meeting times and brief 5 4 3 2 I 0
description of their purpose
Register for Parks and Rec activities, leagues, 5 4 3 2 I 0
teams
Personnel:
Read a list of job opportunities with the City 5 4 3 2 I 0
Apply for a job on-line 5 4 · 2 I 0
.)
Access employement application info and fonn 5 4 · 2 I 0
.)
04/0$196 , ~/-~~02/ blr::crt2.dœ
NOI
Very Importlnt< >Not [mpottanl Applic:lblc
Read about testing resources, schedules 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access City volunteer info and application 5 4 3 2 I 0
Track the recruiting process status 5 4 3 2 I 0
Resume and interviewing tips 5 4 3 2 I 0
Sign up on-line on a job interest list 5 4 3 2 I 0
Learn about educational opportunities/resources 5 4 3 2 I 0
Participate in computer based training 5 4 3 2 I 0
Report complaints about City employees 5 4 3 2 I 0
Planning:
Receive public hearing notices via email 5 4 3 2 I 0
Participate in tele-conferencing and video- 5 4 3 2 I 0
conferencing between City and developers
Access business license info and application 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access home occupation pennits information and 5 4 3 2 I 0
applications
Access zone change application and info 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access zone variance info and application 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access tentative subdivision map application form 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read about environmental review procedures 5 4 3 :2 I 0
Access home day care pennit application 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access ITont yard parking pennit application 5 4 , 2 I 0
~
Access general development plan application 5 4 3 2 1 0
Access sign pennit application 5 4 3 2 I 0
Receive public hearing notices via email 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access desjgn review procedure info and 5 4 3 2 1 0
application
Access conditional use pennit info and application 5 4 3 2 I 0
Learn about planning procedures 5 4 3 2 I 0
Participate in public hearings/forums 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access and buy city maps of all sorts 5 4 , 2 I 0
~
Read environmental review reports 5 4 3 2 1 0
Review General Plan future development plans 5 4 , 2 I 0
~
Research Historical Records, i.e. minutes of 5 4 3 2 I 0
planning meetings -Otay Ranch.
Learn about rustory. progress, plans for Otay Ranch 5 4 3 2 I 0
Receive planning department notices 5 4 , 2 I 0
~
Read development plans, e.g. sensitive habitat 5 4 , 2 1 0
~
impacts.
Learn about City future planning and infrastructure 5 4 , 2 I 0
~
Monitor status of building pennit process 5 4 , 2 1 0
~
Read zoning information 5 4 , 2 I 0
~
Report code violations 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read City demograpruc and economic information 5 4 , 2 I 0
.)
Police;
O4JCt'li96 , ~Ç~~;L lit~.,j,...-:
----.-.- ------.----,.
Not
Very Imponanl< >Nol Imponant Applicable
Access crime reports and statistics 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access Police records 5 4 3 2 I 0
Report community disruptions, graffiti, non- 5 4 3 2 I 0
emergency problems
Pay for pet license, parking/traffic tickets, event 5 4 3 2 I 0
licenses, garage sale pennits, etc.
Learn about Police recruitment 5 4 3 2 I 0
Apply for a job with the Police department 5 4 3 2 I 0
Obtain bike licenses 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read about controlled business licenses 5 4 3 2 I 0
Locate lost property 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read crime prevention info 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read about new laws 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read neighborhood watch info 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read bicycle laws 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access public safety info (e.g. crime alerts, wanted 5 4 3 2 I 0
posters)
Public Information:
Receive public service announcements 5 4 · 2 I 0
-'
Participate with your business in public service 5 4 3 2 1 0
announcements, public relations, press releases,
interactive communication with other local
businesses
, Receive e-mail on what's going on in City (interest, 5 4 · 2 I 0
-'
planrung, special events)
Use links to other government and public agencies 5 4 · 2 I 0
-'
Use a Spanish version of City website 5 4 3 2 I 0
Participate in on-line surveys and results 5 4 · 2 I 0
-'
Communicate witht a complaintlliaison officer 5 4 · 2 I 0
-'
Receive City's Quarterly newsletter via e-mail 5 4 · 2 I 0
-'
Receive City notices, issues, happenings via email 5 4 · 2 I 0
-'
Read about City events: Harbor Days, Concerts in 5 4 · 2 I 0
-'
the Park, parades, etc.
Read a general description of city: population, 5 4 3 2 I 0
location, Chamber of Commerce info, etc.
Access contact infonnation for key city officials 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read about City services and hours of operation 5 4 3 2 I 0
View a City organizational chart diagram including 5 4 3 2 I 0
responsibilities for each area
Read results of public opinion and surveys 5 4 · 2 I 0
-'
Read about local events 5 4 · 2 1 0
-'
Obtain filming permits info and application 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access links to other government agencies 5 4 · 2 1 0
-'
Review infonnation on City's budget and revenues 5 4 · 2 I 0
-'
C)410,t9o) 7 1ikcrc2.dcc
~/~-;23
Not
Very Importanl< >Not (mponan! Applicable
Public Works:
Pay your sewer bill 5 4 3 2 I 0
Report of outages(street lights, traffic signals, etc.) 5 4 3 2 I 0
Report potholes via email 5 4 3 2 I 0
Report traffic light outages 5 4 3 2 I 0
Report sewer problems 5 4 3 2 I 0
Obtain information on public works projects 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read bus schedules, maps, phone numbers 5 4 3 2 I 0
Receive prior information on public works activity, 5 4 3 2 I 0
road interruptions
Buy bus passes 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read traffic reports: Closures, Speeds, traffic on 5 4 3 2 I 0
local streets and other areas linking in San Diego
View and buy city maps 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access engineering status reports 5 4 3 2 1 0
Access applications for pennits 5 4 3 2 I 0
Check sewer billing status 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access local census information 5 4 3 2 I 0
View City project status board 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read a garbage guide 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read compo sting info 5 4 ~ 2 I 0
~
View bicycle path/lane map 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access links to Laidlaw, Otay and Sweetwater 5 4 ~ 2 I 0
~
water districts (or, charge them to have their info
on city website)
-
Other Government
Vote 5 4 ~ 2 I 0
~
Access fTeeway traffic info 5 4 ~ 2 I 0
~
Send Email requests for ballots 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read voter information, education 5 4 3 2 I 0
Register to vote 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access CAL TRANS information (for home buying 5 4 ~ 2 I 0
~
and business decisions)
Read Otay Water District information 5 4 ~ 2 1 0
~
Read Sweetwater Water District information 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access unclaimed property listings 5 4 3 2 1 0
Learn about student loans 5 4 3 2 1 0
Access vehicle registration information 5 4 3 2 I 0
Learn about drivers licenses 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read realtime election results 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access emergency preparedness information 5 4 ~ 2 I 0
.J
Read demographic information 5 4 ~ 2 I 0
~
Read fire prevention information 5 4 ~ 2 1 0
.J
Education (pro2:rams and institutions):
Co&t1J'/96 I ~ /~-2f"HX
Not
Very Important< >Not Important Applicable
Learn about educational events, rugh school 5 4 3 2 I 0
reunions, PT A meetings, school policies
Access School Board agendas, etc. 5 4 3 2 I 0
Communicate with teachers 5 4 3 2 I 0
Receive lesson plans, homework assignments, 5 4 3 2 I 0
schooVdistrict policy, hand books.
Participate in on-line parent-teacher meetings 5 4 3 2 1 0
Connect to school system infonnation 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read about local school sporting events infonnation 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access university catalogs of classes 5 4 3 2 1 0
Register for classes 5 4 3 2 I 0
Participate in computer based training 5 4 3 2 I 0
Learn about Extension courses 5 4 3 2 I 0
Learn about Adult school 5 4 3 2 I 0
Business/commerce:
Submit Electronic bids 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access local job openings 5 4 3 2 1 0
Access Real Estate data, listings 5 4 3 2 1 0
Participate in "Ask ttie expert" help lines 5 4 3 2 I 0
Use computerized "my shopping list" that would 5 4 3 2 1 0
print out at the store.
Participate in business sponsorsrup of "What's 5 4 3 2 I 0
happening in the community"
Shop locally via Internet (increases sales ta.x) 5 4 " 2 I 0
J
Check stoek at local stores before going there 5 4 " 2 I 0
J
Read Better Business Bureau reports 5 4 3 2 1 0
Read Consumer Reports 5 4 3 2 I 0
Make hotel reservations 5 4 " 2 I 0
J
Learn about local restaurants 5 4 " 2 1 0
J
Read tourist attraction infonnation 5 4 " 2 1 0
J
Learn about events sponsored by others 5 4 " 2 I 0
J
Price comparison shop, e.g., telephone 10caIJ]ong 5 4 3 2 I 0
distance providers.
Participate in home shopping 5 4 3 2 I 0
Obtain product infonnation 5 4 " 2 I 0
J
Use local Amprutheater for multimedia studio, artist 5 4 3 2 I 0
chat, virtual concerts
Learn about local transportation (taxi, etc) 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read telecommuting info 5 4 " 2 1 0
J
Obtain cruld care services info 5 4 " 2 I 0
J
Access Bowling league info and sign up 5 4 " 2 I 0
J
Access movies on demand 5 4 " 2 I 0
J
Buy event tLX on-line 5 4 " 2 I 0
J
Read home repair/improvement infonnation 5 4 " 2 I 0
J
Read major household purchase info 5 4 " 2 I 0
J
0410"96 . . ~
~ /~~3
,...._._.._.._n.._ .
No!
Very lmportlllt< >Not Importlllt Applicable
Take computer based training 5 4 3 2 I 0
Learn about personal finances 5 4 3 2 I 0
Use home shopping catering to individual 5 4 3 2 I 0
interests/needs
Entertainment and leisure:
Learn about local restaurants 5 4 3 2 I 0
Order trom local restaurants 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access tourist attraction infonnation 5 4 3 2 I 0
Learn about events sponsored by others 5 4 3 2 I 0
Buy event tix on-line 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read about movie theaters: features, times, ratings 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read hobby info 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access event schedules 5 4 3 2 I 0
Do vacation and recreational activity planrung 5 4 3 2 I 0
Obtain pet infonnation 5 4 3 2 I 0
Health:
Read about disease prevention programs, 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access Health Cliruc Directories. 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access parenting infonnation and services 5 4 ~ 2 I 0
~
Locate immuruzation services 5 4 3 2 I 0
Learn about needs of the Hearing Impaired: 5 4 3 2 I 0
Find out if a meeting has disabled access 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access a wide range of health infonnation (agencies 5 4 ~ 2 I 0
~
to contact, -general infonnation on illnesses).
Access preventative health care infonnation, 5 4 3 2 I 0
Order prescription refills 5 4 ~ 2 I 0
~
Respond to surveys about access to health care 5 4 3 2 I 0
Use telemedicine (on-line infonnation) 5 4 3 2 I 0
Commurucate with your health care provider 5 4 3 2 I 0
M ed ia/news/info rmation
Access local newspapers, magazines, TV, radio 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access TV listings: local, cable, satellite 5 4 ~ 2 I 0
~
Read press releases 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read public service announcements 5 4 3 2 1 0
Commurucate business infonnation to the media 5 4 3 2 1 0
.
Cultural:
Draw attention to groups performing here 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access "Cultural Events" infonnation 5 4 3 2 I 0
Learn about cross-border perfoITIÚng arts 5 4 3 2 1 0
Access links with Tijuana 5 4 ~ 2 I 0
~
Read art gallery guide 5 4 , 2 1 0
J
04/0'M 1O~ ~0~? 1*~.dox
.. -'.--'~..~
Not
Vcry Important< >Not Important Applicable
Conduct neighborhood organizing--history, events, 5 4 3 2 1 0
economic development
Access homeowner's association information 5 4 3 2 I 0
Non-profits/Community services:
Communicate with non-profit organizations 5 4 3 2 I 0
Obtain information regarding social services 5 4 3 2 1 0
Access church information 5 4 3 2 1 0
Learn about volunteer opportunities 5 4 3 2 I 0
Use a directory of services available 5 4 3 2 I 0
Access a list of community organizations, 5 4 3 2 1 0
associations
L~al:
Access a list of attorneys in town and their 5 4 3 2 1 0
specialties
Access information on accidents, employment, 5 4 · 2 I 0
~
divorce, real estate, new business ventures
Access state and federal laws, court cases 5 4 · 2 I 0
~
Social:
Meet new people 5 4 3 2 I 0
Communicate with mends and family 5 4 3 2 1 0
Broadcast one message to many 5 4 · 2 I 0
~
Panicipate in support/special-interest groups 5 4 3 2 I 0
~
Internet Access:
Panicipate in local Electronic Town Square 5 4 · 2 I 0
~
Panicipate in local special interest e-mail lists 5 4 3 2 I 0
Join chat rooms, newsgroups (Usenet), emaillists 5 4 3 2 I 0
Read multi-lingual information 5 4 · 2 I 0
~
Access all local BBSs (bulletin board systems) 5 4 3 2 I 0
Other: 5 4 3 2 I 0
Other: 5 4 · 2 I 0
~
Other: 5 4 3 2 I 0
Other: 5 4 · 2 I 0
~
Other: 5 4 · 2 I 0
~
Other: 5 4 · 2 I 0
~
Other: 5 4 · 2 I 0
~
Other: 5 4 · 2 I 0
~
Other: 5 4 · 2 I 0
~ ~ _______. More ----->
o.:.'o,..9S " /~7 " co2 Ä""Ox
- - ,------ ----,_.._-'---- --"-~'--'-
Optionally, please enter your name and address below.
Name:
Street address:
City, State, Zip:
Phone Number:
Email address:
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey and being a part of the SmartCommunity
process.
--
~ /~/ c2 Y
.. __--+-u___._-..-__...,
JUN-e~-'6 02:~~ PM ~
Ice 61':S~44488 P.02
Jb
SmartCommunity Applications Survey
Analysis
International Canter fnr Communications
San Dlcgo Stal. UnlverMly
Tho applications ~urvey conducted by the City of Chula Vista as )4I'l of lhclr ouueach effort
for the SmartCommunitics projcct should be considered an WlSCienlilie approa,h lO find oul what
on-line sclVices and resources arc important to community members. This ÍlÚonnalÎon would be
valuable in the event the City crealed an on-line ulility for the ~urposcs of moving toward the .
USmllltCommunity" eoncepl These results, however, cannot considered to be an applicable
sampling of the Chula Vista community because the SUIVI,:)' docs not ca~ture anlcdemographiC
information from the respondents. For example, a data analyst ha!> no dea of age, sex, SES,
or IC(;hnol~ IQ of this pool Without this information. the sample cannot be genccally applied lO
the Chula isla comm unity prolile. U~uany. results from population samplcs can be corTCCted for
difi diITcronccs with the entire population. However without any infonnation to idenûfy these
. ferences, these results cannot be used as "proof. positive" of what on-line services the
community as a whole would prefer. With lhis caveal, the ~urvey results revealed the following:
O"e",,11, the sa"'f/' /ou'/l1 that having fU1J,. kind of in/ormation a"ailabl. to
be Important to Very "'porta nt, Oul of the 333 applicatio" choices, 87% WlT~
rønked as being Important ()r Very Important (ranked 3-5). Only 13'10 ~ th~
applications were considered to be Not Important (rflnked 2 or less). 'hil
indicates that overal" th~ sampk sees Ihe use/ulness of Chula Vilta hal'in, all on-
line umit)'.
W~h('st Ranked Applications
What are the appliealions the sample fuund LO be: the Most Importanl1 Ranked 4 or more
(the top 8%) were:
l. Access to library catalogs (library)
2. Access to on-line d~labases Cor rescarth (library)
3. Learn about the IIvllilllbility of books, tapes, etc. (library)
4. VOle (govcnunent)
5. Acccs.~ rcscarch services (libr.uy)
6. Access local newspapers, magwncs, TV, radio (medialncwslinConnation)
7. ResclVc books Cor Cuture pick up (library)
8, Report community disruptions, graffiti, non-emcrgencb problcms (police)
9. Use links to olber government and public; agendes (pu he informatron)
10. Rc~d consumer reports (bosinessleommerce)
11. Read about CÍly events (Harbor Days. Concerts in the: Park. parades. etc. (public
inConnaûon)
12. Access links LO other government agencies ~UbllC ÍlúOI111aûon)
13. ResolVe book.~ via inler-library loan (library
14. Read information on avllÍlablc library services (library)
15. Receive publie hearing notices via e-mail (planning)
16. Learn IIbOUl CilY future p1anning & inCf'dstructure (planning)
SlIIatlCommunity AWlicßlions Survey Annl)'sl$ P8¡c 1
~ /ý02 /
._~- . .--.- ---.-.
~~
JUN-eO-~6 02:~4 P" lee 61.,:5944488 ,.P.Ð3
17. Repon potholes via e-mail (public works)
18. Communicatc with City council members (council)
19. Read public infomlalÍon: chancr, municipal codc, elccûon n:soluûons. etc. (cit)'
anorney)
20. Ocl referrals 10 proper authorities (cily auorncy)
~l. Read N~bborhood Watch information (pollee)
22. Ac;çcs::; listings: oçal. cable, satellite (mediafncwsl"uúonnation)
23. Receive public hearing noûccs via e-mail (planning)
24. Repon of oulngcs (stn..'Cllights, trame signals, etc. (public works)
25. Read real-time elcClÎon rc¡;ul¡:¡ (olhcr governmenl)
Th'lI ":l0ns,s w,r, wld,-nnging and no particlllar Ci~ d,pal1",'II' WIIS'
o",r·"p"sønle. Rather, a heallhy cross-Jeclion oJ s,nic,s I al r1'.'CI llfe.kmg
"Ilrning activities (library services), democn/ic inpolve",ent (collnci and ci'{,'
.tlorney), sa/,Iy cOllcerns (public works and ,0Ute), and ,ntertain",enl (pub Ie ..
in/or"'ation and ""dia/",ws/in/ormalum) are ndicativ, that Ih, sa"'ple f,11 Ihat .
an oll·line City uti/it] can benefit the", in many dlfJerent ways.
Least-Rankl!d Appliclltions
Whilc only 13% of all applkations weI'C tilted 2 or less, the following ten were at the
bottom of the list;
324. Read composllng infonnaûon (public works)
325. Buy a product for the ßookslore Gift Shop (NatuI'C Cenler)
326. Shop locally via the Internet (businc:ssleommeree)
327. Read about controlled business licenses (planning)
328. Pay hotel occupancy f¡¡x on-line (finance)
329. Ac\."CSS bowling Icaguc infonnation & sign up (busincsslcommcrœ)
330. PaJ1icipatt: in Electronic Town ~uarc (Imernet Access)
331. Read about fire-relalcd business ccs (fire)
332. Join chat rooms, ncwsgroups (Usençt), e-maillislS (inlcrnetItcCess)
333. Use Spanish version of City wcbsjte (public information)
The" are a few dInamies occurring wllh thest questions thaI would
IIalurally plac, the", at t e bot/o", of the ran kings. First 0/ all, ",ost of the
applications on the bono", 0/ th, lisl reflecl/unetions 0/ a specific nalur" with
probably few commllnily members ne,dlng such services whether on.line or 1101
(co /rOl1ed business licenstft, fire.related busÚle:rs fees alld paying hotel.
occupancy lax).
Inlernet Slr"ices Were also not surf¡riSlng/y lit the bottom of the list.
Contributing to Ihis efJect are (1) uti/ami ia~ with the Inllrnll as a resourc, for
"1I8,jul" ~ormalion; (2) backlash resulting ro'" recenl media reporls oj Ihe
Internet (I e Internet aft an uncontrollable oree laking over e",ryone's li"s,
porno,rap"J' etc.); and (3) Ilncertainty wit electronic cash transactions (Nalure
Center an business/co",merce).
Final/Ž disinterest in thc usage oJ a Spanish websUe probably si",ply
rep,cts th, e",ograplrics of Ihe sample. R'producing this surv'l in Sr.anish IUId
dlslributi,,/ 10 the local 1/lspanlc co",,,,ullit, would hal'e most Ii "y p ce4 this
item muc higher in the response ranklngs,
SmarlCommunlt~ AppUcaUons Survcy ^nnlysls Puo1
~ /ý3C
- _.,_._.,~ "..... ~..-
-
JUN-Ø~-'6 Ø2:3~ PM Ice 61'~'44488 P.04
Con~lusion
In order to obtain more appJlcablc results. such SUlVCYS should include dcmographJç
infonnalÍon and be distributed LO various groups under various setûngs (c.g., the lib~,loca1
$Chaol, local mall. various ethnic commwútics). 5ul:h swveys could then be rcalistical Y:lfulicd to
the general population of the communily. This i~ not to suggesl that this effon was not use ul. On
the contrary, the resulls IndicalC an ovcr<lIl'J:itivc alûluoo towards a City eleclronic inCounation
utilily. This data can be used LO bc~in buil ing such a utility. However, during the ulÍlily
construction phase it is suggested lhat lhe CilY conducL additional focus groups with beU~rcul!ural.
lOÇial and economic represcntation to ensure thaI the majority of community members' . .
recommendations arc heard and implemented.
SmartCommunilY ApþüCftlions Survey AnalySis Paae 3
~/~/'J/
A
Chula Vista
SrnartCornrnunity
Community Outreach
Results
';
~;
Chwa Vista ~mam. ommunlty " ,,' ,
-
Wha is SmartCommunity?
· Funded by Caltrans
· Designed to bring on-line services and
information to residents and business
people of Chula Vista
· Community-driven, government-
facilitated project
/5-/\ 1
'''-.
;~~- ì
- ._._---~._..._..._-----.--
...
Proj t History and Goals
· Project History
- Caltrans Involvement
· Chula Vista's Goals
- Determine interest in on-line services
- Determine which services and information
residents and businesses desire
- Discover resources within community
- Promote community ownership of
SmartCommunity
a Ista m ...""
--
Proj t Challenges
· Determine obstacles to a successful
SmartCommunity
- Lack of access and training
- Community diversity
- Funding and support
· Determine means of overcoming
challenges and obstacles
.. 2
.....
..
()utt ach Process
· Primary Outreach
- Workshops
- Discussiongroups
- Surveys
- Departmental assessment
· Secondary Outreach
- Media contact and coverage
-
Sum ary of ()utteach
· Key Results
- Outreach participants were receptive to idea of
a SmartCommunity -- No technology resistance
» Even residents with little or no computer knowledge
expressed interest in SmartCommunity
» Most participants were willing to pay some amount
for services and information
» Many participants want to stay involved in project
planning
» Almost no resistance to project was expressed
3
'..
U .M·___......._...-,._ .u· ..... ,___
..
Key esults, Cont.
. Access and training are vital to project
success
- Many residents lack physical location to access
computers
» Access desired at:
· Community centers
· Libraries
· Telecenters
· Schools
» Access desired during daytime and evening hours
- Training/or inexperienced users a necessity
-
Key esults, Cont.
. Quality of content important factor
- On-line services must be faster and easier than
currently available
-Information must be meaningful to Chula Vista
community members
. Other existing projects should be
coordinated with SmartCommunity
- City should take lead in community project
coordination
4
.-....
_._________.___.._..__._~_... ----"'-_..."0"'_' __ __.._."
...
Desi d Services and Information
· Communication with · Disease prevention
elected officials programs
· Library databases · Public transit costs
· Voting bye-mail and schedules
· Employment · Traffic reports
information and · Home shopping/
training retail information
· Housing availability · Communication
· Crime reports with teachers
ommUlllty
-
Rep to Community
· Continued community support and
interest
· Desire for project to continue and
grow
. Interest in citizen's working group
· Valuable input and opinions
5
.;,¡..
...
Reeo mendations
· Initiate citizen's working group
· Develop criteria for SmartCommunity
program
· Coordinate SmartCommunity with
similar projects
· Pursue all feasible funding
opportunities
COUll....'"
-
Chul Vista's SmartCommunity...
· Unique Opportunity
· Community Support is Evident
· Leadership is Essential
6
'..
---_._.__._--------~-~-------_._--- --- --------.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ) ¡,
Meeting Date 6/1Bf~l5
7/'1/9{"
ITEM TITLE: Report; Review of draft proposed amendments to the City's Growth
Management Program and Ordinance regarding development phasing and
monitoring - request for Council input and direction
SUBMITTED BY: D"","" of PI""",,, ~
Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: City Manager&Y'fo (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No X )
tvl
The City's adopted Growth Management Program establishes the phasing of transportation
facilities as the major determinant of overall public facility and development phasing, based on
the fact that major street facilities are the most complex and time consuming to plan, fmance and
construct, and that other major facilities are located in the street system (e.g. water, sewer,
drainage), or require access to a street system (e.g. schools, parks, fire stations). As such,
coordination of the amount, location and timing of development in relation to the available street
system is a critical factor in ensuring maintenance of growth management Threshold Standards.
In conjunction with Council's adoption of the Interim State Route 125 Facility Feasibility Study
(HNTB Study) in 1994, it was identified that the cumulative amount of development contained
within eastern Chula Vista projects which had already received Tentative Map approval (please
refer to Attachment 1) could not be accommodated without construction of additional arterial
streets in order to maintain traffic threshold standards. Future tentative map approvals, such as
the Otay Ranch, will clearly require at least an interim 125 facility and preferably a freeway/toll
facility SR 125.
Given the uncertain timetables for construction of SR 125, and forthcoming additional Tentative
Map approvals for Otay Ranch and other projects, it has become necessary to evaluate methods
by which the overall phasing of new development can be managed in concert with needed
circulation improvements, so as to ensure threshold maintenance prior to construction of SR 125.
Staff, with participation from the major developers, has completed that evaluation, and is
presenting a proposed policy approach along with suggested draft amendments to the City's
Growth Management Ordinance for Council input and direction.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept the report, and direct staff to finalize the draft
proposed amendments to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance, and return them for
formal public hearing adoption by September 1996.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: As part of its 1994 Annual Report, the
Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) supported the need for the updated
phasing policy, and recommended that the City Council direct staff to refine the draft
/¿ -¡ I
\í~
Page 2, Item_
Meeting Date 6;16,::>,0
r 9'/9£'
amendments for adoption. Council supported that recommendation as part of its July 2 , 1995
action on the GMOC's report.
DISCUSSION:
Backl!I"ound: Need for Amended DeveloDment Phasin!!: and Monitorinl!: Provisions-
As noted in the opening paragraphs, the principal need for the proposed policy and ordinance
amendments arises from the amounts of development currently approved in eastern Chula Vista,
in relation to the timing of needed roadway improvements. At present, the amount of
development contained within projects with approved Tentative Maps (please see Attachment 1),
has the potential to overburden the currently existing street system, absent the addition of
significant new capacity through the construction of Orange Ave. and other planned, major
arterial streets.
Currently, several of these large projects (such as Sunbow and Salt Creek Ranch) which received
Tentative Map approval a number of years ago, have yet to commence construction. Under
current growth management policies, which consider approved Tentative Maps in the
determination of available street system capacity, these projects consume available capacity on
the existing street system, even though they have not commenced construction. The result has
been the need to execute "trip deferrals" on recent active projects including portions of
EastLake, Rancho del Rey SPA III, and the City's future library and fire station site in Rancho
del Rey SPA I, until such time as additional capacity in the eastern Chula Vista street system
is provided through the construction of other major streets.
This situation has resulted in a number of questions from developers as to the ability of the
transportation network as it currently exists, and as will be supplemented by future roadway
improvements, to accommodate development prior to the need for the SR 125 facility. Given
that currently approved projects cannot all build-out without an SR 125 facility, many of those
questions center around the issue of equity to those projects which are ready to build, and have
provided (or can provide) for necessary street system improvements, but which could be held
back due to other Tentative Map level projects which, under current growth management phasing
policies, are consuming available capacity, but are not ready to build. This situation has become
heightened by pending, additional development approvals for Otay Ranch, San Miguel Ranch,
and the future phases of EastLake which have not yet received Tentative Map approval.
Considering the uncertainties of development schedules for large, master planned projects (as
evidenced by recent experiences with Sunbow and Salt Creek Ranch), staff and the development
community believe that an orderly, and evenhanded process must be developed so that all parties
can, utilizing the same information, draw conclusions regarding the ability of any given project
to go forward based on available capacity in the street system. A fundamental premise in
developing that process is that the limited capacity on the City's existing and planned arterial
It -,2. ,
!),<
- ......- - - - --~---~-_..~....~--_.__."..
Page 3, Item_
Meeting Date 6/18/96 -.
0/9/96
street system prior to needing SR 125 should be available to those developments (or portions
thereof) which are ready to construct and have, or can provide needed street system capacity.
Based on that premise, staff and developer intents in preparing the proposed policy and
ordinance amendments were to provide a form of "first come. first served" phasing at the final
map stage, which would respond to the noted concerns with existing phasing policies, and
hopefully lead to elimination of the need for trip deferrals at the tentative map stage. This
suggested approach is based on the mutual understanding that the final map stage reflects
development which is immanent given the level of financial commitment required of the
developer, and that that [mancial commitment is worthy of receiving some "priority status" to
build based on available street system capacity, or the commitment to build sufficient capacity.
Proposed Development Phasing Amendments-
In revising the approach to allocating available street system capacity on a first come, first
served basis, the proposed amendments consist of the following major components:
1) updated policies regarding development phasing on a "first come, first served"
basis to be added to Section 4 of the City's Growth Management Program
document;
2) amendments to the Growth Management Ordinance to legally establish a process
and criteria for determining "priority status" for development to move forward
on a fIrst come, first served basis prior to the need for SR 125; and,
3) a set of administrative guidelines for processing requests for "priority status", and
conducting transportation system capacity analyses in conjunction with those
requests.
In order to establish a process for determining "priority status" it will be necessary to recognize
the existing approval status of various projects, including prior commitments and expenditure
toward expanding the street system. At the same time, such a process should also establish
equitable development opportunity within each of the master planned projects. Creating such
opportunity requires a system which will fairly control street system capacity allocation based
on the imminent nature of the development requesting the allocation, and the ability of the street
system to accommodate that development.
This approach to priority is a key foundation of the proposed amendments which are designed
to essentially provide a "gate" at the final map level through which each project must pass in
order to obtain "priority status" to receive building permits. The "gate" is based on available
street system capacity and/or the identification, and commitment to construction, of needed
improvements to create suffIcient capacity.
/¿'J .1··1
\0 -c
Page 4, Item_
Meeting Date. Ci.'18/9()
The following process and criteria are proposed to establish such a system, and are reZ%¡i~
the draft proposed amendments to the City's Growth Management Ordinance presented in
Attachment 3:
1) Initial Baseline Forecast-
In order to recognize existing development approvals, and related contribution
toward street system construction in an overall priority approach, staff will
compile an inventory of projects which meet the following:
- The project has an approved Public Facility Financing Plan (PFFP), and
all or a portion thereof, meets one or more of the following criteria:
- has an existing "Transportation Capacity Development Agreement
(TCDA)", or other Development Agreement with the City which
vests transportation capacity in exchange for improvements;
- is eligible for Transportation Development Impact Fee credits,
either by virtue of being included in an assessment district, or
having obtained cash credits through construction of major
transportation facilities;
- is a residential project for which an "Implementing Final Map" has
been approved by the City;
- is a project of a public, quasi-public, residential, commercial, or
industrial nature for which an "Implementing Final Map", and/or
site plan/architectural review, or other final planning approvals,
have been authorized.
Projects, or portions thereof, meeting these criteria will be considered to
have already passed through the "gate", and will automatically be given
"priority status".
In addition to the above categories, a five-year projection of public, quasi-
public, commercial and industrial projects, based on the City's Five Year
Capital Improvement Program, Facility Master Plans, and development
phasing schedules contained within adopted Public Facility Finance Plans,
should also be included. The reason for this is so the City may ensure
that adequate, available street system capacity will be reserved to
accommodate needed support services for residential development, that
may otherwise not cumulatively be included through individual, private
development requests for priority status. Staff recognizes that there may
/¿-( ,
_. ~._....,_.~_____.___."~.._ _ ....'m_________
Page 5, Item_
Meeting Date ~
~~ 9~
be some overlap with the last criteria above, and intends that this five-year
projection be used to evaluate whether capacity included under that criteria
is sufficient.
The City will then prepare a traffic modeling run of all existing development,
plus the projects which meet the above criteria, using the currently existing street
system in eastern Chula Vista. This base condition traffic analysis will be known
as the "Initial Baseline Forecast (IBF)". The IBF will provide an indication of
how much additional capacity remains on the existing street system prior to the
time that other major roadway improvements will be necessary. As additional
projects are added to the "Initial Baseline Forecast", and granted priority status
in accordance with proposed provisions discussed in the following section, the
overall listing of such projects will be referred to as the "Current Baseline
Forecast (CBF) " , and utilized as the database for ongoing verification of available
capacity through transportation modeling.
2) Future Final MaD ADDlications Seeking Priority Status-
Once the Initial Baseline Forecast has established the amount of remaining
capacity on the existing street system, all future applications for Implementing
Final Map approval will be required to demonstrate, through a traffic analysis,
that sufficient capacity exists on the current street system, or that additional
improvements necessary to create capacity to accommodate the subject request
will be constructed when needed. Once either of these determinations has been
made, and appropriate assurances provided to the City, the project will be granted
"priority status" and become part of the Current Baseline Forecast (please see
Attachment 2A).
Developers have also requested that applications for "Superblock or Financial"
type Final Maps be allowed to obtain priority status. The reason for this is that
developers need reasonable assurances in advance in order to conduct land
transactions. They have indicated that lenders require reasonable assurances as
to the ability to develop, before they will lend to builders purchasing the
Superblock lots. In order not to hamper land transactions, staff is proposing an
additional process to facilitate such applications. Staff's initial concern was that
these Superblock maps often encompass large areas which develop over a number
of years. Therefore, if priority status was granted in full, a situation could be
created in which a large development could obtain a significant amount of
available street system capacity it really does not need for a number of years.
Such an occurrence would effectively block other near-term development from
moving forwàrd absent construction of substantial street system improvements to
add capacity. This would create a situation not unlike that which we have today
based on the past policy of assigning capacity at the Tentative Map level.
I~f
'\
. - _..__ __ - __ _.".....___....___~_.___,_.~.__ - _,. - ........u_
Page 6, Item_
Meeting Date-6'18:96
:Y~9("
To provide for processing of SuperbJock map requests, and in order to avoid the
noted potential negative consequences of allocating street capacity at that level,
the amendments propose that for projects for which a Superblock final map is
requested, the City will consider granting of priority status through approval of
a "Transportation Capacity Development Agreement (TCDA)" (please see
Attachment 2B), provided that said map meets the following criteria:
a) the area of the map is consistent with a phase or phases as established in
the project's adopted PFFP, including all applicable phasing schedules,
and associated facility requirements; and,
b) the applicant can satisfactorily demonstrate the capability to finance
related, necessary improvements.
In preparing the associated TCDA with the City, staff proposes several criteria
which should be employed in detennining whether all or a portion of the subject
Superblock fmal map should be granted "priority status" based on street system
capacity. The main premise of these criteria is that proposed development which
can add overall capacity to the street system, through either on- and/or off-site
improvements, should receive priority over development which does not provide
such capacity. Staff feels such a premise is valid given the reason for needing the
proposed phasing policy amendments; that the limited capacity on the City's
existing and planned arterial street system prior to needing SR 125 should be
available to those developments (or portions thereof) which are ready to construct
and provide needed street system capacity.
a. If no major TransDIF street improvements are needed as a result
of the traffic model run, the City would grant priority status to
proceed with that amount of development (dwelling units and/or
non-residential Equivalent Dwelling Units [EDU's]) within the
Superblock area which can be accommodated on the available
street system, and which does not represent more than a 1-2 year
projected volume of absorption for that project.
b. If major TransDIF street improvements are detennined to be
needed as a result of the traffic model run, including any off-site
improvements, the City would consider granting priority status for
a greater amount of development (dwelling units and/or non-
residential Equivalent Dwelling Units [EDU's]) than that reflected
in a. above, provided that the developer commits to provide both
the on-site, as well as any off-site improvements.
/¿ .,~ \ ','J
.....--.---
Page 7, Item_
Meeting Date MlIk"o
Y~9ç,.
The amount of development within the Superblock Final Map to
be granted priority status, shall be based on the amount of
development necessary to support that project's pro-rata share of
needed street facility costs, and said status shall remain in effect
for the term of the financing mechanism(s) to be used in
construction of the identified, needed streets.
c. Similar to b. above, but in the instance that off-site TransDIF
street improvements are needed, and the developer cannot commit
to providing them, the City would grant priority status to proceed,
but only for that amount of development (dwelling units and/or
non-residential Equivalent Dwelling Units [EDU's]) within the
Superblock map which can be accommodated without the off-site
street improvements, and which is necessary to support that
project's pro-rata share of on-site TransDIF streets as applicable.
Said priority status shall remain in effect for the term of the
financing mechanism(s) to be used in construction of the identified,
needed streets.
None of the preceding provisions shall affect the ability of the developer to record
the subject Superblock Final Map, but rather are intended to solely apply to the
ability to proceed with development of land uses encompassed by said map.
Traffic Modelinl! for Onl!oinl! Policv Imolementation
As stated previously, staff proposes to perform an initial series of transportation model runs
(utilizing the SANDAG regional model) to establish the current status of capacity on the
roadway, and to analyze the initial impacts of approximately 3 years of growth. The
methodology associated with this is to calibrate the model using the most recent information on
the current state of development (homes/businesses actually occupied) and the current status of
the roadway network.
The second aspect of the modeling process is to add in all projects currently eligible for priority
status based on the concepts proposed by staff (the Initial Baseline Forecast). The results of this
model would then be analyzed by staff, and necessary improvements (if any) identified. Since
many of the development projects in the initial baseline have already paid TransDIF fees, it may
be necessary for the City to construct transportation facilities to serve these development projects
utilizing some of the TransDIF fees. This would only apply to "general" transportation
facilities, not facilities that are currently the specific condition of any development project. Since
the number and scope of the priority status projects is large, and many of the units will not be
developed for several years, staff believes that the requirement to construct such a facility will
probably not arise for several years, if at all. Staff expects to have the initial baseline forecast
/~' 7 \ ,......~I
\:",
Page 8, Item_
Meeting Date ~
J; 9 9G
completed in the next few weeks, well before the final adoption hearings on the proposed
amendments.
Depending on the information derived from this run, it may be practical to do a "projection"
run, which would include approximately 3 years of growth. If this model does not identify any
significant necessary improvements, all projects could utilize this model as the "analysis" called
for in the policy. This would minimize the modeling efforts necessary to comply with the
requirements of the policy.
FISCAL IMPACT: General Fund neutral. Development of the Initial Baseline Forecast model
will be funded using TransDIF monies. Ongoing modeling and evaluations at the final map level
will be funded through both the TransDIF, and through reimbursable charges to developers in
association with the processing of individual development applications.
Attachments
1. Status listing and map of projects with approved Tentative Maps.
2A. Flow Chart- Proposed approval process for non-superblock final maps.
2B. Flow Chart- Proposed approval process for superblock final maps.
3. Proposed draft amendments to the Growth Management Ordinance.
(m:\home\planning\GMOC\DEV -POL\FAl13-CC.INF)
I¿-Y
_..... _..__.u.____ _._______.._.~__m. ....*__..... ~_..._.._.....___.,..___
..
p ~ø ;¡~I !
~ 1: : ð i eLf
I-' .!~ ðp:t h
I- z ~ i~j¡!!illli!~i
z
w u == g~~~~~~~~~~
:æ w ~~~ wwwwwwwwwo
"':I
:::I: o ~~~~g~~~~~~~~~
0 a: :
a. ~ 1i
~ a: c 'Ii
dJ o D.g! ~
~ IŠi¡ ~
ïc( :E Š = !lIJIC ð
!! -_¡¡...III U¡-i,
~ ~ -C~O~.
o l&=_æll~:æ~~~li
-åI!!II:II:II:CCÌÖ'~ÌÖ'C cÆ-
I ~ -;¡QQQ~~õcõÆ~Æ ~
(/) ::EFII:II:II:CII
I - o~~~.~
\ ~ ~N~.~G~em~_____
I ... I
I ~
r:=r I
I ClI.
I I i
} I
"
" I
" / ~~~
I
I
...
~ !!a::a::
c ~~~
~
~~~
oWw
wZz
aww
a::C)C)
IL!j!W
\ ~¡¡¡a::
I / j~~
,,).... -
... ... , 0 I? .
... z ~. I
\ W '. .~ I
.. \ § ~: I
, I ,",;:; \
'" '"I
I
~
~
!Z~
:<i~
~~iI
~, ~ ~ J
" A.~
.
..
I¿-? iI c
--
,-.('
-
~
.
~
¡
0
ii
,
~
-6
.. ~ î
w
en ~~ B
en ..
en- <
11IoI u ¡
U tü~ ..
w< f
2 ~u
en ¿
!!: E
a.
...
~ã:
00 "- 0
f:III:::E -' w z-'_ ~~3
.... < -' .::5~~
a.- Uu!!1 Z '" 0.::>'" <:>5!~ ö....
a.o ::>-'" ii:o.ð w....ð ",...0
c~~ z-
o~::¡ t:u- :::>u~ -~
C'C.5 z~< '" 0. ",w-' <!:!::z 0",
o....z o 0. w!:::~ >-"0- =.....
........1&. u < >I< ~g:irl ::>0.
u < ..... '" ou", ~o~ '"
ø~ '" ~ "''''<
0.<- D<z
0. E<~
z~ < ...
--
en.Q
C'C..
:z:GI z
º ..
a.g. ..t:: r
~~~z 9
..en ::JuOo E
C~u¡::;; ~
Zm ið~~ s
IlUC tu E Q
::E ·Ñ ;;:~~::¡ iIi
-t;;¡:: ~
11.= z n
w -
o ..¡: 0
...:)
11IoI..
>0
IlUZ
0-
0
11IoI
en Õ~ ¡¿ '" '" -
0 Oö 2 -' 5
u...1- ...w "-ZOo "-~
a. '" zl-:c(cn" z¡::~ zz~<t !!
0 0. w odJzO
"- t;;~ oz 0.::5 >
"- -::>00 -w-, _ Uo vi
f:III: 0. ~.... <o-z ð~< ~O-~~ II
u.....l:i:o wz w ~ z
a. ::¡"'Ou _-'- U....I< 0
0."'- ...J.a...u.. ~iñU
0.::> '" D..~ Q.. a::: Z
<'" 0 0.._ Q.. « u.
"- < < ::.
/~ -/tJ ATTACHMENT 2A
"
..-.....-... ----~'_.--.-_~----_.."_.
N
·
·
,
·
~
~
'"
~
0
t
·
~
-6
::; ì
w
.. ~~ ~
V)
V) "'-
u "¡
1&.1 lï;ö': ,
U w< ì
~u
0 en ~
!!:: Ë
~
A.
-'
~ c~ ~
oCi: wo ... f2 C)~
..... =~ ::!LL.:::.:: 'Zz~_53~
D:::a I- w UO UOu ~o Cb,¡ zo:1::w
uu!!2 ~~ z z-'O D- Ceo:: 01-0..0..
A.:E :J-'< i;¡ «
:J-'" -< :J<-, iêoöt;2 ¡:;O~C)
A. Cltt~ :J-'O O~O 0>'" o..OLLJLU ~w Z
ct- Z~< ::;<U uO¡¿ uOffi ~De:~a~ -Öalo
Ol-z ~~~ ~!t ~"'''- v>O c.::ü:1 O::OLU...J
a u < O~ R:=> ~-'~o..~ ° ",j!: 5
......c ~ ü< ü<'" -::;!::>c ~o..a::ŒI
.- õ",,,,~ => =>0
ø.... õ<2 ~ < ~z
0. «
Z~
- '"
V)o
c:a:- z
:c-f °
..~ r
A.CII ç- 9
\:H1z
...a. ::>uoo ~
cif:u- ..
Z~ w(j ~ ..
C c" 0
<I--z
zw<E ..
I&.Im ;:;:~ìt~ ~
-1--- I:
~C "'I--
Z t1
w
A..- 0
o.~
.....=
1&.1"
>:)
1&.1-
Q
Q
1&.1 I--
V) '" Z
w-
0 0 "'z::;<
~~"- 000.0
zu~ ....-Ou
A. '" 09 Z~...Ji:=..
"- w Ol;<~iz
0 ~ ~~ ,..,"'-'
u. ð"'< ðOow
D::: "- I!:z 0.. ::>
_~¡::w
A. ::¡:>ü: i;:¡ü~
,,-en
"- oc(l-~~
< ð
I¿ -II ATTACHMENT 28
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
(6/6/96)
Add to Section 19.09.020 (Definitions) as follows:
G. "Implementing Final Map" means a final map which gives the developer the ability to
record lots and develop the property without further discretionary approvals, and for
which all fees and exactions which are required at the time of final map recordation have
been paid. Portions of any map for which subdivision improvement obligations are
secured by liens are not included within this definition.
H. "Priority Status" means that the developer of the project may proceed in obtaining
building permits or other necessary administrative approvals prior to other projects which
have not achieved this status. A project which has achieved priority status is still subject
to all other provisions and requirements of the Municipal Code, conditions of approval,
and the like.
N. "Transportation Capacity Development Agreement (TCDA)" means a development
agreement which provides specific assurances to the developer regarding utilization of
remaining capacity within the existing and/or planned roadway system. Requests for a
TCDA must meet the criteria outlined in Section 19.09.105(B).
Add Section 19.09.105 as follows:
19.09.105 Development Monitoring and Phasing
A. Projects for which a Public Facility Finance Plan has been approved, and which meet one
or more of the following criteria, shall be given "priority status" in the allocation of
building permits for future development:
1. projects for which the City has entered into a "Transportation Capacity
Development Agreement;"
2. projects which currently are eligible for Transportation Development Impact Fee
credits, either by virtue of being included in an assessment district, or having
obtained cash credits through construction of major transportation facilities;
3. residential projects for which an "Implementing Final Map" has been approved
by the City;
ATTACHMENT 3
1
J~ -/.2.
, , l'
\' ¡;..
4. projects of a public, quasi-public, commercial, or industrial nature for which an
"Implementing Final Map", or site plan / architectural review, or other final
planning approvals have been authorized.
B. For projects for which a "superblock final map" is requested, the City will consider
granting of priority status through approval of a Transportation Capacity Development
Agreement, provided that said map meets the following criteria:
a) the area of the map is consistent with a phase or phases as established in
the project's adopted PFFP, including all applicable phasing schedules,
and associated facility requirements; and,
b) the applicant can satisfactorily demonstrate the capability to finance
related, necessary improvements.
In preparing the associated TCDA, the following criteria shall be applied to determine
whether all or a portion of the subject Superblock final map should be granted "priority
status" based on street system capacity. The intent of these criteria is that the limited
capacity on the City's existing and planned arterial street system prior to construction of
State Route 125 should be available to those developments (or portions thereof) which
are ready to construct, and can provide needed street system capacity.
a. If no major TransDIF street improvements are needed as a result of the
traffic model run, the City would grant priority status to proceed with that
amount of development (dwelling units and/or non-residential Equivalent
Dwelling Units [EDU's]) within the Superblock area which can be
accommodated on the available street system, and which does not
represent more than a 1-2 year projected volume of absorption for that
project.
b. If major TransDIF street improvements are determined to be needed as a
result of the traffic model run, including any off-site improvements, the
City would consider granting priority status for a greater amount of
development (dwelling units and/or non-residential Equivalent Dwelling
Units [EDU's]) than that reflected in a. above, provided that the developer
commits to provide both the on-site, as well as any off-site improvements.
The amount of development within the Superblock Final Map to be
granted priority status, shall be based on the amount of development
necessary to support that project's pro-rata share of needed street facility
costs, and said status shall remain in effect for the term of the financing
mechanism(s) to be used in construction of the identified, needed streets.
2
I¿ "1:1
,/
\
- -..-
c. Similar to b. above, but in the instance that off-site TransDIF street
improvements are needed, and the developer cannot commit to providing
them, the City would grant priority status to proceed, but only for that
amount of development (dwelling units and/or non-residential Equivalent
Dwelling Units [EDU's]) within the Superblock map which can be
accommodated without the off-site street improvements, and which is
necessary to support that project's pro-rata share of on-site TransDIF
streets as applicable. Said priority status shall remain in effect for the
term of the financing mechanism(s) to be used in construction of the
identified, needed streets.
None of the preceding provisions shall affect the ability of the developer to record
the subject Superblock Final Map, but rather are intended to solely apply to the
ability to proceed with development of land uses encompassed by said map based
on street system capacity.
C. Projects which meet the criteria contained in Section A above as of the date of adoption
of this ordinance amendment shall be included in the "Initial Baseline Forecast." In
addition, the "Initial Baseline Forecast" shall include a five-year projection of public,
quasi-public, commercial and industrial projects, based on the City's Five Year Capital
Improvement Program, Facility Master Plans, and development phasing schedules
contained within adopted Public Facility Finance Plans, as approved by the City. As
additional projects are added to the "Initial Baseline Forecast" in accordance with
Sections D or G below, the overall listing of such projects shall be referred to as the
"Current Baseline Forecast." In addition, the City shall at least annually update the
forecast for public, quasi-public, commercial, and industrial projects, and incorporate it
into the Current Baseline Forecast.
D. The City Engineer shall prepare a traffic analysis of the "Initial Baseline Forecast," and
shall verify that:
1. the currently constructed roadway system provides for adequate capacity to ensure
compliance with adopted Threshold Standards as those projects develop in
accordance with this forecast; or
2. additional facilities which are necessary to ensure compliance with Threshold
Standards have been planned and financed, and will be constructed in advance of,
or concurrent with need.
E. Once the "Initial Baseline Forecast" has been established, additional projects may be
given "priority status" and added to the forecast when one or more of the criteria under
Section 19.09.105.A or B, as applicable, is met. I~!iñi~¡ in order for a project to
be added to the "Current Baseline Forecast" and given "Priority Status," the City
Engineer shall conduct a traffic analysis, and indicate what, if any, additional roadway
3
/¿ -'/'(
\\~
improvements will be needed in order to maintain Threshold Standards, in relation to the
"Current Baseline Forecast", including the subject project. Prior to the City giving
approval to any such project, the developer will be required to demonstrate, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer, that all roadway improvements necessary to maintain
compliance with Threshold Standards will be constructed when needed. Once the project
is deemed to have complied with the above requirements, and receives one or more of
the approvals listed in Section 19.09.105.A, the project shall be added to the "Current
Baseline Forecast. "
F. Where an applicant is requesting approval of an "Implementing Final Map", or other
final approval, for a project which is part of a master planned community for which an
assessment district for a major transportation facility was previously established, and
Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) are therefore included in the Current Baseline
Forecast (whether or not the credits are on that specific property), the following
procedure shall apply: the number of EDU's contained in the subject "Implementing
Final Map" shall be subtracted from the total units assumed in the "Initial Baseline
Forecast" for that master planned community, and shall no longer be available as credits
for other development projects within that community. The City Engineer shall maintain
an ongoing listing of these EDU credits.
G. Future updates of the Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan (ECVTPP) shall
take into consideration all projects included in the "Current Baseline Forecast" at the time
the update is commenced, and shall identify all Circulation Element roadway
improvements needed to support this level of development in accordance with adopted
Threshold Standards, along with financing requirements and any necessary adjustments
to Transportation Development Impact Fees to support these improvements. In addition,
updates to the ECVTPP shall include an updated estimate of the maximum amount of
development which can be accommodated prior to construction of an interim or
permanent SR-125 facility, as well as the maximum amount of development which can
be accommodated by the completion of an interim or permanent SR-125 facility, while
maintaining compliance with Threshold Standards. (This requirement shall no longer be
applicable at such time as SR-125 facilities are completed). In evaluating Threshold
Standard compliance, impacts of new development on roadways in Western Chula Vista
will also be considered.
H. In preparing traffic studies for new development projects (for which a Public Facility
Finance Plan has not been previously approved, or for which an amendment to an
approved PFFP is required), the following scenarios shall be evaluated:
1. "Current Baseline Forecast" plus proposed project land use; and,
2. Current Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan (ECVTPP) street system
capacity both prior to and including an interim SR-125 facility, plus proposed
project land use.
4
I¿, ""If
I
,
"
---------~_..__.~_._---_._--~._~
In conjunction with approval of any such project, the City shall make a finding that all
roadway improvements necessary to maintain compliance with Threshold Standards are
guaranteed to be constructed before needed.
In addition, for projects for which the proposed land use has potential traffic impacts
which are greater than those associated with land uses allowed in the adopted General
Plan, or other approved regulatory plan as applicable, a scenario evaluating traffic
impacts at the General Plan buildout level shall also be required.
(M:\home\planning\gmoc\dev-pol\DRFT -ORD.REV)
5
I¿ ,/¿
\
- --.--.----.--.- - .-.--'. --~._.__..._----,~ -- .
July 8, 1996
MEMO TO: The Honorable Mayor & City Council
FROM: Patricia Salvaciori~
SUBJECT: ITEM 18 ON COUNCIL AGENDA FOR JULY 9, 1996 -
AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF LAND AT 89 FIRST AVENUE TO
BETTIE WARREN
Bettie Warren (426-1216) called the office today to confirm that her item of concern was
on tomorrow's council agenda. After I confirmed that it was, she requested that I relay
the following to the Council:
*Ms. Warren is willing to buy the property in front of her home if the price is less
than one thousand dollars ($1,000), and
*Ms. Warren is also requesting that the Council grant the variance of the 5 foot
fence that is already on the property, if not, then she does not want to purchase
the property.
/~ -~/
\\ \
. -..-.._~-.....'~'.'..-~. - - ---~._--_._._,_.