HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2006/04/06
~V~
:.dl -
~.-lf~~
~~~.....
CITY OF
CHUlA VISfA
Stephen C.
Patricia E. Chavez, Councilmember
John McCann, Council member
Jerry R. Rindone, Council member
Steve Castaneda, Councilmember
Padilla, Mayor
David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager
Ann Moore, City Attorney
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
WORKSHOP
CALL TO ORDER
;,.':df8 under ponalty of iJ8fjury ~IlUl i <Alll
,:"ployed by the City of Chula Vista in the
)fflc'l of the City Clerk and that I posted this
iocument on the bulletin board according to
:),.oNn Act requirements.
']I,d 1/10 '" Signed
Council Chambers
City Hall
276 Fourth Avenue
April 6, 2006
6:00P.M.
ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Castaneda, ChavJz,
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE
WORKSHOP
1. THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION: AN OVERVIEW OF MUNICIPAL
SERVICES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND GOVERNANCE (1986-PRESENT)
In response to a Council referral, this workshop addresses past, present, and future
changes in municipal service levels, infrastructure improvements, and governance
structures within the Montgomery area since its annexation to the City in 1985.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the Council on any
subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the
agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any issue
not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the
topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff Comments are limited to
three minutes.
ADJOURNMENT to the Regular Meeting on April 11, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
In compliance with the
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require special accommodations to access,
attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at
least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk for specific information at (619) 691-5041 or
Telecommunications Devicesfor the Deaf(TDD) at (619) 585-5655. California Relay Service is
also available for the hearing impaired.
Page 2 - Council Agenda
http://www.chulavistaca.gov
April 6, 2006
fh-: >-11ol1T~
.
RECEIVED
MEMORANDUM
'06 MAY 31 P12 :58
TO
~frl~{l11 (~
our OF CHULA VISl A
stTY CLERK'S OFFICE
FROM
Rabbia Phillip - Secretary, Planning & BUildi~
DATE
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
As secretary to the Growth Management Oversight Commission,
I was asked by one of my commissioners, Mr. Steve Palma, to
forward the attached for you to distribute to Mayor Padilla and
the City Council members.
This memo was originally distributed to the GMOC at their
meeting on May 18, 2006. It responds to issues in the
"Montgomery Annexation Report" prepared by Community
Development Dept. for Ms. Chavez at the 04/06/06 Council
meeting.
Please note that this is from Mr. Palma outsIde of his role as a
Growth Management Oversight Commissioner.
filet" C', ~~/~,~.
Memorandum
~~bl~~ocotJ
'" \\\'C 3\ P\2 58
eW\:~ 1J\?1 t
" ~Li.I\"'S Of\- ,\".
To
From
Date
Subject
Growth Management Oversight Commission
Commissioner Steve Palma
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
South Western Chula Vista
My observations during and after annexation of the former Montgomery Fire
Protection District, and my experiences with the different programs tested in the
April 6th, 2006 Montgomery Annexation Report to the City Council are outlined
here for information of the GMOC.
On page 6 under Transfer of Revenues... it states "The reorganization resulted in
a negative financial impact to the City."
Prior to the annexation, the City of Chula Vista "strip mined" revenue producing
areas of the County's Montgomery region.
On page 4 under The 1985 Montgomery Reorganization it states "the City of
Chula Vista proposed annexation of only 23 acres of commercial/industrial
territory in Montgomery. The annexation would have transferred a significant
sales tax base from the County to the City.
Observation
If you are wondering why would the County allowed the City of Chula Vista to
have "it's" revenue, remember that all three of the District 1 County Supervisors
were formerly City Mayors. Two of them former City of Chula Vista mayors,
which includes the current supervisor, who was originally appointed to the Board
by his fellow supervisors.
I point this out because the "report" states that there was poor planning by the
County, poor and confusing service levels, etc. We, the residents of this area,
were well aware of the behind-the-scenes politics.
As an elected LAFCO adviSOry member I fought to give the public more say in its
ability to decide its future through a vote.
j ;;'/1 ~")3'"
.. '. "
be: Sf:: f[ YA/1 (q
BacktQ thltpnancial impact to the City, as I have requested more balanced
figures '~riq~t~/riery revenues, keeping in mind commercial/industrial areas
that were "aiinE!X'~d prior to December 1985, what are the revenues generated in
this physical area. I'm asking for the combined figures today in the year 2006
and 1985 December and January 1986.
On Page 9 under Community Programs - "Vehicle abatement is another program
that has been embraced by the Montgomery community..." This 'program'
caught my attention in a hurry. I had residents complaining to me that a code
enforcement officer was pressuring them to remove their old vehicles; even if
the vehicles were covered and stored out of view in their back yards.
What I found troubling, a female Code Enforcement Officer was threatening the
residents with citations that would result in expensive legal bills and court
appearances unless vehicles were removed.
The officer would purchase selected old vehicles for up to $100.00. These
vehicles are from the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's. A member of the South Bay
Cruisers, a car club which I founded, said to me that the former president of The
Car Club, whom incidentally was a High School classmate of the Code
Enforcement officer, said that her actions were legal because she purchased the
vehicles.
I expressed my concerns to the Chula Vista Councilman, and he was disgusted
with me for making such an allegation, bottom line - the Code Enforcement
officer told me she received a medical retirement. The former councilman had a
skate park named after him.
Yes, my community gave up many vehicles. However, we still have many
vehicles being returned to their former glory.
Again on revenues, how much, prior to the annexation, did the City of Chula
Vista pay annually to the sanitation district to use its system or sewer system?
Summary - Improvements - twenty years is unacceptable when promised
infrastructure, sidewalks, street lights, street repairs are still lacking in the
Montgomery area, The City has too many poorly written ordinances that make
code enforcement a joke, re: illegal canopy carport. These are illegal in the front
yard but not illegal in the side or back yard. This is a case that was pointed out
to me by the Senior Code Enforcement Officer as causing them to drop this
matter until further study.
MEMO 4/6106
To:
From:
Chula Vista Mayor Stephen Padilla and Members of City Council
Steve Castaneda, Patty Chavez, John McCann, and Jerry Rindone
Prof. Terry Thomas ula Vista, CA 91911-4404
Testimony - Homeowner and also *Boar ember of Palomar
Palace Estates Homeowners Association.
Appreciate your focusing on the need to enhance the infrastructure, lighting,
sidewalks, gutters, pavement, parks, recreation, amenities, and environmental health and
safety of the Southwest Chula Vista in general and Montgomery Area in fulfillment of
the promises to the children, residents, visitors and business people of this community.
I would like to point out to the Council and Staff that there are certain changes or
needs that must be considered, addressed in this workshop and upcoming actions
Item 1: The need to put in sidewalks, gutters, lights, and safe walkways in the area
* of Second Avenue between Oxford Street and Palomaar Street. The need to do
same between Broadway and 4th Avenue, on the Southside walkway of
Palomar Street. The need to do same on certain parts (west side) of Fourth
Avenue (north of Palomar and adjacent to Queen Ann St
Item 2: Need to restore service to what was the former 702 whereby a person may be
able to go from Palomar and 2nd to Norman Park Center via streets adjacent to
Hilltop and/or do the same from Palomar Trolley to H Street Trolley. The
current Metropolitan Transit Plan Gust revised in March 2006, shows 702 as
going from Palomar via Orange and few stops. Please be open for need for
service and changes for 701 +old 703
Item 3: The need to go through whole area of Montgomery, and Palomar, as well as
Orange to adjust the timing ofthe Stoplights. Specifically, the light at 2nd and
Palomar, going North permits one, perhaps 2 cars to make the turn before
changing back. The one at 2nd and Orange going South and making a turn
either west or east is much too long (more than 3-4 min.)
Item 4: The need to repave the streets, such as 2nd Avenue SOUTH of Naples to
Palomar and deal with the awful Potholes throughout the area. Public Works is
to be commended for doing a great job in certain areas but the pot hole and
cracked pavements (esp. at intersections) is quite dangerous, especially when
during or following rain). Street lights are either too low or non-existent on
Quintard and many parts of Montgomery area including the parks.
Item 5: The need to preserve historical buildings and monuments, such as
Otay Church (on Third, south of Orange); the Japanese American school
monument on the Southwest comer of Broadway at its junction with Palomar;
the historic industrial site and wildlife reserve of the Salt Works at the end and
south of Palomar, and the Swiss Park area that would be desirable and must
be included as both endangered habitat, MSCP and also the Park's historical
significance. Certain TREES on Palomar and all of Chula Vista need to be
protected and preserved.
Item 6 Reminder: Need to put APCD Air Resources Board monitor in the
Southwest Chula Vista. Possible site, the elementary school on Albany south
of Orange or other sport North of Palm or Main Street (between 805 and 5)
*
"n--'~
~~It-
:~--~
'~~~~
~- ~~
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
Report to the City Council
THE MONTGOMERY
ANNEXATION
AN OVERVIEW OF MUNICIPAL
SERVICES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND
GOVERNANCE
(l986~PRESENT) .
Prepared:
March 31, 2006
Submitted by:
Dana M. Smith,
Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director
Prepared by:
Ken Lee, Principal Community Development Specialist
Lynnette Tessitore-Lopez, Associate Planner
Via:
David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARy.......... ................................ ......................................... .................. 1
II. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................3
A. PROFILE AND HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERY AREA................................................................ 3
B. ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA .......................................................................... 4
III. DiSCUSSiON................................................................................................................ 6
A. HISTORICAL ISSUES AND CHALLENGES WITHIN THE MONTGOMERY AREA .....................................6
B. THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO THE ANNEXATION ........................................................................... 6
1. What was Proposed to Change & What Actually Happened .......................................... 7
c:> Zoning and Development Issues
c:> Public Safety
c:> Social and Leisure Services
c:> Public Facilities
c:> Fiscallssues
c:> Miscellaneous Issues
c:> Special Transition Processes
C. FUTURE PLANS ................................. .......... .................... ......................................... 24
VI. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 26
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
Attachment 2: 1985 Cauncil Positian Paper
Attachment 3: Cade Enforcement Data
Attachment 4: Southwest PAC Dissolution; Council Agenda Statement and Resolution 4/15/1997
Attachment 5: Montgomery Plonning Committee Dissolution; Ordinance 2576
Attachment 6: Comparison of Library Services within the Montgomery Area (annexation - present)
Attachment 7: Capital Improvement Expenditures
Attachment 8: Public Works Operations Information
Attachment 9: Sewer Management Chart
Attochment 10: Citywide vs. Montgomery Area Revenue Data
-,-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 - Present)
March 31, 2006
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The intent of this report is to provide an introspective analysis of municipal service activity in the
Montgomery area since its annexation. Specifically it is intended to provide an overview of:
1. The historicol issues and challenges in the Montgomery area
2. What was proposed to change as a result of annexation
3. What initiatives and activities the City has been actively engaged in within the area
since annexation, including an account of municipal services, infrastructure, and
governance from 1986 to present.
4. Existing efforts and future opportunities within the Montgomery Area.
To provide an accurate accounting of City activities within the Montgomery area over the past 20
years, a team of City Departments contributed a significant amount of time and resources to
complete a detailed survey of services in the area since the 1985 annexation. This report is the
culmination of those coordinated efforts and is a collaborative document prepared by a team that
includes the following Departments: Library, General Services, Recreation, Engineering, Public
Works Operations, Planning and Building, Finance, Office of Budget and Analysis, Police, Fire,
and Community Development.
This report is intended to be an informational document for workshop discussion purposes and
does not require any formal action.
The Montgomery Reorganization
The 3.9-square mile area (approximately 2,500 acres) known as the Montgomery Area was
annexed to Chula Vista in December 1985. (Please refer to Attachment 1 for a vicinity map of
the area.) The annexation was the result of many years of discussion and compromise among
numerous community and governmental stakeholders, dating as far back as 1948, and was
ultimately approved by local voters at the ballot in November 1985. The Montgomery
reorganization consisted of: (1) annexation of the unincorporated Montgomery area to the City,
(2) dissolution of the Montgomery Fire Protection District, and (3) dissolution of the Montgomery
Sanitation District. The reorganization of these jurisdictional boundaries resulted in the transfer of
numerous service responsibilities and public facilities from the affected agencies to the City,
including the County of San Diego (e.g., roads, street lighting, parks and recreation, police, land
use planning, animal control, library, flood control, etc.), the Fire District, and the Sanitation
District (wastewater services). The reorganization of these agencies and their service
responsibilities into a single service provider, the City of Chula Vista, reduced confusion among
local residents about services, increased service delivery efficiency and cost-effectiveness,
increased local governmental accountability, and improved levels of core municipal services to
area residents, most visibly police protection and traffic enforcement. In all, the Montgomery .
Reorganization represented a "good government" collaborative effort by local agencies and area
residents to improve the quality of life for the Montgomery community.
Today, the primary outstanding concerns among City leaders and Montgomery residents are the
remaining deficiencies in the area's physical infrastructure and public facilities. More specifically,
the Council has asked staff to research and prepare a historical report on municipal services,
-1-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1 986 ~ Present)
March 31, 2006
infrastructure, and governance in the Montgomery area based on the proposed changes
highlighted in the 1985 City Council Position Poper on the Proposed Montgomery Annexation
(Attachment 2).
1985 City Council Position Paper
Prior to the 1985 election, the City Council adopted a formal "Position Paper" on September 24,
1985 that proposed specific changes to municipal services, infrastructure, and governance in the
Montgomery areo upon annexation. The intent of the Position Poper was to provide clear and
accurate information about the effects of onnexation to the public. The Position Paper also
established a baseline for the proposed transfer of services and facilities to the City and a
framework for transitioning the community into City jurisdiction.
This report uses the 1985 Position Paper as a baseline reference and provides a detailed account
of the broad range of municipal service, infrastructure, and fiscal enhancement efforts that took
place in the Montgomery area in the years following annexation. While this report recognizes
that there are still infrastructure deficiencies in Montgomery, it also emphasizes and reinforces the
advancements that have been made, including public improvements successfully completed over
the past 20 years, and the significantly increased levels of services to residents and business. The
report contains detailed information on each of the service and infrastructure areas of the
Position Paper and exhibits that virtually all of the proposed changes in the Position Paper have
been met or exceeded. Important highlights of City efforts in the area include:
Q More than $83 million in Capital Improvement Project expenditures
Q More than $6.3 million in utility undergrounding projects
Q More than 100 individual street improvement projects
Q A community Recreation Facility
Q A state of the art Animal Care Facility
Q An award winning Library Facility
Q The development and adoption of the Montgomery Specific Plan
Q Telegraph Canyon Flood Control Channel improvement effort
Q Community Outreach Programs
Q Pending applications for approximately $9.5 million of CDBG Section 108 Loans to pay
for a portion of the improvements within the Montgomery area
- 2-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 _ Present)
March 31, 2006
II. BACKGROUND
A. Profile and History of the Montgomery Area
The territory known as the Montgomery area has gradually evolved over
time from a farming and cattle raising area to a uniquely urbanized
community and light-industrial sector. As a historically unincorporated
area in the County, there was limited coordination or long-range
planning of land uses in the area. Over time, the predominately
agricultural area was steadily replaced in piecemeal fashion with a ~ --"_"'-
broad mix of commercial, industrial, and residential uses that were not always compatible or
complementary to one another. Some light agricultural uses also remained resulting in a unique
land use pattern and host of land use conflicts between rural and urban areas. These land use
conflicts also created challenges for the logical planning and extension of public services and
facilities to the area.
County General Plan
The San Diego County Regional General Plan of 1967 was the first real comprehensive land use
plan that affected Montgomery. Though this comprehensive plan pravided broad land use
guidelines, the regional scope of the goals, policies, and objectives in the plan did not address
the specific local issues and concerns of Montgomery residents and property owners within the
core neighborhoods. As the Montgomery area continued to develop and evolve, a more
localized and grassroots approach to addressing community issues and concerns was needed,
including: urban decline, infrastructure, traffic, rehabilitation, and urban design.
Reaional vs. Local
It is important to recognize that county governments, in general, are regional agencies structured
and intended to provide core regional services to County residents, such as jails, courts, social
services, public health, regional parks, and airports. As regional agencies, county governments
are not ideally set up to provide core municipal-level services, such as local roads and
infrastructure (e.g., curbs, gutters, sidewalks), street lighting, police and fire protection, traffic
enforcement, and local parks. As a local government created to respond to local needs and
issues, cities are the logical service provider for these types of municipal-level services. As rural
unincorporated areas begin to develop and urbanize, annexation of these areas ta adjacent cities
facilitates the extension and governance of higher levels of services and infrastructure
improvements to accommodate the higher-intensity uses.
At the time of annexation to Chula Vista, the Montgomery area was almost completely developed
and was comprised of five identifiable neighborhoods: Castle Park, Harborside, Otay, Broderick
Acres, and Woodlawn Park. In addition to the array of service and infrastructure issues in the
area, the City also faced the social and emotional challenges of how to retain the local identity of
the individual neighborhoods while planning for the annexation of the entire Montgamery as a
new segment of the Chula Vista community.
- 3-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 - Present)
March 31,2006
B. Annexation to the City of Chula Vista
Prior Annexation Efforts
Discussions about annexation of the Montgomery area to the City of Chula Vista date as far back
as 1948. In that span, the question of annexation was brought before the voters and failed on
two separate occasions, once in 1979 and once in 1982. These annexation efforts and
discussions resulted in multiple studies and analyses by policymakers and community members of
the fiscal and socia-economic pros and cons of annexation, and even incorporation. It also drew
significant community interest and involvement, including the active participation of the
community in studying and formulating recommendations on annexation through local and
County advisory committees and commissions, including the Montgomery Municipal Advisory
Council (MAC). The annexation also involved affected agencies such as the County, special
districts (Montgomery Fire Protection District, Montgomery Sanitation District), and LAFCO (Local
Agency Formation Commission), the countywide, state-created entity that reviews and approves
local government reorganizations, including annexations and incorporations.
The first time LAFCO reviewed and approved the annexation of the Montgomery area to Chula
Vista was in 1978 but, as mentioned above, that reorganization effort failed to receive voter
approval. In 1981, LAFCO considered two competing proposals, one for the incorporation of
Montgomery as its own city, and the other for annexation of Montgomery to Chula Vista.
Incorporation would have kept the Montgomery Fire Protection District ("MFPD") and
Montgomery Sanitation District ("MSD") intact, and created a new city comprised of the
Montgomery area. The Commission determined that incorporation was not in the best interests
of local residents from both a financial and governance perspective. LAFCO approved the
annexation proposal and adopted a partial sphere of influence for Chula Vista that encompassed
the Montgomery area. The inclusion of territory to a city's sphere of influence is a prerequisite, or
concurrent requirement, to annexation and represents the determination by LAFCO that the area
should ultimately be annexed and served by that city. Althaugh the annexation failed at the
ballot, the Montgomery area remained in Chula Vista's sphere.
The 1985 Montaomerv Reoraanization
The 1985 annexation was the third and final annexation attempt. Initially, the City of Chula Vista
proposed annexation of only 23 acres of commercial/industrial territory in Montgomery. The
annexation would have transferred a significant sales tax base from the County to the City. In
response, the County initiated annexation of the entire Montgomery area (3.9 square miles or
2,500 acres) to the City, which launched a series of inter-agency discussions, studies, and public
outreach efforts. On July 1, 1985, LAFCO reviewed and approved the "Montgomery
Reorganization," including annexation to the City and dissolution of the Fire Protection and
Sanitation Districts. In preparation for the election, the City of Chula Vista adopted the City
Council Position Paper on the Proposed Montgomery Annexation on September 24, 1985,
communicating to residents the City's policies related to the potential annexation and to help
residents understand the effects that annexation would have on them. Voters approved the
Montgomery Reorganization at the November 5, 1985 general election with an effective date of
December 31, 1985 for the annexation.
- 4-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 - Present)
March 31, 2006
The MontQomerv Plannina Committee
To help facilitate the transition of the local Montgomery community into the City fold, the City
Council, as part of the 1985 annexation, formed the Montgomery Planning Committee (MPC).
The initial members of the MPC were formally elected by local voters on the same November 5,
1985 ballot as the annexation. The MPC served as an advisory committee to the Planning
Commission and City Council on an array of issues affecting the Montgomery Area, including
land use applications, budget appropriations, CIP proposals, formulation of long range goals for
the area, and the development of an area plan. The MPC played an integral part in the
annexation transition process and a critical role in the later 1988 adoption of the Montgomery
Specific Plan. Fram 1986 to 1993, the MPC regularly convened once a month in public meetings
and made recommendations to the City on all projects within the Montgomery area and faithfully
fulfilled its roles and responsibilities to the City. In 1993, the Montgomery Planning Committee
was dissolved and folded into the Southwest Project Area Committee (PAC) shortly after the
adoption of the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area by the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Agency. In accordance with state law, the statutory life span of a PAC is three years. In 1997,
the Southwest PAC was dissolved, as well.
- 5-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (l986 _ Present)
March 31, 2006
III. DISCUSSION
A. Historical Issues and Challenges within the Montgomery Area
As a result of counfy governance, indiscriminate public service distribution, and piecemeal
development, the issues associated with annexation of the Montgomery area were numerous and
complex. Before annexation, development of the area for many years was subject to minimal
planning and zoning controls. While several residential areas developed in an organized
manner, many other areas developed with conflicting land uses located adjacent to one another.
The area never fully completed the transition from rural to urban land use. Many residential
streets were narrow and not adequately paved. At the time of annexation it was estimated that a
half of the area's streets did not have curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, some at the preference of
residents. The "urban vs. rurol" tradition within the Montgomery area became one of the many
contentious issues of annexation. There were many residents that wanted to retain the rural
character of the old unincorporated area while many others wanted to fully urbanize. The task of
the Cify was to integrate the Montgomery area into the Cify while retaining the individual
character of the communify.
Transfer of Revenues and Service Responsibilities
The Montgomery Reorganization resulted in the transfer to the Cify of Chula Vista of service
responsibilities and costs, and revenues to fund those services and facilities. Cify standards for
service levels and infrastructure, however, were higher than those of the Counfy of San Diego.
The transfer of revenues to the Cify from the Counfy and special districts (MFPD and MSD),
therefore, did not adequately fund the costs borne by the Cify to extend police protection, fire
protection, wastewater, street lighting, library, and other municipal-level services to Montgomery.
The reorganization resulted in a negative financial impact to the Cify. The Council, however,
held its position firmly and took a leadership role in seeking to address the growing municipal
service, infrastructure, and governance needs of Montgomery area residents. The financial
details for the Montgomery area are described in greater detail in later sections of this report.
S, The City's Response to the Annexation
Before annexation, many of the residents of the Montgomery area were unclear as to whether the
Counfy, the Cify of Chula Vista, or a special district was responsible for providing particular
governmental functions such as road maintenance, law enforcement, and fire protection. Many
residents considered the boundary between the Cify of Chula Vista and Montgomery as an
artificial line in the sand and identified with Chula Vista as a single, cohesive communify. Many
felt that annexation to the Cify of Chula Vista would allow for improved public service delivery,
increased local representation and interest in civic affairs, greater local control of land use, and
the abilify to capture a greater share of area revenues to meet communify specific needs. In an
effort to assist in understanding the implications of annexation, the Council adopted a Position
Paper on the proposed annexation. The "Position Paper" as adopted on September 24, 1985
summarized the Cify's policies regarding specific service and fiscal questions related to
annexation and service level changes that would result.
- 6-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 - Present)
March 31,2006
1. What was Proposed to Change & What Actually Happened
A REVIEW OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND GOVERNANCE
(1986 - PRESENT)
The 1985 Council Position Paper categorized the major service, infrastructure, and governance
issues into the following key topics:
q Zoning and Development Issues
q Public Safety
q Social and Leisure Services
q Public Facilities
q Fiscal Issues
q Miscellaneous Issues
q Special Transition Processes
The following sections of this report provide a detailed description of many of the City's various
activities to date in the Montgomery area for each of the key service categories that were
originally proposed in the 1985 Position Paper. Please refer to Attachment 2 for a copy of the
complete Position Paper.
ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
a. Land Use -
~: County zoning legulatlons within the Montgomery Olea wete to remain unchanged
until new regulations and/or a specific plan were put mto place. EXisting legal land uses would not be
discontinued or phased out as a result of annexation
Activity To Date: In a coordinated effort with planning staff the Montgomery Planning
Commission formulated the Montgomery Specific Pion. Council adopted the Montgomery
Specific Plan on September 13, 1988. The Montgomery Specific Plan was to be a planning guide
that was both consistent with the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista and addressed the
numerous complex issues that affected the Montgomery area. The plan was to be used to help
foster imaginative and orderly growth within the Montgomery area and became more of a
General Plan sub-policy document rather then an implementing tool of the General Plan. As
part of the Montgomery Specific Plan effort a Table of Translation was adopted that identified
County to City Zone Changes. This Table identified zone classifications that could be changed.
These zone changes were predicated on General Plan consistency. In light of the recent General
Plan Update, these suggested County to City Zone changes can begin to be re-examined and
appropriate zone changes can be implemented as part of the zoning code update. In addition,
the recent update of the General Plan and the subsequent preparation of subarea plans will
provide a blueprint for future development within the Southwest area. These planning efforts,
-7 -
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 - Present)
March 31, 2006
coupled with a healthy real estate market hove helped renew developer interest in the Southwest
portion of Chula Vista and will continue to be a catalyst for both new development and
redevelopment within this same area.
b. Cade Enforcement -
Position E9PS'.::....C: Enforcement efforts would be primarily reactive and would utilize the regulations and
standards of the Zoning Ordinance of the County of San Diego. Once City zoning became effective,
the City would then enforce the City standards in the orea, with existing legal land uses allowed to
continue.
Activity To Date: The City's overall code enforcement effort includes coordination of several
different City departments and staff. In coordination with Planning, Community Development,
Police and several other departments, Code Enforcement has been working diligently on
establishing a program that will pratect the health and safety of all residents and the value of
property through the enforcement of particular codes and regulations. In addition to city
departmental cooperation, Code Enforcement has elicited the opinion of business owners within
the community. Code enforcement met with local representatives of the business community and
together identified designated "focus" areas for enforcement efforts and a business friendly
means of conducting inspections of businesses within those same areas. From field interviews
with business owners, staff has been able to customize their inspection programs in order to focus
attention on those types of code violations that were of highest priority for business owners within
the area.
Code Enforcement Beat Proaram
The City's Beat Program approach to enforcement has also been very effective in the
Montgomery area. The "Beat Program" assigns a code enforcement officer to a designated
geographic area or "beat". This community-oriented approach has helped Code Enforcement
to develop and maintain caoperative relationships within the Montgomery neighborhoods.
This approach has been invaluable with respect to the Montgomery area. For effective
enforcement, staff spends considerable time researching the County Zoning Code
requirements that were applicable prior to the annexation. That information is a major factor
in determining whether a particular use was authorized prior to the annexation. The difficulty
has been that County records that were forwarded to the City often are not complete.
However, in many instances the code enforcement officer is able to work with the property
owner to encourage voluntary compliance.
Since the completion of the annexation, most of the code enforcement activity in the
Montgomery area has been reactive or in response to specific complaints from residents and
local businesses. A review of our records from 1993 through 2005 indicates that our Code
Enforcement staff has investigated 4,362 code enforcement cases in the Montgomery
annexation area. The annual number of cases has averaged about 440 over the last five
years. This number represents approximately 25% of the total number of code enforcement
cases processed throughout the City. (Attachment 3)
- 8-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 - Present)
March 3', 2006
Community Proarams
The Code Enforcement Section has also engaged in a number of proactive community based
programs that have enhanced the quality of life in the Montgomery area. Since annexation,
several Community Appearance Programs have been conducted in the area. Code
Enforcement staff worked with the neighborhoods to establish neighborhood improvement
committees and helped to fix up and clean up their neighborhoods. Hundreds of tons of
trash and debris were removed during these "neighbor helping neighbor" programs. These
efforts not only resulted in improved physical appearance of these neighborhoods but the
number of code enforcement complaints also dropped dramatically as code enforcement
established a positive presence within the community and neighbors developed a greater
understanding of City Code requirements. Vehicle abatement is another program that has
been embraced by the Montgomery community and has contributed to the improved physical
appearance of the Montgomery area.
Vehicle Abatement
Code Enforcement has had an ongoing vehicle abatement program that has averaged over
1,000 vehicles removed per year Citywide. An estimated 40% of these abandoned or
inoperable vehicles were removed from locations in the Montgomery area. Approximately
95% of these vehicles are removed voluntarily as a result of our notification process.
c. Housina Rehabilitation Proaram (CHIP) -
~: The City'S CHIP program would be extended to Include the Montgomery area.
Activity To Date: The City of Chula Vista Housing Improvement Program has provided home
improvement funds to qualifying low-income families throughout Chula Vista since 1977. The
CHIP program is comprised of two separate programs, the grant program and the loan
program. Both funding programs assist low-income homeowners in health and safety related
repairs. The purpose and objectives of CHIP is to: eliminate health and safety hazards, remove
blight, enhance the quality of the affordable housing stock, enhance overall neighborhood
quality, and provide low-income residents with a funding source to implement needed repairs to
their homes.
d. Establishment of a RedeveloDment Proiect Area -
~: It was mutually agreed upon between the County and the City that a Redevelopment
Pmject Area would not be established within the Montgomery area for at least four years after
annexation. Redevelopment efforts would require brood community support and a joint public/private
sector effort.
Activity To Date: The Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, which is contained within the 3.5
mile boundary of the Montgomery community, was established in 1990, more than four (4) years
after annexation. That same year, pursuant to California Redevelopment Law, the Southwest
Project Area Committee (SWPAC) was formed by Council resolution. The responsibility of the
- 9-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 _ Present)
March 31, 2006
SWPAC was to review all discretionary land use projects, excluding variances, pursuant to the
Southwest Redevelopment Plan and the Montgomery Specific Plan. The primary role of the
SWPAC was to evaluate projects brought before them in terms of overall land use
appropriateness, general economic impact, and related planning and zoning issues.
Dissolution of the Southwest PAC
In 1993, in response to permit streamlining recommendations by the Economic Development
Commission (EDC), the Redevelopment Agency adopted revised "roles and functions" for the
Southwest Project Area Committee. This revised roles and functions included consolidation
considerations for the SWPAC and the Montgomery Planning Committee.
The number and variety of complex issues, concerns and interests in the Southwest made it
difficult to attain centralized and focused goals and objectives that are typical in community
planning efforts. In addition, participation of the Committee members had greatly
diminished which often times resulted in an inability to establish a quorum and longer
development processing timeframes. Therefore, in 1997 in an effort to better serve both the
business and residential community, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency, by joint
Resolution 18624 (Agency Resolution 1536), dissolved the Southwest Project Area Committee
and established the Planning Commission as the recommending body for projects located in
the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. (Attachment 4)
e. The Monfaomerv Plannina Committee -
~ The MPC would be established to funclion as on odvlsolY body to the Planning
Commission and City Council on land use Issues within the OlGa ond would be an mtegral pOlt of
develoPI ng a community plan for the area
Activity to Date: The Montgomery Planning Committee (MPC) was established and the initial
members were elected as part of the municipal election that was held November 5, 1985. The
first meeting of the MPC was held on Thursday November, 21, 1985. The MPC was an integral
part in the transition of the Montgomery area to Chula Vista. The MPC reviewed and made
recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council on all projects within the
Montgomery area. The Committee met once per month and was the first step of public review
in most discretionary projects within the Montgomery area. In addition, the MPC was an
instrumental part of the development of the Montgomery Specific Plan.
As part of a City-wide initiative, the Economic Development Commission (EDC) established a
subcommittee to develop recommendations on how to streamline the City's development review
process. One of the many recommendations of the subcommittee was to limit the review
authority of the Montgomery Planning Committee to legislative changes to the Montgomery
Specific Plan and to eventually phase the Committee into the Southwest Redevelopment
Committee. The recommendation was made in order to alleviate unnecessary review and
duplication of efforts in the project review process, which translated into unnecessary staff time
and costs, as well as unnecessary time and costs to the public.
On November 9, 1993 the Redevelopment Agency approved Ordinance 2576, which dissolved
the Montgomery Planning Committee and directed the Southwest PAC to consider to seat the
- 10-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 _ Present)
March 31, 2006
remaining MPC members. As mentioned above the Southwest PAC was dissolved in 1997. As a
result, all land use matters that were once under the authority of the Montgomery Planning
Committee are now under the authority of the Planning Commission. (Attachment 5)
PUBLIC SAFETY
a. Police Protection -
~. the area's police service would be brought up to a level commensurate with that
Plovided In the rest of the City It was anhclpated that there would be at least 25 add,tranal City
positions as a result of annexation
Activity To Date: Review of the 1986/87 Police Department Budget shows that 27 positions were
added in direct response to the annexation of Montgomery. The positions related to the
annexation in 1987 alone were:
14 Peace Officers - Patrol
4 Police Agents - Investigations
2 Community Service Officers - Patrol
2 Communications Officers - Patrol
1 Evidence Technician - Admin Services
1 Animal Control Officer - Animal Control
1 Police Information Systems Specialist - Records
1 Secretary I - Investigations
1 Clerk II
Since 1987, 150 Peace Officers and 87 other additional positions have been added to the
department. Subsequent to the FY 1987 budget, staffing for the Montgomery area has been
based upon the City wide staffing model. This model examines the total calls for service
throughout the entire City and determines appropriate staffing levels on a city-wide basis.
Specific crime data is then analyzed to determine the ultimate placements of patrol personnel.
However, it should be noted that there are up to 4 officers on patrol in the Montgomery area
during each shift. Support personnel such as Community Service Officers and Parking
Enforcement Officers also provide support to the area, but are not necessarily allocated
specifically to the Montgomery area. Previous to the annexation, the Son Diego County Sheriff
only provided a maximum of two units to patrol the same area.
Community Outreach
As is the case with the community at large, the Chula Vista Police Department maintains
strong bonds with the residents in the Montgomery area. Community level programs, such as
"Street Team", whose focus is on street level narcotics and gang enforcement, has helped
strengthen police presence within Chula Vista neighborhoods including the Montgomery
area. Annexation has provided Montgomery residents a full service municipal police
- 11 -
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 - Present)
March 31,2006
department only a couple of miles from their homes. Whereas, prior to annexation the
sheriff's department provided police service on more of an "as needed" basis. For example,
prior to annexation the Sheriff's Office did not have a motor unit dedicated to traffic and
accident investigation. The City has a traffic unit dedicated to respond to all significant traffic
accidents and provides traffic enforcement on a regular basis. Based upon data of last year,
25% of all traffic citations in the City were written in the Montgomery area and about 33% of
all accidents were within the Montgomery area. Based upon the City's traffic unit data, staff
estimates that traffic enforcement and accident investigation has most likely increased in the
Montgomery area since annexation.
Special Enforcement Proarams
Another significant special enforcement program that has had positive implications for the
Montgomery area is Operation Safe Neighborhood. Over the last year alone, City Council
has appropriated $500,000 in overtime to support the special enforcement operation focuses
enforcement on western Chula Vista.
To obtain specific crime dato for the Montgomery area today would require extensive
analytical work and because records for the Montgomery area are incomplete it would be
difficult to compare with data prior to the annexation. However, generally speaking crime
rates for the City of Chula Vista have decreased significantly since 19B5, from 61 crimes per
1000 population to 39 crimes per 1000 population. Therefore, one could surmise from this
that crime levels in the Montgomery area have fallen as well.
.
As discussed above, increased staffing levels and specialized enforcement programs within
the City has provided a positive impact on levels of police service within the Montgomery
area. Though direct comparisons to the level of service provided by the Sheriff's Department
can not be quantified, municipal level police service usually exceeds that provided on a
county wide level. The City of Chula Vista Police department is committed to providing the
highest level of customer service to all citizens of Chula Vista. This is reflected in the most
recent Police Department Resident Opinion Survey, which showed residents in the sector
which includes the Montgomery annexation, rated the department very high in their
satisfaction rate (87% overall satisfaction).
b. Fire Protedion -
.
~. the City will assume lesponslbdJty fo! file protection In the olea and will continue to
opel ate the eXisting fll e station on Oxford Street.
Adivilv To Date: The 1985 reorganization of the Montgomery Area involved the dissolution of
the Montgomery Fire Protedion Distrid ("MFPD") Upon annexation, the City assumed all fire
protedion responsibilities in the Montgomery Area previously held by MFPD. The Oxford Fire
Station still operates and is currently staffed with the three-person configuration that was the
standard for engine companies at the time.
16 additional city positions were added as part of the Montgomery Annexation. These positions
are as follows:
.12 -
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 - Present)
March 31, 2006
1 Battalion Chief
5 Fire Captains
5 Fire Engineers
4 Firefighters
1 Secretary
Additianally, since the Montgomery Annexation the Fire Department has added 70.5 new
positions in the following areas:
43 additional positions in the Calls for Service Line of Business including (3) Battalion Chiefs,
(15) Captains, (13) Engineers and (12) Firefighters to staff the opening of 3 additional
stations and to staff an additional truck company and a heavy rescue truck.
6 additional positions in the Fire Prevention Bureau including (1) Fire Prevention Engineer, (1)
Public Education Specialist, and (4) Fire Inspectors.
11 additional positions, (1) Fire Communications Manager, (2) Fire Dispatcher Supervisors, and
(8) Fire Dispatchers for the opening of the Fire Communications Dispatch Center.
2 (net) positions in order to formalize the department's training program (2) Fire Engineers and
(1) Fire Captain less (1) Battalion Chief.
8.5 positions in Administration in order to establish a command and an administrative support
structure.
The Montgomery community has benefited from the enhanced staffing and resources that have
been added to the fire prevention bureau overall. These resource enhancements allow the direct
provision of services to the residential and business community including: investigation,
community development, code enforcement and education.
c. Animal Control -
~: The City will provide the some level of onlmal contlol selv;ce provided to all Chula
Vista resIdents, mcludlng patrol servICe and use of the animal shelter located on Otay Valley Road
Activitv To Date: The City provides several services with respect to animal control, dog licensing,
enforcement of animal ordinances, animal adoptions, intake and care of stray and owner
relinquished animals, public safety and other community resources such as responsible pet
ownership programs, on-site low cost rabies and microchip services, community outreach services
with school programs, and programs for boy and girl scouts, and visits to local senior centers
with pets, and a joint effort with SNAP (spay and neuter action project), a San Diego based 501 c
3 organization dedicated to providing low-cost spay/neuter services to area residents.
The Chula Vista Animal Care Facilitv
The Chula Vista Animal Care Facility (CVACF) is located within the "Montgomery area", at
130 Beyer Blvd. The current CVACF site was completed and occupied on 10/22/02. It is
located on 1.7 acres, and currently houses an average of 340 stray and owner-relinquished
animals daily The CVACF consists of a state of the art veterinary medical suite with a full-time
- 13-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 - Present)
March 31, 2006
veterinarian on staff, heated kennels and a modern, low-stress cattery. The facility has
approximately 50 volunteers, largely from the Chula Vista area.
.
Patrol Service
On any given day, 1 to 2 officers are on duty in the 91911 Montgomery area to respond to
calls and patrol the neighborhood, including the 6 parks located in the area. Currently, the
Montgomery area accounts for over 50% of our licensed dog population (4,105 currently
licensed dogs).
.
Future Plans
Future plans may include the creation of the first dog-park in the Montgomery area, proposed
to be located adjacent to the CVACF. The recent creation of a 501 c fundraising organization
to help promote CVACF programs H.E.A.R.T. (Help and Education for Animal Responsibility
Team) will help raise funds to create this park and other projects to help the pets of Chula
Vista.
SOCIAL AND LEISURE SERVICES
a. Library Service.
POSltIOr:L.E..qp_~' No change was expected in the near term ofter annexation. The MontgomelY area
would be Included III the City'S comprehensive faCIlities study, which will examine on-going community
needs rego! ding Ilbt cry services.
Activiiv To Date: After the Montgomery Annexation the City of Chula Vista contracted with the
San Diego County Library to continue to provide library services until an appropriate long-term
plan for library services was prepared. The City contracted with the County for library service
from January 1, 1986 to June 30, 1989 at a cost of approximately $59,800 a year. During that
time period, the County operated the two small branches libraries - Castle Park and Woodlawn
Park.
In 1986, the Library conducted a City-wide Master Plan for library services, which identified the
need for a larger facility to serve the population in the Montgomery Area. The plan said, "that
the branch libraries now operated by the San Diego County Public Library are not of adequate
size and poorly located to serve a broad population".
On July 1, 1989, the City of Chula Vista took over operations of these two small branch libraries.
During this budget cycle, the city appropriated $225,000 for the purchase of new library
materials for the two branches since the County had removed their collection at the end of the
contract. However, both the Castle Park and Woodlawn Park branches continued to have small
staff and were open limited hours. (Attachment 6)
- 14-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 - Present)
March 31, 2006
South Chula Vista Librarv Branch
Based on the Master Plan, in 1990 the Chula Vista Public Library applied for a grant from the
California Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act (Proposition 85) for the construction
of a new library facility for the Montgomery Area.
In 1991, the Library received a $6.7 million grant from the California Library Construction
and Renovation Bond Act to begin construction of the South Chula Vista Library. On April 8,
1995, the 37,000 square foat South Chula Vista Library was opened to the public. The
branch holds a collection of 175,000 volumes, which includes, an extensive Spanish
language collection, a state of the art computer lab, a full service Literacy Center, two
community meeting rooms and study rooms. In addition, the branch offers ESL classes,
computer classes, research databases in English and Spanish, extensive children's
programming, story times, adult and family cultural programs, teen programs, summer
reading programs and year round reading programs for children and teens. Both the Castle
Park and Woodlawn Park branches were closed as a result of the opening of the full service
Sauth Chula Vista Branch.
In 2005, $450,000.00 was spent on renovating the South Chula Vista Branch Library. The
renovation included conversion to the marketplace model, lighting improvements, signage
improvements, exterior painting, fountain repairs, floor repairs and roof repairs. The award
winning library is a great asset to the Montgomery area and the community at large.
After School Proarams
In addition, in FY 98/99 the Library, in partnership with the Chula Vista Elementary School
District, assumed responsibility for the creation and supervision of after school programs for
Chula Vista elementary school students. That year, the Library's Educational Services Division
launched "STRETCH" (Safe Time for Recreation, Enrichment and Tutoring for Children) and
"DASH" (Dynamic After School Hours). The South Chula Vista Branch Library serves as the
administrotive headquarters for both the STRETCH and DASH programs.
STRETC H
STRETCH, an award winning literacy and arts enrichment program, began serving 60
children per day and has since grown to serve 100 children per day. STRETCH is currently
offered at seven Title I schools all in the Montgomery Area (Harborside, Lauderbach, Loma
Verde, Montgomery, Mueller, Otay and Rice). Each site is staffed by a Site Coordinator (.5
FTE), and five hourly Youth Leaders. STRETCH targets children who have been identified by
their teachers as at risk of academic failure, (often due to limited English language and/or
literacy skills), and is designed to provide them with the academic and social "boost" they
need to succeed. Each year the evaluation data received from teachers, parents and students
indicate that the program is highly successful in improving English language and reading
skills, boosting students' confidence and social skills, and improving their academic
performance overall. Parents rave about the academic and social support that STRETCH
provides their children, and express their gratitude that the program is free. The program runs
every school day for 3.25 hours from school dismissal.
- 15-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 - Present)
March 31, 2006
DASH
DASH, consists of a structured activities for approximately 50 children and two DASH leaders
at each site. The program offers sports clinics, arts and crafts and cooperative games. DASH
is offered at two Montgomery Area schools (Kellogg and Palomar).
The cost to operate STRETCH and DASH programs in FY 05/06 serving the Montgomery Area
is approximately $839,506. It is funded by a combination of City general funds, Chula Vista
Elementary School District general funds, and State of California after school grant funds.
b. Recreation Services -
~. Expansion of eXisting plogroms provided at the Lourdelbach Community wele
anticipated as well as the City'S aherschool playground programs would extended to Included the
Lauderboch and MontgomelY elementary schools
Activity To Date: Recreation Services provided within the Montgomery area have significantly
increased since annexation. Upon annexation, previously existing programs were expanded and
both new services and facilities have been established. Prior to annexation the primary recreation
resource for the community was the Lauderbach Community Center. Upon annexation 2.91 FTE
staff were added to operate the facility. Hours were expanded, more classes were offered, a
game room was added, and community use and facility rentals increased. In addition, the City
recognized that there was a need for more community youth activity facilities in the area and
western Chula Vista at large. Therefore, the City began efforts to establish a youth center. In
1988 the City and Sweetwater Union High School District entered into a 40 year ground lease
agreement and the Chula Vista Community Youth Center was built in March 1992. The facility is
used, operated and maintained jointly by the City and the Sweetwater Union High School District.
Residents of the Castle Park and Harborside neighborhoods benefit substantially from this Youth
Center.
Community Partnerships
The City of Chula Vista Recreation Department works in partnership and collaboration with
community, non-profits, schools, and human service organizations to assess and provide
programs and services that reflect community needs and are jointly funded. For example, the
Otay Elementary School is a Healthy Start school and partners with the Otay Community
Center in providing community-wide programs and services. The Otay Community Center,
located at Main Street and Albany, is also a direct result of community and city efforts.
As early as 1992, staff began to hold meetings with residents of the Otay area, including
Montgomery, to determine what recreation programs would benefit them as a community.
There was overwhelming support for a gymnasium and community center and in March
2000, the Otay Community Center was opened. The center is approximately 14,000 square
feet in overall size with a 9,000 square foot gymnasium, fitness center, lobby with game
room, and associated office space. An additional 1,300 square foot classroom will be
constructed in the next year to provide for additional programming opportunities.
- 16-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 _ Present)
March 31,2006
After-School Playa round Proarams
As anticipated, upon annexation, two after-school playground programs were established at
Montgomery and Lauderbach elementary schools. Each after-school program was staffed by
a .33 FTE Recreation Leader and .10 FTE Recreation Aide. Administration and oyersight of
the elementary after-school program transferred to the Educational Services Division of the
Library Department in 1998. In addition, the Recreation Department provides after school
programs for middle school children at the City's six middle schools. One of the middle
schools, Castle Park, is in the Montgomery area. The program provides a safe haven for our
youth and provides an atmosphere where learning, teamwork, fitness, and fun are
emphasized and encouraged. Activities include homework assistance, arts and crafts, special
events such as dance programs, sports, and an exercise fitness program.
The Recreation Department is committed to providing community services with activities that
promote community health and well being for the citizens of Chula Vista. These activities are
diverse recreotional, social, educational and cultural programs provided in community
facilities and school campuses. The Department will continue to work in partnership and
collaboration with community, non-profits, schools, and human service organizations to
assess and provide programs and services that reflect community needs and are jointly
funded.
Mobile Recreation Proaram
In addition, the Department will start a new citywide Mobile Recreation Program in the near
future. This Mobile unit will bring free recreation programs to the community community, into
neighborhood parks and other locations that are not close to recreation centers, to provide
safe and fun activities, and to establish a more visible City presence. The focus will be in
Western Chula Vista where large segments of the population, especially in older parts of
Chula Vista, are underserved, as they are not able to easily access recreational facilities or
afford the cost of recreational classes. Activities are planned that will include, arts and crafts,
traditonal games, recreational team sports, special events and activities that will foster
creativity, emphasize fair play and sharing, learning the value of teamwork and fitness. This
program will provide safe opportunities for children to have fun and interact with other
neighborhood children their age. Harborside Pork, Los Ninos Park, Valle Lindo Park, and
Hilltop Pork are all potential locations. Two of these parks - Harborside and Los Ninos _
serve Montgomery area residents.
c. Park Service -
~: EXIsting parks would be maintained. The City would also strive to Increase the park
acreage ratio to the City standard of 2.0 acres per thousand population
Activity To Date: Since annexation park service has increased within the Montgomery area. The
City Of Chula Vista has a vision to provide much needed parkland on the west side of the City,
and has adopted the Western Chula Vista Infrastructure Financing Program, a multi-million dollar
effort to improve and increase the amount of parkland in the older communities west of Interstate
805. Such efforts include Harborside Park, the first park to be built on the west side of the City
since 1979. Although Harborside Park is located just outside of the Montgomery area boundary,
- 17-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 - Present)
March 31, 2006
this park will serve many residents of the Montgomery area. The 5.21 acre park is designed to
serve members of the community residing within at least a '12 - 3/4 mile radius and was designed
to create a park that would welcome the community by making a visitor feel welcome and
embraced by the park, while at the same time maximizing the recreational use opportunities for
community residents.
Otay Valley Reaional Park
Another park effort that has had a positive impact on the Montgomery area is the Otay Valley
Regional Park. The tri-jurisdictional Otay Valley Regional Park planning effort began in 1990
through the establishment of a joint exercise of powers 'agreement. This agreement
established an organizational structure aimed at maximizing citizen input while planning for a
regional park. The first decade of planning included securing grant funds for the acquisition
of open space, resulting in the public ownership of over 800 acres of regional parkland.
Aside from the acquisition of land, several impartant planning documents have been adopted
or completed. A Concept Plan for the park was prepared and adopted in 2001 by the City of
Chula Vista, the City of San Diego, and the County of San Diego. Other accomplishments
include on-going clean-up efforts within the park, including the removal of 1,100 tons of
debris, preparation of park design standards and guidelines, a natural resource management
plan, a habitat restoration plan, trail guidelines and constructian drawings for the
development of a system of trails and staging areas within the 1-5 to 1-805 segment of the
Otay River Valley. Through the trail system, this regional park has helped provide connectivity
between western Chula Vista and eastern Chula Vista, as well as the region as a whole.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
a. Revenue Appropriation -
.
~: The City would work with the Montgomery Planning Committee to establish a multi-
year phased capito! improvement program aimed at upgrading public facilities such as curbs, guttel"S,
sidewalks, roads, drainage systems, and pOl-kS. The City anticipated spending three to five times as
much as the County did on annual capital improvements, with the program anticipated to exceed $12
rnillion in capital improvernellls. For at least ten (10) years after annexation the City Council would not
form an assessment district in the Montgomery orca tor street improvements such os curbs, gutter-s,
sidewalks or pavement unless property owners representing at least Mo-thirds of the area suppor-ted
such 0 formation.
.
Activi1v To Date: As was proposed in the Council Position paper the City worked with the
Montgomery Planning Committee to identify public facilities and services needs within the
Montgomery area. To date, most of those recommendations have been provided. Since
annexation the City has spent approximately $83.1 million on capital improvement projects in the
Montgomery area. Adjusting for inflation of 3% per year since 1986, the amount spent on ClP's
in the Montgomery area is more thon triple the $12 million anticipated in the Council Position
Paper. Although the City has undertaken many capital improvement projects, it is recognized that
there are still many areas with deficiencies. Through a combination of ClP and annual
rehabilitation programs, the City will continue to address the deficiencies.
- 18-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 _ Present)
March 31, 2006
Street Improvements ond Rehabilitation Proiects
like most areas of the City, the majority of the projects within the Montgomery area were
related to street improvements. The number of individual/site specific projects total well over
one hundred (100). In addition to these projects, the Montgomery area has also seen a
substantial share of the City's varied annual rehabilitation projects. These projects include
pavement rehabilitation, sidewalk rehabilitation, installation of ADA accessible curb ramps,
sewer rehabilitation and corrugated metal pipe (CMP) rehabilitation. No assessment districts
were formed in the Montgomery area in the ten years following annexation to fund such
improvements.
Maior Proiects
In addition to the street related capital projects, the City has also undertaken significant other
efforts that have directly benefited the residents of the Montgomery area. These efforts
include the construction of the South Chula Vista Library ($14+ million), the Otay Recreation
Center ($2.5+ million), the Animal Care Facility ($3.5+ million). Harborside Park ($4+
million) and the Telegraph Canyon Flood Control Channel ($5+ million). Though Otay
Recreation Center and Harborside Park are not technically located within the annexed area,
in both cases, they are surrounded by and directly serve properties within the annexed area.
The detailed breakdown by Project type and total expenditure of funds on capital projects in
the Montgomery area is provided in Attachment 7.
Please note on Attachment 7 that annual expenditures for capital projects by fiscal year since
2000 and combined the years from the annexation through 1999 have been provided as a
single column. The reason for this is that the City's current fiscal management/accounting
system dates back to 2000. Information prior to 2000 is only available in archived storage
files that were not readily available for this report.
b. Street Maintenance -
~. The Montgomery area would be Included In the Cdy's eXisting surface treatment
program as well as In the synchronized traffic signal system
Activity To Date: Street maintenance services were extended to the Montgomery area after
annexation. The current Street Maintenance Program provides asphalt and concrete structure
(streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters) maintenance, and litter removal and trash abatement
services to the public so they can have a safe, clean,
and functional right-of-ways. From calendar years
2000-2005, Public Works Operations spent a total of
$440,403 (includes labor, materials & equipment) for
street related tasks such as potholes, street
reconstructions, etc. General Services provides most of
the maior street repairs, such as slurry seals and
resurfacing or pavement overlays, through construction
contracts. (Attachment 8)
Street Costs for the Monklomerv Area By Year
2000 $35,024
2001 $67,443
2002 $100,801
2003 $53,231
2004 $ 75,569
2005 $108,335
Total: $440,403
- 19-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 - Present)
March 31, 2006
.
Chip Seal Proaram
Though the previous "Chip Seal" program is no longer in effect, the Montgomery area is
included in the City's annual pavement rehabilitation program. That program typically
involves a number of surface treatments including chip seal. The amounts of streets done
every year are a function of that year's funding levels. The streets included in each year's
program are developed from lists based on visual inspection, complaint records and
maintenance records. Most of the major streets (Main Street, Fourth Avenue, Broadway,
Palomar Street) have received far more than chip seals. In some cases, those streets have
been completely reconstructed. The current street surface maintenance program provides a
more complete and regular review of street maintenance than the "Chip Seal" program that
was in effect at the time of annexation.
c. Street Sweeping -
~er. The same level of service would be applied to the MOlltgomelY area as IS provided to
the rest of the Crty of Chulo Vrsto.
.
Activity To Date: Prior to annexation, the County did not provide any regularly scheduled street
sweeping services for the Montgomery Area. The City currently has a contract with Cannon
Pacific Services to provide street sweeping services at a cost of $201,968 per year (citywide). The
agreement covers the sweeping of all City public streets (that have been accepted by the City),
center islands/medians, centerlines, and designated parking lots. Residential streets are swept
once per month. Business streets, such as Fourth Avenue and H Street, are swept once per week.
Center islands, medians and centerlines, located on major streets, are swept twice per month.
Non-curbed streets are swept once per month. Parking lots are swept once per month. Special
sweeping is done on an as-needed basis, such as sweeping after a special event, paid at an
hourly rate as indicated in the agreement. (Attachment 8)
b. Tree Proaram -
~: The city would him 011 stleet and park trees on a regular basIs.
Activity To Date: Prior to annexation, the County did not provide any regularly scheduled tree
trimming services for the Montgomery Area. The City's street tree program provides tree
trimming, reforestation, and preservation services to the community so they can enjoy the benefits
of trees that are healthy, safe and growing in public areas. From calendar years 2000-2005,
Public Works Operations spent a total of $111 ,615 (includes labor, materials & equipment) for
City staff plus $10,295 for contract services for tree trimming services for the Montgomery area
alone. Note that most of the Montgomery Area is not heavily forested, with the exception of the
quadrant between Fifth and Industrial, from L Street to Naples.
In addition, the City has participated in the People for Trees Program. This program provides
free trees to residents in an effort to save energy and money, improve air quality, improve
neighborhood appearance, and reduced storm run-off. Through this program, over 100 trees
have been provided to residents in the Montgomery area alone.
- 20-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 _ Present)
March 31, 2006
c, Storm Drain Construction _
~: Storm drain construction would be accelelOted, drainage maintenance impraved, and
flooding potential decreased. A comprehensive dlOinage pion would be developed for the olea. The
City anticipated that the City would contribute approximately $4 mi1lion to the Telegwph Canyon
Channel improvement effort.
Activilv To Date: City efforts have been committed to improving storm drain construction,
drainage maintenance and decreasing flooding potential within the Montgomery area, as well as
the City overall. Approximately 10% of the Drainage Master Plan total expenditures have been
spent within the Montgomery area. To date there have been 29 drainage improvement projects
within the Montgomery area and approximately $5.7 million hos been spent on the Telegraph
Canyon Channel improvement effort. (Refer bock to Attachment 7)
d. Montaomerv Sewer District and Sewer Fees -
~: the Montgomery Sewer District would be dissolved and there would be no change in
regular sewer service charges immediately after annexation. The sewer connection fee would be
reduced from $1,000 to $300 per SFD. Once Montgomel"Y Sewer District reserves were depleted, the
City could review sewer service in the Montgomery area, including sewer connection charges and could
establish new charges that reflected the maintenance costs and charges for the City-wide system.
Activilv to Date: The City assumed responsibility for providing sewer service to the Montgomery
areo on July 1, 1986. As anticipoted in the 1985 Council Position report, there was "no change
in regular sewer service charges for the near future:' with Montgomery orea residents
experiencing no chonge in sewer rates until FY 1989 and then continuing to pay a reduced rate
as compared to the rest of the City until FY 1993.
Following annexation, Montgomery Sewer District reserves were placed in a separate account
and used to maintain and benefit the existing Montgomery sewer system. For a period of time,
the City of Chula Vista maintained a distinction between the Montgomery Area and the Pre-
Annexation Chula Vista Area. Each area had distinct funds from which revenues were accrued
and expenditures were made. (Attachment 9 shows the adjustments in greoter detail).
Sewer Manaaement
In 1993, the City of Chula Vista resolved to eliminate the distinction between Montgomery
Annexation Area and pre-annexation City of Chula Visto areas and treat both areas of the
City the same way. Council odopted Resolution 1993-17143 approving the adoption of the
finol budget for the City of Chula Vista for FY 93/94. The resolution further authorized the
Finance Director to merge the Montgomery Sewer Service Revenue Fund into the Sewer
Service Revenue Fund and merge the Montgomery Sewer Replacement Fund into the Sewer
Focilities Replocement Fund. Since the bulk of the City's Sewer Service Revenue expenditure is
primorily used to pay the City of San Diego for wastewater treatment, and since the City of
Son Diego mokes no distinction between the flows generated in the Montgomery Area and
the rest of the City, merging of these funds increased administrative efficiency.
- 21 -
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 - Present)
March 31, 2006
e. Street Liahtina Distrid -
E9~. The area will be lemoved f,am the SpeCial Street Light D,stllct and lesldents and
businesses would no longer be requited to pay a speCial s118et Ilghllng fep
Adivity to Date: Upon annexation, the area was removed from the Special Street light Distrid
and by FY 1987 residents and businesses were relieved of the $185,000 paid through a special
street lighting fee. The City of Chula Vista has assumed full responsibility for street lighting.
Beginning in 1991, there has been $6,374,000 spent in utility undergrounding projeds. This
total does not include associated street improvements. (Attachment 9)
On the capital side, there have been 24 traffic related projeds within the Montgomery area.
These projeds are made up principally of traffic signal installations, modifications, upgrades or
street light installation.
FISCAL ISSUES
a. Taxes and Fees -
~. Neither taxes nor fees would significantly change for MontgomelY Residents In the City
compared to the County
Activity To Date: The City Council Position paper provided a chart that compared taxes and fees
in the County and in the City. This chart showed that with resped to taxes and fees the County
and City were very similar overall. The City's very small bonded indebtedness listed in the
Council Position paper was paid off in 1990.
b. Area Revenues -
~. Revenues generated in the Montgomery area would be spent to plovlde the same level
of municipal services as the rest of the city, and 10 provide fOI an extensive capital Improvement
program to upgrade public fad dies In the Olea.
Activity To Date: Although it is very difficult to accurately quantify the City's adual operating costs
in the Montgomery area, staff believes that the City spends more in operating cost per capita in
the Montgomery area than in the overall City. As indicated in Attachment 10, per capita City
revenues from the Montgomery area are lower than for the overall City. Thus staff believes that
the City spends more in the Montgomery area than it receives in revenue from the area. Prior to
annexation, the County is thought to have spent less in the Montgomery area than it received in
revenue from the area.
As discussed within the public facilities sedion a significant amount of capital improvement funds
have been used within the Montgomery area to upgrade public facilities and infrastrudure.
- 22-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 _ Present)
March 31, 2006
MISCELLANEOUS
a. Trash Service -
~. Trash service would remain at the eXisting level. At such titTle feasible, the City would
try to renegoliate the eXisting trash collection fee to the same rate pOld by Chula Vista resldenJs.
Activilv To Date: The City provides a full service Recycling and Conservation Program. Services
include: trash (solid waste) hauling & recycling services, and household hazardous waste
disposal. The City has worked to accomplish franchise agreements for these services that
maximize service quality and reduce cast, provide printed and/or electronic public information on
services available and respond efficiently and effectively to consumer inquiries no later than the
next business day.
The Recycling and Conservation Program staff also promote and implement environmentally
sustainable practices for City facilities, programs and the community. Staff works to identify the
resources and provide the technical assistance needed to develop and maintain sustainable
practices throughout the city.
b. Mobilehome Rent Mediation -
~: The City'S Mobdehome Space Rent Medlotion Ordinance and Mobilehome Issues
Committee would extend to Include Montgomery.
Activilv To Date: The City of Chula Vista Mobilehome Space Rent Review Code sets up
procedures which must be followed with respect to space rent increases as well as establishes the
responsibilities of the Chula Vista Mobilehome Rent Review Commission. The Chula Vista
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission works with both park owners and tenants to resolve
disputes, provide guidance in changes of ownership and space rent matters. A large number of
the City's mobilehome parks are contained within the Montgomery area. These residents directly
benefit from the City's Mobilehome Space Rent Review.
c. Counlv Flood Control District _
~: The City would assume responsibility for County flood control d'StllctS.
Activilv To Date: The City has assumed responsibility for County flood service oreas.
- 23-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 . Present)
March 31, 2006
SPECIAL TRANSITION PROCESSES
a. Transition-
PositjQJ.lEgpsI: The City estimated that it would provide virtually all municipal services 10 the orea by
July 1, 1986 and anticipated that additional slaff and equipm8nt would be required. In addition one
qualified member from the Montgomery area would be appointed to each of the City's twelve nOIl-
charter established advisol-Y boards and commissions.
Activilv To Date: The City took responsibility of virtually all municipal services to the Mantgomery
area by July 1, 1986 unless it was determined that a greater benefit to the residents would be
achieved by contracting necessary services. In addition, July 1, 1986 was the effective date of the
dissolution of the Montgamery Sanitation District and the transfer of wastewater services to the
City. To date, all municipal level services are provided to the Montgomery area by the City of
Chula Vista. As proposed in the paper, one member of the Montgomery area was initially
appointed to each of the twelve advisory boards and commissions.
C. Future Plans
The recent General Plan Update utilized the policy framework of the Montgomery Specific Plan to
develop the Southwest Area Plan, which comprises the subareas of Montgomery and Castle Park.
With the update of the General Plan, the stage is set to proceed with a zoning code update and
the develapment af specific plans and/or zoning that will carry out the objectives outlined within
the Southwest Area of the General Plan.
The Five Plannina Districts
The Southwest Planning area delineates five Planning Districts (South Third Avenue, South
Broadway, Palomar Gateway, West Fairfield, and Main Street), all within the Montgomery
Subarea. These five planning districts are the primary focus of the objectives and policies found
in the Southwest area of the General Plan and a vision for each was developed. In addition, the
Montgomery Subarea plan identifies proposals for change and improvement and provides the
appropriate policies that will guide implementation of the visian for each district.
.
The recent update of the General Plan, subsequent preparation of specific plans, and/or
rezonings and continued City service efforts are important to sustaining the Montgomery area as
a community.
These efforts coupled with developer interest in that portion of the City will be the catalyst for both
new development and redevelopment with in area. In addition, there are several CIP projects
planned for the area that will further enhance the community as a whole.
Recentlv ADD roved CaDitallmDrovement Proiects
Some of the recently approved ClP projects include: a $2.2 million drainage project on Emerson
Street, $ 703,470 for Castle Park Elementary sidewalks and partial street re-construction,
an $ 1,011,100 street improvement project on Tobias Dr. (Naples - Oxford), and an $ 890,256
Dixon Dr. (Naples - Oxford) Both of these projects included the constructing of sidewalks,
- 24-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 _ Present)
March 31, 2006
pedestrian ramps, and associated driveways and driveway aprons. In addition, City Council
recently authorized staff to prepare and submit an application to the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a $9.5 Million Section 108 loan to pay for a portion
of the improvements within the Montgomery area.
- 25-
THE MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
An Overview of Municipal Services, Infrastructure and Governance (1986 - Present)
March 31, 2006
VI. CONCLUSION
Cities commonly seek to annex territory for purposes of future development plans and/or
financial gain. In the case of Montgomery, revenues transferred to the City of Chula Vista upon
annexation were not, and are not, sufficient to fully fund the City's costs for increased service
levels and public improvements. Annexation of the fully developed area, however, was a "good
government" policy decision by all parties involved to facilitate the enhancement of municipal
services, infrastructure, governance, and the overall quality of life in Montgomery.
To serve the Montgomery area after annexation, this City increased staffing in its core service
departments, increased budgeting and expenditures for key services and facilities in the area,
and initiated a host of capital improvement projects to begin a long-term effort to improve the
area's ailing infrastructure. The previous sections of this report provide a detail account of these
various activities and clearly exhibit the public benefits that annexation provided to Montgomery
residents. This report also clearly recognizes that significant infrastructure deficiencies continue to
exist today, and that future plans and the City Council's ongoing commitment to serving the
Southwest will be the key to successfully addressing those deficiencies.
.
- 26-
..
A IT ACHMENT 1
o
01
CD
is
c:
co
(J)
-
o
>-
'E
::J
o
U
o
01
CD
is
c:
co
(J)
-
o
>-
'E
::J
o
U
o
01
CD
is
c:
co
(J)
-
o
~
<3
o
01
CD
is
c:
co
(J)
-
o
~
<3
>-
-
<3 >-
(ij c::
c: W
0
~ :2<(
z Ow
- CJC::
0 1-<( co
>- CD
- Z CD
<3 0 (ij
:2 '<::
CD
Q,
.E
-
0
~
<3
EXHIBIT A
(
CITY COUNCIL POSITION PAPER ON THE
PROPOSED MONTGOMERY ANNEXATION
September 24, 1985
1'2 I 77
On November 5, 1985, the' citizens of the San Diego County area currently
within the Montgomer,y Fire Protection Distrjct will be voting on the issue of
an/lexation to the 'City of Chula: Vista. The Chula Vista City Council has
adopted ,this ' "position paper" in order to:
' "
Establish the City's policies related to the potential annexation of
the area;
Help the residents of the area understand what effects ancnexation
would have on them;
Assist City officials in answering questions concerning the proposed
annexation;
r'-
Provide early planning that would help usure a smooth transition of.
the area into the City if its residents vote to annex to Chula Vista.
The City's underlying pQlicies regarding the potential annexation' of the area
currently served by the Montgomer,y Fire Protection District are:
1. Revenues generated in Montgomer,y will be spent in Montgomer,y to
provide the' area with the samE! level of' municipal services as the
rest of the City and to provide for an extensive capital improvement
program to upgrade public facilities 'in" the area such as curbs,
gutters, sidewalks. roads, drainage,systems, and parks.
2. Recognizing the uniqueness aM size of this potential annexation, the
City will provide special processes to insure a smooth transition' of
the area into the City,.
The remainder of thi s document sUllmari zes the Ci ty' s policies regarding
specific service and fiscal questions related to the proposed annexation. The
issues will be discussed in the fallowing categories: '
Zoning and Development Issues
Public Safety
Social and leisure Services
Public Facilities
Fiscal Issues
Miscellaneous Issues
Special Transition Processes
EXHIBIT A
Attachment 2
A. ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
1. HOW I/ILL LAND USES IN THE AREA CURRENTLY WITHIN THE ~NTGOMERY FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT BE CHANGED UPON ANNEXATION. TO THE CITY OF CIIJLA
VISTA? .
~';y
"
County zoning regulations will continue to prevail while a study is
"',. conducted to detennine the relationship of existing development,
County zoning regulations and prop1!lsed City zoning for the area. The
Montgomery P1 anning Conmittee will re.view these i sSlles. and make
recOlll1lendations to the Planning COlllllission and Cfty .Council 0n a
proposed zoning plan. Public I'Iearings will be conducted to help
develop the zoning plan. .-
-. .'
,-
Exist.ing legal land uses in the area will not. be changed. Those
legal land uses t.hat do not conform to. the governing zoning
regulations will be allowed to remain as nonconforming land uses as
long as the use remai ns in operat1-o.lI.
2. HOW WILL ZONING ENFORCEMENT IN THE AREA BE CARRIED OUT UPON
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY?
Whil e County zoni ng conti nues to apply,. the Ci ty wi 11 enforce. the
County zoning standards. This will probably be. done by responding to
complaints in regard to .zoning violations. When the City zoning
takes effect, the City will then enforce the City standards in the
area, with existing legal land uses allowed to continue, as described
in Question 1. .
3. \lILL THE HOUSING. REHABILITATION PROGRAM (CHIP) iN THE AREA. BE
CHANGED UPON .ANNEXATlON? . .
It appears that the present Housing Reltabi1itation Program being
administered by the County will be extended for at least one more
year. . /\fter that the City will expand its program, which is equal to
or better than the County program, into the area.
ifIll AllOR PART OF THE AREA BE ESTABlISHED AS A. REDEVElOPMENT
PROJECT AFTER ANNEXATION? .
4.
,
As part of an agreement with the County, the City has agreed not to
form a Redevelopment Project that would include any area currently
served by the l~ontgOlllery Fire Protectioll District for .at . least four
years after the effective date of the annexation. Redevelopment
W1!Iuld require broad community support in a joint public/private
sector effort. The. City would worle. with. the cOlllllubity to detennine
the desirability and feasibility of redevelopment.
- 2 -
,,-,-,
(2-//) .
(
5. HOIl WILL THE MOIITGOMERV PLANNING ClM4ITTEE BE INrrGRATED INTO THE
CITY'S PLANNING PROCESS AFTER ANNEXATION?
The Montgomery Planning Collllllittee wnl function as an advisory body
to the. Planning Commission and Ci~ Council for issues affecting the
area. The CoDl1littee will formulate recommendations on 1.11 types of
land use applications filed within the area. In addition, the
Committee will be charged with the responsibility of recoR1llending a
COR1IIunity Plan for the area.
Primary staffing for the Montgomery Planning Committee will come from
the City's Planning and Engineering Departments, In addition,
COR1IIunity Development and other City departments would support this
effort as needed.
-.
B. PUBLIC SAFm
6. IlHAT LEVEl OF POLICE PROTECTION WILl, BE PROVIDED IN THE AREA UPON
ANNEXATION?
(
The Ci~ will provide police protection equivalent to that provided
in the City. .At least 25 positions will be added. to the City's
Police Department:in order to bring the area's police service up to a
level equivalent to that provided in the City. The additional Police
Department positions would include at least the following:
15 Patrol Staff
4 Investi gathe staff
1 Evidence Technician
1 CODI1Iunication Operator
I Animal Control Officer
3 Clerical Staff
"3 Additional Police Positions
7.
IlHAT LEVEL OF FIRE PROTECTION WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE AREA UPOH
ANNEXATION? .
There will be no change in the area's level of fire prevention and
suppression service. Both the Chul a Vi sta and Montgomery Fire
Protection District firefighters receive the same type of training
and all. are trained as Emergency Medical Technicians (ENT).
The Fire Protection District wil1 be dissolved on the effective date
of the annexation, when the City will assume responsibility for fire
protection in the area. The City will continue to operate the
existing Fire Protection District station on Oxford Street.'
.. 3 -
8. WHAT LEVEL OF ANIMAL comOL SERVICE WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE AREA
UPON.ANNEXAT10H?
~
\
The City will provide the same level of. animal control service
provided to Chula Vista residents including patrol services from 6:30
a.m. to 6:30 p.m. most weekdays and on Saturday. afternoons. The
animal shelter is located at 690 Otay Valley Road and is normally
open 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through' Friday and 9:00 a.m. to
noon on Saturday.
C. SOCIAL AND LEISURE SERVICES
9.HO\/ WILL LIBRARY SERVICE BE PROVIDED IN THE AREA UPON ANNEXATION?
No change is expectell in the foreseeable future in the level of
libra~ service provided in the area. Residents of the area
currently borrow almost as many books from the Chula Vista Public
Libra~ 159,,000 per year) as .frCICII the two County branch libraries
163,000) in Castle Parle and Woodlawn. The City and County have
agreed to keep the two County branch 1 ibraries open for the
foreseeable future after annexation by keeping the area within the
existing County Library Di strict. Under thi s agreement, the City
will pay the County the'difference between the operating cost of the
two branch libraries and the District's revenue generated in the are.a.
The City is already planning to conduct a comprehensive facilities
study which win include libra~ facil'lties and 'will examine ongoing
community needs regarding libra~ services. . Upon annexation the area
will' be included in this City-wide study to establish a plan for
appropriate long-term library services and facilities. . .
10. WHAT LEVEL OF RECREATION SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED UPON ANNEXATION?
The.City will enter into negotiations with MAAC, the County's current
contractor, to continue providing programs at the Lauderoach
Community. Center. To complement those programs, the City will offer
more' general recreation services at the Center and. will start
providing weekend classes and recreational opportunities. In
addition.. the City will provide after sch,ool .playground programs at
both the Lauderoach and Montgomery el ementary schools. The after
school playground progrll1ls already being provided by the City at the
Haroorside, Rice, Castle Park, and Otay elementary schools will
continue to be available to area residents.
11. WHAT LEVEL OF PARK SERVICE WILL BE PROVIDED UPON ANlI!XAnON?
The City will 1IIaintafn the existing paries adjacent to the Lauderoach
and Woodlawn CORIIWnity Centers, either by contract or by City staff.
The City would alStil strive to increase the amount of park acreage
from the area's current ratio of 0.2 acres per thousand population to
the City's standard of 2.0 acres per thousand population.
\.
- 4 -
.
~,
(
!-"; 12?
D. PUBLIC FACILITIES
12. HOW WILL THE, CITY UPGRADE THE MONTGOMERY AREA WITH THE REVENUES
GENERATED IN TIlE AREA AFTER ANHEXATION?
The City will worle with' the Montgomer:y Plannill9 Committee to
establish a IIIIIlti-year phased capital improvement program aimed at
IIpgrading public facilities in the area such as curbs, gutters,
sidew<11ks, roads, drain<1g-e systems, and parks. The total cost of the
prograra is expected to exceed $12 million with tile City using Gas Tax
Funds, Community Development Blod Grant funds, general funds, and
other slllurces to finance the capital imprOvements. The City intends
to spend three to fhe times as much as the County currently does on
annual capital improvements. .
The County has agreed that any Conmunity Development Black _ Grant
projects funded pri or to an-nention and under constructilln will be
completed by the County,
(
,s.ssessment districts can al so be formed for street improvements if
desired by the cmnnunity. However, for at least ten years after the
effective date of the annexation, the City Council- will not fonn an
assessment district in the Montgomery area for street improvements
(curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or pavement) unless property owners
representing at le.st 2/3 of the area in the proposed district
support its fonnati on,
13, WHAT LEVEL OF STREET MAINTENANCE WIll BE PROVIDED IN TIlE AREA UPON
ANNEXATION? - -,
Overall street maintenance will improve upon annexation, since the
- City's maintenance standards are considerably hfgher than the
COU11ty'S. Potholes will be repaired more frequently, streets will be
resurfaced more frequently, and shoulders on unimproved streets will
be bladed (leveled) more frequently.
The City will extend its .chip seal. program, which has received
nationwide acclaim, to roads in the area. Major streets will be chip
sealed every 8 to 10 years and local streets every 15 to 20 years.
In addition, the City will upgrade and expand its eXisting
synchronized (computerized) traffic signal system into the area,
which currently does not have synchronized traffic signals.
14. WHAT LEVEL OF STREET SWEEPING WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE, AREA UPON
ANNEXATION?
The City will pTO'Yide tJile same level of street sweeping services
proYi ded to the rest of tile Ci ty. Streets ill resi denti a 1 areas wi 11
be swept twk1! . _th ,nd streets in comnercial areas three times a
week. Street S1Ieepi ng is currently not provi ded i II the area on any
regular schedule.
- 5 -
,
-<
,>
15. WILL THE CITY'S STREET TREE PROGRAM BE EXTENDED INTO lliE AREA UPON'
ANNEXATION?
The City, which has been designated a "Tree Ci1;y USA" each of the
last five years, will eJl:tend its street" tree progr-am into the area.
The City will trim all s.treet and park trees on a regular basis.
Street trees in the area are currently trillllled only when hazardous
conditions require it.
16. HOW WILL STORM DRAIN CONSTRUCTIOff AND MAINTENANCE IN THE AREA BE
AFFECTED BY ANNEXATION?
Stom drain construction will be accelerated, drainage maintenance
improved, and flooding potential decreased. A comprehensive drainage
plan and capital imprmvenient program will be develmped for the area
as has been done for the rest of the City.
The City will eJl:pen4 approxiMately $4 million fallowing anneJl:ation as
its share !If the Telegraph Canyon ChaMel improvement to be
constructed w~th the U. S. Corps of Engineers. .
17. WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE MONTGOMERY SEWER DISTRICT AND TO SEWER FEES
UPON ANNEXATIQN?
There will be no change in regular sewer service charges for the near
future. On July 1, 1986, "the Montgomery Sani"tation (Sewer) District
will be dissolved and the City will take over sewer maintenance.
Montgomery' SeWer District reseMiesw111. be placed in a separate
account and used to. maintain and benefit the exiSting. Montgomery
sewer system. The sewer con.necti on fee will be reduced from $1 ,000
to $300 per single fl!lli1y dwelling. As. Montgomery Sewer District
reserves are depleted,. the Cfty will .review exiSting Montgomery sewer
service and sewer connection charges and may estAblish new charges
that reflect the maintenance costs and charges for the City-wide
Sys"tem!. .
18. WHAT- WILL HAPPEN TO THE STREET LIGHTDI& DISTRICT AIID RELATED FEES
UPON. ANNEXATION? . .
. The City-will assume responsibility for s"treet 11ghting in the area
within a year of annexation, and the area will be removed frl!llll the
County's Street Light District. At that time, the City will pay for
street 11 ghting, .and residents 'and businesses in the area will no
longer be. required .t13 pay a special street lighting fee;
- 6 -
~/
( E. fISCAL ISSUES . 1'1 ( 7-7
19. HOW WILL TAXES AND FEES CHANGE FOR AREA RESIDENTS UPON ANNEXATION?
To show how annexation to Chu1a Vista might affect the taxes and fees
Montgomery resi dents are currently payi ng, the folT owi n9 1i st has
been developed u representatiYe of the IIIOSt clHllllOn relevant costs to
area res i dents:
ITEM
COOLA VISTA
COUNTY
Property Taxes
n of assessed
value
11 of assessed
val ue
Bonded Indebtedness(a),
$3.41 per year until 1990
(based,I)'n $75,000 house)
-0-
$64.80 per year (would not
apply to Montgomery)
$300 per dwelling. unit
-0-
Street Lighting Fee
Sewer Service Charge(b)
$15 per year
$39 per year
Sewer Connection Fee
$1.000 per
dwelling unit
Approx. $30 per year -0-
(certain exemptions are
avail ab1 e)
Utility Users Tax(C)
(
Trash Service(d)
$73.20,per year (would not $89.40 per year
automatically apply to
Montgomery )
Dog Licenses
1 'fear
2 Years
$ 9
$16;50
$14
$23.
Development Fees
Generally the same or higher in the County
than in the City
'\
(a) Chuli Vista's Police Building bonds would cost $3.41 per year for a
homeowner with II. house assessed at $75,000.' When these bonds are
paid off in 1990, this charge will be eliminated.
(b) The Montgomery sewer service charge would not be increa"sed in the
near future after annexation, as explained in Question 18.
(c) The City offers senior citizens (age 62 or older) with incomes of
$7500 or less an exemption .from this tax. which is based on gas,
electric. and phone usage. If qualified senior citizens are on a
master meter for gas and electric, they cln receive a $12 rebate and
the regular exemption for the tax on phone usage.
(d) The cost of trash service in the area would not automatically be
reduced by annexation, but the City woul d attempt to. negotiate a
lower rate for the area, as explained in Question 22.
20. IF THE AREA DECIDES TO ANIlEX, HOW WILL THE CITY USE REVENUES FROM
THE AREA?
~-
Revenues generated in Montgomery will be spent in Montgomery to
provide the area with the sallie level of munidpal services as the
rest of the City and to provide for an extensive capital impro~ment
program to upgrade public filcH fties in the area stich as curbs.
gutters. sidewalks, roads. drainage systems. and parks.
. The area currently is paying s1gl'lificantly more in taxes and fees
than it is receiving in services and capiul improvements. The
County uses' its surplus revenues from the area to provide services
and programs in other parts of the County.
F. M I SCELLAIIEOUS
21. HOW WILL ANNEXATION AFFECT EXISTING TRASH SERVICE TO THE AREA?
Area residents will receive the level of trash service currently
provided by the Sanitary Service. This level of service' is
guaranteed to be del fvered by the State GOYernrne1'lt Code for a mi nimum
of five years after annexation or until. such time as the existing
franchise holder sells his franchise. The City will attempt to
renegotiate the. eXisting trash collection fees in the area to the
same, lower rate currently paid by Chula Vista residents.
22. HOW WILL THE CITY'S M(jBIlEHOME RElIT MEDIATION PROCESS APPLY TO THE
AREA UPON ANNEXATION?
The City's Mobilehome Space Rent Mediation Ordinance. will. become
effective in the area upon annexation. The County has no similar
procedures for negotiating disputed rent increases in mobilehome
parks.
The City's ordinance provides that when a cumulative rent increase in
a calendar year exceeds the 'previous 12 months' residential rent
component of the Consumer Price Index. a' negotiation/mediation
process may be initiated if a majority of a park's residents sign a
petiti an disputi ng the rent increAse. The process requires
participation by both parties in the negotiation and mediation
process. The results of the process are not binding.
.In addition. the City has established a Mobilehame Issues Committee,
whir:h 15 cD1llposed of park oWllers and park .residents. The Committee
meets IIIOIIthly to disc\lss 'issues related to mobilehame life /lnd to
advise the Ci t.1 Council on such issues. '
,
,
- B-
',,--. ~.
~,
! 2.-17;)
23. WHAT EFFECT WILL AHNEXATION OF THE AREA HAVE UPON THE EXISTING
COUNTY FtoOQ, CONTRoL DISTRICT - ZONES 3 & 4 AND THE COUNTY SERVICE
AREAS: NO. 42 (ZONES A & B)-IlOOOLAWN PARK; NO. 62-MONTGDMERY PARKS;
NO. 56-VAllEY AVENUE; AHD NO. 98-DATE COURT?
' ,
County Service Areas No. 42. 62, 66 and 98 will be dissolved, upon
annexation lind'the City will assume responsibility. 'Similarly, the,
area will be removed from the County Flood Control District and the
City will assume responsibility.
G. SPECIAL TRANSITION PROCESSES
24. WHEN WILL THE ANNEXATION BECOME EFFECTIVE AND HOW WILL TIE
TRANSITION FROM THE COUNTY TO THE cm BE KARDLED?
c
If the citizens of the area currently within the Montgomery Fire
Protection District vote on November' 5, 1985 to annex'to Chula Yirta,
the annexation win become effective by the end of Dec:ember 1985.
In order to provide the area with the, same level of municipal
services as the rest of Chula Yi'sta, the City will hi re 1IIiI!Iy
additional staff and purchase a signif1cant amoun't of equipment, To
provide adequate time to obtain this staff and equipment, the City
may contract with the County to 'continue provi di ng some services for
a few months. By' July 1, 1986, hOWever, the City intends to provide
virtual1y all municipal services to the a,rea, as described previously
in this document.'
To help insure a smooth transition of the area into Chula Vista, the
, City: will also provide several, other speci,!l processes. The
Montgomery Planning CO!ll1littee will be estab1fshed as an advisory
cO!ll1littee to the Planning Commisshn and City Council for the area.
The CO!ll1littee wi 11 formu1 ate a recommended Community Plan, provide
recO!ll1lendations for all types of 1a'nd use aPP1fcations filed in the
area, and help develop a multi-year capital improvement program to
upgrade public facilities in the area.
The City also will. temporarily add IiIne qualified member, to be
appointed from the Montgomery' area, to each of the City's twelve
non~Charter established,advisor,y boards and commissions. The number
of members on these adYisor,y boards and commissions would revert to
,the previous number when the member appointed from the Montgomer,y
area could beassimf1ated withfn the regular number of members.
The City' Co'uncil holds meetings fA Chula Vi sta's Civic Center oil the
first foar Tuesdays of eyery mo,nth. Th~ meeting on the fii"st Tuesday
of each R\O,nth fs held lit 4:00 11.111. and the lilt her reguhr meetings are
at 7:00 p.m. One portiol! of eac'h meeting f.s devlilted to Oral
COOIIIunications, when members of the audiellCe 'are invited to address
the Council on items of cOm:erl'l to them. This forum ~n provide 'an
addJtiona1 opportunity to help inSure that the City meets the needs
of new as well 'as current Chu1a Vista residents.
WPC ,07121
- 9 -
en
CD
en
S I'G
enU
>'E
.!!! CD
::J E
..c: CD
U ~
...02
o c
.c:-w
.- CD
U"O
o
U
~
'"
E
o
~ B'
'" <::
.s:: 0
15 :::;:
!:J .
o
o
It)
N
..
CO
ell
>-
M
f-
z:
u.J
::0:
:J:
U
'"
f-
f-
""
N CD
M ...
M 'ot
...
co CO
... M
N 'ot
...
'ot ...
CO '"
M ...
...
... en
... N
CD ...
...
... N
... '"
M ...
...
en SI
;;I; M
M en
... en
... N
...
... co
en C>
... M
...
~ co
en
C> N
...
C> M
... C>
en N
CD ...
'" C>
C> M
...
CD en
M ...
M M
...
M ... g:1
en '"
en ... ...
...
~
ell
E
0
.. CII
-
ell I:
.s:: 0
- ::!!
0
!:J .
o
o
o
N
o
o
It)
~
o
o
o
~
o
o
It)
sase:>
..
COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 18624
(AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 1536)
JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISSOLVING THE SOUTHWEST PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
AND ESTABLISHING THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS THE
RECOMMENDING BODY FOR PROJECTS' LOCATED IN THE
SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
WHEREAS, the Southwest Project Area Committee was established pursuant to
California Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33385, et seq.) by City
Council resolution on July 17, 1990; and
WHEREAS. the Southwest Project Area was adopted in December 1990; and
WHEREAS, the California Redevelopment Law allows for established Project Area
Committees to be dissolved by local jurisdictions three years after adoption of the project
area; and
WHEREAS, the Southwest Project Area Committee expired by its own terms in
December 1993, and the "Rules and By-Laws" were replaced with revised "Roles and
Functions" by Redevelopment Agency resolution in March 1993; and
,- WHEREAS, by Council Ordinance in November 1993, the Council dissolved the
Montgomery Planning Committee and seated the remaining members on the Southwest
Project Area Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Southwest Project Area Committee has only four (4) current members
on a nine (9) seat committee and is. therefore, not able to conduct business due to a lack of
quorum; and
WHEREAS, staff has not been successful in recruiting members to serve on the
Southwest Project Area Committee pursuant to the established rules and procedures for filling
such vacancies; and
WHEREAS, staff has been processing development projects located in the Southwest
Project Area through the Planning Commission for recommendations prior to the projects being
presented to the City Council and/or Redevelopment Agency for consideration pursuant to the
authority granted in the Zoning Ordinance of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and the
Southwest Redevelopment Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and
the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency do hereby dissolve the Southwest Project Area
Committee and establishes the Planning Commission as the recommending body for projects
located in the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
...,--
r!L ~n~
Chris Salomone
Director of Community Development
- -
Attachment 4
Resolution 18624
Page 2
--
PASSED. APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 15th day of April, 1997. by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers:
Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Salas, and Horton
NAYES:
Council members:
None
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
None
ABSTAIN:
Councilmembers:
None
~~
~irleY Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
~ a (2a~Dfij)
Beverly . Authelet, City Clerk
-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
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. 18624 was duly passed. approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 15th day of April,
1997.
Executed this 15th day of April, 1997.
r--
n
JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
REVIEWED BY:
I 'Fl, 2.4
Resolution I S.3 " Authorizing the dissolution of the Southwest
Project Area Committee and establishing the Planning Commission as the
recommending body to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency for
projects located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area
Community Devel~!'.a irector C.S I
Planning Directorrp. r- LP~
Executive Director r.;
Item ..3
Meeting Date 04/15/97
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Ji~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No.X..!
The Southwest Project Area Committee (SWPAC) was formed pursuant to California
Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33385, et seq.) by Council resolution on
July 17, 1990. The Southwest Project Area was subsequently adopted in December 1990.
Project Area Committees were established to provide local residents direct representation and
certain rights of review on redevelopment matters which could affect their neighborhood. Of
particular concern, are project areas that could potentially experience significant residential
relocation activity and loss of low and moderate income housing units. State law provides for
these committees to have a limited term of three years after adoption of the redevelopment plan
unless the local jurisdiction allows for their continuance, which has been the practice in Chula
Vista.
In response to permit streamlining recommendations by the Economic Development Commission
(EDC). the Redevelopment Agency modified the original EDC recommendation to dissolve all of the
redevelopment project area committees, and instead, adopted revised "roles and functions" for the
Town Centre, Otay Valley Road, and Southwest Project Area Committees in March 1993 (included
as Attachments 1 and 1 A). The revised roles and functions were adopted by Agency resolution
in order to facilitate a more "business friendly" environment while also retaining the public input
benefits of a community planning committee. The Council/Agency took subsequent action in
August 1993 to dissolve the Montgomery Planning Committee and seat the remaining members
on the SWPAC. This action was formalized by ordinance, after a Public Hearing, on November 9,
1 993. It was the expectation that the consolidation of the two committees would galvanize the
group into a more cohesive and effective review body.
Unfortunately, this has not been the case. The SWPAC has suffered from a general lack of
interest which has resulted in various resignations and the inability to fill vacancies. Currently,
there are only four of nine seats filled, and thus a quorum is not possible. (Roster included as
Attachment 2.) As part of Council/Agency discussion ofthe "Mace Street Trash Transfer Station"
project on January 21, 1997, (which was a project proposed in Southwest) staff was directed to
come back with a report on the possibility of dissolving the SWPAC (minutes included as
Attachment 3).
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council and Redevelopment Agency adopt
the resolution which dissolves the Southwest Project Area Committee and formally establishes the
Planning Commission as the recommending body to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency
for projects located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area.
.3 -I
Page 3. Item ~
Meeting Date 04/15/97
Existing Protections in Redevelopment Law and Southwest Redevelopment Plan
As discussed previously, the SWPAC is unable to conduct business due to the inability to establish
a quorum. Therefore, over the last several months, the Community Development and Planning
departments have been processing Southwest projects through the Planning Commission pursuant
to authority granted in the Southwest Redevelopment Plan and the City's Zoning Ordinance. This
was implemented in order to ensure that Southwest projects received some level of review and
public input prior to being presented to the Agency for consideration. To date, this review process
has worked well in that the community has responded and participated in the process. Some of
the most recent projects include Texaco, KFC, Mace Street Trash Transfer Station and Pacific Bay
Auto Brokers.
As indicated previously, a primary objective for project area committees is to provide protection
for residents in redevelopment areas that anticipate significant residential relocation activities.
Redevelopment Law expressly provides protections to all parties that may be subject to eminent
domain and relocation action, including compensation at fair market value as well as relocation
benefits and technical assistance. More specifically, the Southwest Redevelopment Plan also
directly precludes the Redevelopment Agency from exercising eminent domain authority on parcels
residentially zoned and improved with residential uses.
The vast majority of land uses in the project area are commercial and industrial with only a few
pockets of residential in the "West Fairfield" (mixed use). "Woodlawn Park", and "Broderick's Otay
Acres" areas. The protections included in the redevelopment plan would preclude any residential
eminent domain activity in Woodlawn Park and Otay Acres since 'those areas are zoned for
residential uses. The only significant area where such residential relocation could emerge, is the
West Fairfield area which is located west of 1-5, just south of Palomar. West Fairfield is improved
by marginal mixed commercial-industrial-residential uses, and as such, permanent City zoning
designations have not been established. Currently, the City is using the old County zoning
designation of M-54 (Light Industrial) which was included in the Montgomery Specific Plan. West
Fairfield has been contemplated for a "Special Study" to determine the appropriate permanent City
zoning and General Plan designations but has not been initiated due to other projects and priorities.
Given the aforementioned factors, staff is confident that the elimination of the committee will have
positive benefits for the community. The business community will be better served by an efficient
"business friendly" straight-forward entitlement process that is consistent with the City's permit
streamlining efforts. Both the business and residential community will be better served by having
projects reviewed and evaluated by a review body that is more experienced and adept at resolving
the complex issues to be faced in the future.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is not a fiscal impact directly associated with the recommended action.
Impacts on staff are mixed with Community Development being provided some minor relief by not
having to staff the SWPAC, whereas Planning will experience an increased workload by having
Southwest projects permanently processed through the Planning Commission. It needs to be
noted that Community Development staff will still be the lead department on all Southwest
projects. However, when the project is ready for presentation to the Planning Commission, the
Planning Department will assume a greater role and responsibility which would have some level
of impact on their staff.
(LH) H:\HOME\COMMDEV\STAFF.REP\04-15.97\SWPACDtS.113 [Aprit 8, 1997 (5:07pm))
,.E-,3
ATTACHMENT 1
III. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
14. RESTRICT THE ROLE OF THE PROJEcT AREA COMMITTEES (PACs) TO THE
SPECIFIC DUTIES REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT LAW; DISBAND
THE TOWN CENTRE I AND II AND OTAY VALLEY PACs WITHIN ONE YEAR; AND
DISBAND THE SOUTHWEST PAC IN THREE YEARS FROM ITS FORMATION
Discussion: The California Health and Safety Code requires a Project Area Committee (PAC) to
be established within a Project Area where "...a substantial number of low and moderate income
families are to be displaced by the redevelopment project" and, further states that the PAC should
be consulted regarding "...those policy matters which deal with the planning and provision of
residential facilities or replacement housing for those to be displaced by project activities," and that,
The Agency shall also consult with the committee on other policy matters which affect the residents
of the project area." These provisions apply for a three (3) year period after adoption of each
redevelopment plan, and may be extended by the Agency by one year renewals.
However, the Rules and By-Laws adopted by each of the three PACs state that the PAC shall
review "...all major proposals for the development, platting, conservation, circulation, or public
service of the Project Area, and shall report its findings and recommendations to the Redevelopment
Agency, Design Review Committee, or referring body." And, under current practices, the PACs
review virtually all discretionary applications, creating additional layers of review and time delays
for redevelopment projects, actually acting as a disincentive to development. Staff support demands
are extensive and are not reimbursett by cost recovery fees.
The three year periods have expired for TCI and II and Otay; Southwest will expire in July, 1993.
This recommendation will require Council to adopt resolutions, PACs to amend their Rules and By-
Laws and the Redevelopment Project Area Procedures Manualsllmplementation Plans to be
amended.
- October 6, 1992 City Council Meeting, Item #17
H:\HOME\COMMDEV\HAYNES\DOCUMENTS\SWPACREC.#14
..3 -~
ATTACHMENT 2
SOUTHWEST PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
MEMBER TERM EXPIRES CATEGORY
Clay Platt' 06/30/96 Public at Large (MPC)
VACANT' 08/31/94 Resident/Occupant
V ACANT2 08/31/94 ResidentlTenant
Allen Jones 06/30/98 (2nd Term) Property Owner
Ed LaGuardia 06/30/98 (2nd Term) Business Owner/Operator
Andy Campbell' 08/31/94 School
Tom Silva (Alternate)
VACANT' 08/31/94 Resident (MPC)
VACANT' Business Tenant
VACANT' Community Organization
'Although their terms have expired, these members regularly attend the SWPAC meetings when they
are held.
c:\commdev\swpac\tenns
'Vacated by Linda Brown.
2For all intents and purposes, this position is vacant. Mr. Olalde has not attended any meetings
or responded to any correspondence. The City Clerk's office confirms that he still fills out a
Statement of Economic Interest every year.
"Vacated by Ann McFarlin.
"'vacated by Hector Tamayo.
"Vacated by Carlos Sanchez.
,3- ?
Mi:.nutes
January 21, 1997
Page 2
recyclable, and transport the remaining noorecyclable material to a landfill. This work will be done in an enclosed
approximately 36,000 square foot structure. Approximately 1,000 tons of municipal solid waste is expected to pass
through the facility on a daily basis when operating at maximum capacity. The operation will initially begin with
500 tons per day, and all waste brought into the facility is proposed to be shipped out the same day. The trash
transfer station will generate approximately 300 trips per day by traffic arriving at and departing the facility. Some
of the vehicles will be the neighborhoO<l-type trash trucks with 8 to 10-ton pay loads, while others will be the larger
semi-tractor-trailer-type trucks with 25-ton pay loads. Staff recommends denial of the permit because the project
is not consistent with the provisions of the various applicable plans, the type of traffic attracted to the proposed
facility will degrade the community, and the project is not compatible with nearby residential land uses.
Michael Meacham, Conservation Coordinator, concun-ed with the Planning Department's recommendation. He
stated that a number of the concerns raised by residents in the area were more solid waste related than land use
related.
This being the time and place, the public hearing was declared open.
· Robert Epler, 9601 Ridgehaven Court, San Diego, CA, Assistant Director ofEnvironmenta! Services Department
for the City of San Diego, spoke in support of staff's recommendation to deny the permit. He stated the site will
not meet the needs of Chula Vista and will require new trash to be brought to Chula Vista and will be subsequently
exported out of the County. He indicated that trucks from the City of San Diego would not be diverted to this
facility even if it is approved and constructed.
· Steve Palma, 176 Montgomery Street, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in support of staff's recommendation to deny the
lermit. He stated the residents encourage new business, employment, and revenue to the City but do not encourage
.raffic in this area of the City.
· Mark Kroeger, 3691 Via Mercado, Suite 16, La Mesa, CA, owner of the industrial complex across the street
from this project, spoke in favor of staff's recommendation to deny the permit. He felt this project would be better
suited at the dump area where there are trash facilities and mitigation issues there to accommodate it. He
commented that this site on Mace Street cun-ently has loaded trash trucks which are uncovered, an extensive fly
problem, and he has seen barrels of human waste in the dumpsters. He stated the odor from the dumpsters from
the residue on the side of the containers even when empty is as much a problem as the trash itself.
· Bud Chase, 3730 Valley Vista Road, Bonita, CA, representing Sexton Sand & Gravel, spoke in favor of staff's
recommendation. He stated over three years ago, the City went out for a request for proposal on the trash transfer
project and from the 35 initial sites, it was nan-owed to 3 final sites at the Bayfront, Energy Way, and Maxwell
Road. There were many public forums, and the vast majority of those attending the forum felt the Maxwell Road
site was the best location.
· Charles R. Gill, 600 West Broadway, Eighth Floor, San Diego, CA, representing Mace Street Inc., spoke in
opposition to staff's recommendation and felt this facility will be an asset to the community. The assessments
associated with the property taxes are such that redevelopment of the site will provide significant tax benefits
through tax in';"'ments to the City that can be used in the City's redevelopment area. The proposed operation will
remove all of the existing truck storage and a 36,000 square foot building will be constructed. The trash brought
into this facility will be commercial industrial department-type uses, will not 1)e hazardous materials, and all of the
operations will be indoors. This type of a facility is extensively regulated by the Integrated Waste Management
Board by the State of California. He indicated Mace Street Inc. would agree to any type of a covenant the Agency
feels is consistent with the terms of the use permit. A traffic study was conducted, and the proposed use has the
>me or fewer trips. There may be a difference in the type of trucks that come in, but in general there are no
"ffic impacts. He suggested that Main Street will probably become an issue with every redevelopment project that
comes forward in the limited industrial area because there is a lot of non-conforming uses. He suggested that impact
J-CJ
. ,
Minutes
January 21, 1997
'>age 4
that gave 250 trips; there are also transfer trucks that will hold 25 tons per trip which would be SO trips. The total
means 330 two-way trips, and there is anticipation there will be an additional 70 passenger vehicle trips for
customers, employees, and patrons to the site. From a traffic standpoint in numbers. it just about balances out.
Agency/Councilmember Salas asked if the plot plan cbanged. The County was concerned the scales were 250 feet
from the site's entrance. and with an approximate length of 30 feet for each truck, only six trucks can be stacked
before they are lined out in the street.
Mr. Swanson commented that the traffic study orily considered the number of trucks on the street; however as they
get more into the site plan review process. they could ask for sufficient stacking distance during peak hours.
Mr. Mitchell stated the site plan was originally proposed to be a 63,000 square foot building, and was later revised
to reflect a 36,000 square foot building; however, the daily tonnage of a maximum use of 1,000 tons per day did
not change. Staff was concerned with traffic and recognizes there would not be a significant change in the number
of vehicles coming and going from the facility; however, staff was deeply concerned with the types of vehicles
coming and going.
Agency/Councilmember Salas stated there is a suhstAntial amount of public opposition regarding this facility. and
she did not hear anything to convince her to approve this project.
Agency/Councilmember Moot commended Mr. Gillon his presentation and the owner of the property for
recognizing a need to improve the facility. He stated that locations are important factors in land use decisions, and
one of the advantages of the Maxwell site is they are next to the County facility.
Agency/Councilmember Rindone stated that a transfer station if well designed, well placed, and well planned is a
project that provides a great deal of public benefit and is essential for our community because of rising tip fees.
He commented that in the past six years he has served on the Agency/Council, he has not seen as much opposition
for this project from the boards, commissions, committees, and residents. He stated there is a need for economic
viability in this redevelopment area that is critical to the growth and development of this City, but this proposal
doesn't seem to be the right project or right time for it. He supported staff's recommendation but indicated he
would reserve serious consideration for an appropriate transfer station as we proceed with the study towards the
Maxwell site.
Agency/Councilmember Padilla commended Mr. Gill on his presentation regarding this project and stated there were
legitimate issues pointed out by staff regarding compatibility with the plan.
ChairlMayor Horton stated she is a member of the Otay Valley Regional Park Policy Committee, and they
unanimously opposed this project. She requested staff return to the Agency with a report on the concept of having
a developer impact fund for this part of the community to generate new development.
AGENCY RESOLUTION 1529 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER SALAS, reading of the text was waived,
title read, passed, and approved unanimously 5-0.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
OTHER BUSINESS
4. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT($): None.
:1_ II
. ,
. ATTACHMENT 4
.
.
.
.
.
. -
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:1- 5
.
.
.
.'
";-1.3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
.
.
.
.
!
~;
~~!jj ~> I! ~
~j1~e~! ~
OJ
<(
W
O:::f-
<(r5
2
I-~
O~
WUJ
-,0
O~
o:::5M
Q..g,
-J
I-~
(f)~
W>-
S~
I~
1-2
::>8
o
(f)
Q)
ro
()
en
o
z
iZ~
SOUTHWEST PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE PRESENTATION
RESOLUTION DISSOLVES THE SWPAC & ESTABLISHES THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AS THE REVIEW BODY FOR THE SWPA
RECOMMENDATION IS CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW, THE CITY'S PERMIT
STREAMLINING EFFORTS, WHILE ALSO PROVIDING AREA RESIDENTS, BUSINESS
AND PROPERTY OWNERS WITH A HIGHER AND MORE DIRECT LEVEL OF
PROJECT REVIEW BETTER ABLE TO ADDRESS THE BROADER RANGE OF
ISSUES/CONCERNS THAT COME FROM A LARGE PROJECT AREA
STATE LAW: REQUIRES ONLY A 3 YR LIFE AND ARE ONLY REQUIRED TO BE
ESTABLISHED WHERE SUBSTANTIAL RESIDENTIAL RELOCATION ACTIVITIES
ARE ANTICIPATED
SWPA TERM EXPIRED IN DECEMBER 1993.
ANTICIPATE ONLY LIMITED RESIDENTIAL RELOCATION, IF AT ALL.
SW RDA PLAN PRECLUDES THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN ON
RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES
PERMIT STREAMLINING: EDC PERMIT STREAMLINING RECOMMENDATIONS
INCLUDED THE DISSOLUTION OF ALL PACS; PREVIOUS COUNCIL INSTEAD
INSTITUTED REVISED "ROLES AND FUNCTIONS"; HAS WORKED WELL WITH TC
&OVR.
SW HAS SUFFERED FROM LACK OF ATTENDANCE, ATTRITION AND INABILITY
TO FILL VACANCIES. CURRENTLY DEFUNCT WITH NO EXPECTATION FOR
REVIVAL.
PLANNING COMMISSION: AS A RESULT, STAFF HAS BEEN PROCESSING SW
PROJECTS THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION SINCE APPROX. JULY 96. THE
PUBLIC HAS RESPONDED BY PARTICIPATING REGULARLY.
STAFF IS CONFIDENT THAT WITH THIS PROVEN TRACK RECORD, THAT THIS
PROCESS WILL CONTINUE TO BE "WIN/WIN" FOR RESIDENTS, PROPERTY
OWNERS, BUSINESS OWNERS AND PROJECT APPLICANTS.
ATTACHNlt:I" , .. -
.
.
.
.
.
. -
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
":..::;.
.
.
.
: \ _ 5
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
.
.
.
.
...; _ I .3
~
-<.:
1;;'
~1j\!! ~~ i 1
~~\~55 \ .
<(
UJ
OCf-
<(~
:2
\-~
()~
UJ~
Jf-
O~
OC:2
0..3
-'
w
\-Gj
(j)o
UJ>-
S~
I:2
\-5
::JU
o
(j)
z~
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
PERMIT PROCESS S1REAMLINING RECqMMENDATlONS AND DISCUSSIONS
;
1. DISCRETIONARY LAND USE PERJI1ITS AND APPROVALS
1. CHANGE CERTAIN CONDmONAL USES TO PERMITTED USES
Discussion: Certain uses which currently require a conditional use permit could be allowed
"by right," subject to meeting all other Zoning Ordinance requirements, and/or other
specific performance standards which the City could apply administratively.
2. ALLOW CERTAIN CONDmONAL USE PERMITS TO BE ISSUED
ADMINISTRATIVELY
Discussion: Certain uses which currently require a conditional use permit could be
reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, and a CUP could be issued administratively, subject
to appeal to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. This approach would be most
appropriate for such uses where the CUP is used primarily to apply specific conditions to
a use to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses, rather than where a use mayor may
not be acceptable depending on specific circumstances.
In cases where a written or oral protest is registered with the Zoning Administrator
regarding a proposed administrative CUP, and the concern cannot be resolved through
conditions of approval which are acceptable to both the applicant and the party filing the
protest, then the matter shall be referred to the Planning Commission. The costs of
referring the matter to the Planning Commission shall be borne by the applicant. However,
staff shall attempt to minimize these costs, and shall schedule such matters before the
Planning Commission at the earliest possible date.
3. AlLOW CERTAIN CONDmONAL USE PERMITS TO BE APPROVED BY THE
pLANNING COMMISSION, RATllliK THAN BEING AUTOMATICALLY
REFERRED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION
. Discussion: Certain uses currently require a conditional use permit to be approved pursuant
to a public hearing by the City Council, following a public hearing and recommendation by
the Planning Commission. For many of these uses, the Planning Commission could be
given authority to approve the CUP, subject to appeal by the City Council or any other
party. In accordance with current practice, the Director of Planning would provide written
notification to the City Council of action taken by the Planning Commission in the next City
Council packet, and the Council would be required to take any action to appeal such matter
at its next regular meeting. Unless such appeal action were taken by the City Council at
that meeting, the action of the Planning Commission would be final.
-3-
t1
4. ALWW TENTATIVE MAPS FOR INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS WnHlN PLANNED
COMMUNITIFS TO BE APPROvED' BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
RATHER THAN AUTOMATICALLY BEING REFERRED TO THE CITY COUNCIL
FOR FINAL ACTION '
Discussion: All tentative maps currently require a public hearing by both the Planning
Commission and City Council. In cases where a "master tentative map" for a planned
community has already been approved by the City Council; there appears to be little benefit
for the Council to also hold public he3rings on tentative maps for individual projects (e.g.,
condominiums, smaIl-lot single-family detached projects, etc.) which are normally processed
after the master tentative map is approved.
ll. DESIGN REVIEW AND SIGN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
5. ADOPT CONCISE AND OBJECTIVE WRITI'EN GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN
REVIEW
Discussion: The City's existing Design Review Manual is outdated, and should be replaced
by a new set of design guidelines which would clearly state the City's intent regarding
building and site design, landscaping, and other design-related issues. The guidelines should
include illustrations of acceptable and unacceptable design solutions. These guidelines
should be placed in a format which can be easily updated to reflect new conditions or
standards. In addition, staff should be able to provide examples of projects which meet the
intent of the guidelines, using plans an<l10r photographs of such projects.
6. CLARIFY THE ROLE OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMI'ITEE AND DESIGN
REVIEW PROCESS AS IT RELATES TO OTHER PLANNING REVIEW
PROCESSES
Discussion: The role of the Design Review Committee should be focussed on building and
site design issues. Other planning issues, such as zoning (land use, parking requirements,
etc.), circulation, and environmental review should, to the maximum extent possible, be
handled by other appropriate reviewing authorities.
. 7. AlLOW FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF A BROADER RANGE OF
PROJECTS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW
Discussion: Currently staff has the authority to approve additions to buildings which
involve an increase of not more than 25 % to the building area, as well as duplexes. In
order to reduce the number of cases which need to be reviewed by the Design Review
Committee, staff should be given the authority to approve additional classes of projects,
provided that they meet the established design review guidelines. In cases where a project
which falls into such a class does not meet all of the guidelines, it could be referred by staff
to the Design Review Committee.
-4-
f'Y
One example of an additional type of project which could be approved administratively
would be new commercial or industrial buildings in planned communities for which
comprehensive design guidelines have been approved by the City, and where such project
is determfued to have met those guidelines. Further evaluation will be necessary to
determine what additional types of projec~ could be approved administratively, what types
should be automatically referred to the D,eSign Review Committee, and what types of should
be exempt from any design review (note that currently single-family detachoo houses and
other minor projects are exempt from design review).
8. UPDATE THE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTIONS PERTAINING TO SIGNS, AND
ADOPT WRITTEN GUIDELINES FOR REVIEW OF SIGNS
Discussion: The sections of the Municipal Code dealing with sign regulations are poorly
organized and, in some .cases, internally inconsistent. In addition, while the Code
establishes "maximum entitlements" which can be allowed for various types of signs in
various zones, it does not indicate what types of signs are normally considered acceptable
in specific situations. Therefore, the City should:
1) revise the Zoning Ordinance to set forth more clearly the standards and procedures for
sign review and, where necessary, eliminate redundant or antiquated sections; and
2) adopt a set of written guidelines which indicate what types of signs and sign programs
are considered acceptable in specific situations. These guidelines should include
illustrations, as well as specific examples of approved sign programs which conform to
these guidelines. In addition, staff should be able to provide color photographs or
drawings which depict actual approved signs which conform to these guidelines.
9. ALLOW FOR A BROADER RANGE OF SIGN PERMITS TO BE APPROVED
ADMINISTRATIVELY, AND STREAMLINE THE SIGN PERMIT REVIEW
PROCESS
Discussion: Staff should be given the authority to approve a sign permit for any sign
proposal which conforms to ordinance requirements and the written guidelines which are
proposed above. In cases where staff determines that a sign proposal does not meet
ordinance requirements or the sign guidelines, the request should be referred as quickly as
possible to the Design Review Committee for review and action, consistent with the recently
proposed ordinance revisions which are under consideration by the City Council.
10. STREAMLINE THE APPEAL PROCESS FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIGN
REVIEW ACTIONS
Discussion: Currently, an appeal of an action of the Design Review Committee is heard
by the Planning Commission, and is scheduled for hearing 5-6 weeks after it is filed. An
applicant may iIso appeal the action of the Planning Commission to the City Council, which
-5-
It]
requires an additional 3-4 weeks. TIlls appeal process could be streamlined by eliminating
the appeal authority of the Planning Commission regarding design review cases.
11. PROVIDE UPDATED APPLICATION FORMS AND "USER GUIDES" FOR DESIGN
REVIEW AND SIGN REVIEW
I
Discussion: In conjunction with updating the guidelines and procedures for design review
and sign review, the Planning Department should also update and simplify the application
forms, and provide a "user guide. which clearly explains the design review process and the
requirements of the applicant for submitting projects to the City for review. In particular,
this user guide should encourage applicants to schedule a pre-application conference with
City staff prior to filing a final project application, in order to discuss issues regarding the
proposed project and ensure that the applicant understands the processing requirements for
the project.
12. PROVIDE SENIOR LEVEL STAFF COORDINATION AND ADEQUATE OVERALL
STAFF SUPPORT FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
Discussion: Because of the need to coordinate the design review and sign review processes
with other City development review processes, and to ensure that overall City objectives are
met, it is important that at least one senior staff member from the Planning Department
(Senior Planner or Principal Planner) be responsible for coordination of the design review
process. TIlls person would be responsible for attendance at all Design Review Committee
meetings, review of all staff recommendations to the Design Review Committee, review of
all administrative design review and sign permit approvals, and direct contacts with
applicants as requested. In addition, this person, along with other assigned staff, would be
responsible for implementing the recommendations above regarding development of written
guidelines, updated procedures, and new forms and user guides.
The annual operating budget for the Planning Department should specifically include a
senior-level planner position, with the appropriate education and experience to perform these
duties, as well as other necessary staff to ensure that the Planning Department can meet the
objectives outlined herein. In addition, the Planning Department should ensure that staff
assigned to the design review process receive adequate technical training, as well as training
in .customer service" skills. Furthermore, the Planning Department should establish
procedures for receiving feedback from its clients, including questionnaires and periodic
surveys of recent applicants. Finally, the City should also ensure that fee schedules are
adjusted regularly to allow the costs of providing these services to be fully recovered by the
City.
13. PLACE A IDGH PRIORITY ON IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS
OUTLINED ABOVE
Discussion: Jfy implementing the changes outlined above, the City can continue to ensure
high quality design in all new development which occurs in ChuIa Vista, while reducing the
-6-
1-0
delays and frustrations which are often associated with the design review process. The City
Council should assure that adequate staff resources are provided to institute these changes
as soon as possible, and should appoint representatives of the Design Review Committee,
the business community, design professionals; and other community interests to work with
staff in implementing these recommendations.
(
./
ill. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMI'ITEFS
14. RESlRICT THE ROLE OF THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEES (PACs) TO THE
SPECIFIC DUTIFS REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT LAW;
DISBAND THE TOWN CENTRE I & nAND OTAY VALLEY PACs WnH..l.N ONE
YEAR; AND DISBAND THE SOUTHWEST PAC IN THREE YEARS FROM ITS
FORMATION. .
Discussion: The California Health and Safety Code requires a Project Area Committee
(pAC) to be established within a Project Area where ....a substantial number of low-" and
moderate-income families are to be displaced by the redevelopment project. and, further
states that the PAC should be consulted regarding .... those policy matters which deal with
the planning and provision of residential facilities or replacement housing for those to be
displaced by project activities, . and that, .The agency shall also consult with the committee
on other policy matters which affect the residents of the project area.. These provisions
apply for a three (3) year period after adoption of each redevelopment plan, and may be
extended by the Agency by one-year intervals.
However, the Rules and By-Laws adopted by each of the three PACs state that the PAC
shall review. ...all major proposals for the development, platting, conservation, circulation,
or public service of the Project Area, and shall report its fIndings and recommendations to
the Redevelopment Agency, Design Review Committee, or referring body.. And, under
current practices, the P ACs review virtually all discretionary applications, creating
additional layers of review and time delays for redevelopment projects, actually acting as
a disincentive to development Staff support demands are extensive and are not reimbursed
by cost recovery fees.
The three year periods have expired for TCI and IT and Otay; Southwest will expire in July,
1993. This recommendation will require Council to adopt resolutions, PACs to amend their
Rules and By-laws and the Redevelopment Project Area Procedures ManuaIslImplementation
Plans to be amended.
15. CREATE A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY POUCY COMMITTEE
Discussion: In order to insure public participation in broad redevelopment policies and
programs, this committee would be charged with general oversight of Agency matters and
input regarding conceptual policy direction. It is recommended that the Committee include
at least two members from each of the existing PACs and meet bi-annually.
-7-
/
/
~/'
16. AMEND REDEVELOPMENT PLANS, PROCEDURAL MANUALS AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS TO BRING SPECIAL PERMIT, VARIANCE, CUP,
DRC AND OTHER PROCEDURES INTO (:ONFORMITY.
.1
Discussion: Significant inconsistencies eJUst between Redevelopment Plans regarding the
Agency's authority to process Conditiqruu Use Permits, a.k.a. "Special Permits". In
addition, inconsistencies exist between R&levelopment Plans and/or Project Implementation
Plans regarding the order of review by the DRC and the PAC.
Redevelopment Plans should be amended to enable staff to take recommendations regarding
special permits and variances directly to the Agency. The Procedures
ManualslImplementation Plans should be amended to provide for consistent and expeditious
review of variances and Special Permits by: 1) amending the Town Centre I Procedures
Manual to conform with the Otay Valley Road Procedures Manual so that projects go to the
PAC prior to DRC*, and 2) amending the Town Centre I and Otay Valley Road Procedures
Manuals to allow the Zoning Administrator to make routine discretionary review decisions
pursuant to City Code and the Southwest Project Area Redevelopment Plan, and in
conformance with the Subcommittee's recommendations regarding revised CUP procedures.
* This is only applicable to the extent that the PAC continues to review projects.
17. RESTRICT mE REVIEW AumORlTY OF mE MONTGOMERY PLANNING
COMMITTEE REGARDING LAND USE MATTERS TO LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
TO mE MONTGOMERY SPECIF1C PLAN. REVIEW mE MPC'S ROLE IN
1HREE YEARS TO EVALUATE mE DESIRABILITY OF SUNSETTING mE
COMMITTEE.
Discussion: The MPC is a seven-member group that was formed by City ordiiIance subject
to the Montgomery Annexation in 1985. The MPC was initially charged with
recommending a community element of the General Plan and reviewing and making
recommendations regarding land uses, transportation, open space, variances, CUP's,
subdivisions, architectural review and "all other police regulations affecting land use." The
MPC's duties were revised by ordinance in November, 1990 to include "analysis of critical
planning issues," "mobilizing public agencies to develop resources," "drafting policies,"
"recommending sources of public funds," and "providing recommendations to City
departments, boards and commissions with regard to zoning, health, licensing, building
codes and public safety" in the Montgomery area.
The MPC currently reviews all major land use actions affecting the Montgomery
Community (e.g., General Plan amendments, Montgomery Specific Plan amendments,
rezoning) as well as other discretionary approvals (e.g., tentative maps, CUP's). The
recommendation recognizes the short-term need for a community group to provide input into
the remaining Special Study Areas land use decisions (e.g., Otay River and West Fairfield)
and to continue fo act as an advisory body concerning other issues delineated above (e.g.,
CIPand CDBG review), while conSidering the overall goal of eliminating duplicative layers
-8-
;[.;2,
,.
... '~..
of review, minimizing related costs and delays to business applicants, and maximizing
administrative reviews. Another consideration in narrowing this and other advisory bodies'
land use-related responsibilities is recent action by Council instigating public forums for new
planned community proposals and the extension of public hearing notices from 500' to WOO'
from the proposed project site. "
The Southwest Project area is located within the Montgomery area. The City Attorney is
currently reviewing the potential merger of the MPC and the Southwest PAC. Assuming
the PAC's role is immediately limi~, and the PAC is sunsetted by July 1993, per the
Subcommittee's recommendation, it should be noted that two current PAC members are also
members of the MPC.
18. RESTRICT mE RCC'S ROLE IN REVIEWING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORTS AND SUBl\iHTlNG COMMENTS TO STAFF.
Discussion: The RCC's role is defmed in Ordinance No. 1928, (revised November 1980)
to provide advice to Council "in the areas of energy conservation, resource recovery,
environmental quality. historic and prehistoric site protection and other related fields." The
ordinance further calls for a "citizen's assessment" of, among other things, "the effects of
individual projects being subjected to environmental review. . ." The Subcommittee's
recommendation would allow the RCC to provide comments/questions to the EIR consultant
and City Environmental Coordinator, while eliminating the need for applicants (and their
costly consultants) to appear before the RCC either in a public meeting or public hearing
format. The recommendaJion reflects the lack of any state legal mandate for a separate City
committee to review or conduct environmental analyses. The review by Chula Vista's RCC
is being undertaken in addition to that of the City's internal departments and Environmental
Review Coordinator; the surrounding property owners routinely receiving the Notice of the
EIR; the numerous public and private agencies/organizations routinely receiving Notice of
the EIR; and the EIR public hearings before both the PC and the City Council. Again, the
recommendation reflects the desire to streamline the process by eliminating unnecessary
duplication and resulting costs and delays, while still insUring" adequate public review.
19. Sl.:.I::IJillULEPERIODIC REVIEWS OF ALL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WHICH
HAVE AumORITY OVER LAND USE MATTERS, TO EVALUATE THEIR
SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS AND PERFORMANCE, AND DETERMINE WHEmER
CHANGES ARE WARRANTED
Discussion: There are several boards and commissions which currently have authority to
review land use matters within the City of ChuIa Vista. The roles and duties of many of
these boards and commissions have changed over time, both in response to specific direction
from the City Council, and as a result of decisions made by the boards and commissions
themselves. There should be a periodic review of all boards and commissions at least every
three to four years to evaluate the specific functions being performed by each board and
commission, the effects of their actions on permit processing schedules, the level of staff
support required, and overlapping duties among various boards and commissions.
-9-
...1"-.
IV. CUSTOMER SERVICE
20. BULLETIN BOARD
Discussion: In recent years development fees have been adjusted several timeS. There have
been changes in engineering requirements/due to adoption of zoning changes and completion
of studies. Many of these changes have:trapped unwary appli,cants in the middle of project
planning, in some cases causing expensive redesign or refinancing. A bulletin board should
be placed inside the hallway near the Planning Department counter. Pending changes in
fees, street widening, zoning ordinances, and other items which would be helpful to
applicants would be posted. Also, copies of the brochures mentioned below would be
displayed, with directions on how to get them. All applications would direct applicants to
check the bulletin board for changes which might affect them.
21. BROCHURES
Discussion: Although larger developers and those who regularly deal with the planning
process understand local procedures, ordinary citizens and professionals unfamiliar with
Chula Vista may not. Brochures should be available at development related department
counters which highlight the City's commitment.to fair and courteous service and provide
concise explanations of the application process, step by step, for the various types of permits
and processes. The brochures should clarify how applicants can obtain assistance as needed,
including registering complaints.
22. COMPUTER TRACKING
Discussion: All applications would be tracked by computer, so that any planning
department employee could give an applicant a status .report - and properly refer the
applicant for an in-depth update.
23. OMBUDS:MAN
Discussion: The policy of this city is to encourage responsibility development, especially
commercial and light industrial development which adds to the tax base and provide jobs.
One key to attracting this type of development is fair treatment by city staff during the
planning process. There should be a staff person whose only job would be to assist
applicants as they make their ways through the planning process, an .ombudsman.. This
would be especially valuable to those new to the process and to small businesses which may
be less sophisticated in their approach to the process. The availability of an ombudsman
would signal the city's commitment to economic development. It would also provide the
assistance applicants need when they feel they have been treated unfairly, giving them an
advocate.
-10-
J..I../.
24. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Discussion: PIanning Department personnel should approach their contacts with applicants
as sale of a service. Service must be efficient, fair, and courteous. Anything less is
ima=ptable. The number of complaints about treatment by staff and the Design Review
Committee indicate the current level of!Service is unacceptable. The staff position seems
to be that this is due to unhappiness with results, that applicants always ask for more than
can be granted and so will never be satisfied. However, discussions with past applicants
indicates that their contacts with staff and the Design Review Committee are too often
adversarial.
Individual preferences should be removed from evaluation of projects, and staff and the
DRC should concentrate on bringing each project quickly and inexpensively into line with
City regulations. An a=ptable project should escape modification. A project that does not
meet standards should not be summarily dismissed. It is possible to say no, yet be helpful.
The applicant should be informed of a=ptable alternatives and given approval conditional
upon submission of conforming plans. The applicant's concerns of time, money, pride of
ownership (of design) should be given great weight.
The means to achieve the above are various. It is the responsibility of management, and
managers should be made accountable. There should be better training of those who meet
with applicants, both staff and commissioners. Senior planners should be available to assist
their juniors; there should be an open door policy, with senior planners being available to
meet with all applicants. This policy should be explained in all applications. Senior
planners should make appointments with a sampling of applicants for candid discussions of
their experiences with staff.
25. FOLLOW-UP
Discussion: Applicants should be given "Talk Back" evaluations to give critiques of the
service provided.
An independent group, such as the Economic Development Commission or the Chamber of
Commerce should periodically contact applicants whose projects are completed to determine
if the above objectives are being attained.
Revised: June 3, 1992
[C:\WPSlICOUNcn.\113SIPACREVW2.RPI]
-11-
)C
ORDINANCE NO. 2576
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
REPEALING SECTION 2.4B.200 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL
CODE THEREBY DISSOLVING THE MONTGOMERY PLANNING
COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the City Counci I of the City of Chul a Vi sta, in response to a
permit streamlining recommendation of the Chula Vista Economic Development
Commission, appointed a two-member Council Subcommittee on October 6, 1992, for
the purpose of reviewing the "forming ordinances" and developing a consensus
regarding the future disposition of the Montgomery Planning Committee; and,
WHEREAS, the Council Subcommittee was unabl e to reach consensus and
requested that staff prepare a report outlining the advantages for each of four
options described by the Subcommittee; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council voted in favor of Option 2 in the August 17,1993,
staff report thereby di recti ng staff to di sso I ve the Montgomery pI anni ng
Committee and determining the process by which the remaining members of the
Montgomery Planning Committee could be seated on the Southwest Project Area
Committee; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council set and duly noticed the public hearing on
November 2, 1993, for the purpose of repealing Section 2.4B.200 of the Chula
vista Municipal Code to effectuate the Council direction of August 17, 1993; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place was advertised, namely
4:00 p.m. on November 2,1993, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before
the City Council and said hearin9 was hereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby
find, order, determine and resolve that Section 2.48.200 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code is repealed thereby dissolving the Montgomery Planning Committee.
;;;~/t; !~~
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
~J
('
Presented by
r
., \
, .
v Bruce M. Boogaar.
Ci ty Attorney I
Attachment 5
Ordinance No. 2576
Page 2
PASSED. APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, this 9th day of November, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Horton, Moore, Ri ndone
NOES: Councilmembers: Fox, Nader
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
..J:;:-/ud,~
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
,I
,/
"B~~~~i
I I
Lr (CL c-il,L.k.
Authelet. City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN 01 EGO) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2576 had its first reading on
November 2, 1993, and its second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of
said City Council held on the 9th day of November, 1993.
Executed this 9th day of November, 1993.
"
" I
, "10,'[..1 ,,~c,j(
Beverly A.
t 1-- ,: "
({/.c~t.k'=-
Authelet, City Clerk
Comparison Data Of Library Services Within
The Montgomery Area (Annexation To Present)
Com parison Data Castle Park Branch WoodlawnPark Branell South Chula Vista Branch
Staff 2.1 FTE .56 FTE 20.5 FTE
Collection Size 10,000 5,000 175,000
Facility Sq. Footage 1,720 sq. ft. 609 sq. ft. 37,000 sq. ft
Total # of Hours of Operation 37 hrs/week 17.5 hrs/week 58 hrs/week
Monday: 12-8pm M-Th: 1:30-5pm Mon- Th: IOam-
Days and Hours of Operation Tu Th: 10am-6pm Sat. : IO:30-2pm Fri. & Sat: 12 0000- 6pm
Saturday: 11-4 Sunday: 1 - 5 pm
Budget $96,650' $2,096,227
"'This amount includes the cost to operate both branches (Castle Park and Woodlawn Park Branches)
ATTACHMENT 6
~
'\0
r-
+-
oS
{
J
~
<$
~
co
-t
..
~
<..
~
"C)
~
/(:)
Q:.
-.J
II>
....
u
..
'0
....
c..
....
J::
..
E
..
>
o
....
Co
E
.
,
o
.
o
.!!
..
u
.
rei :;
.... :z-
'0. .!
ra ~
(.J .!.!
ra :c
.. ,
.... 0.
<( 'E
~ ~
.. 0
E ~
o 0
C> to
..., e
J:: .
o 0
::a ~
!J
u
.
c
ir.
i
$
<">00000 ...
0> 0 <D '" '" '" ....
0>0""''''<00 '"
~~~~~;; ~
.
~
~ ,~.~
0>-.:;""
. 0 ~
-. .
it ~
~
o
g~
'.
H
"$
~
~
8~
N'
H
".
W
,
o
~.
:;
.
,- .
g,i:1 ~_
'.
> .
"$
g~
'.
H
u.~
.0
NO
~~
. -
0"
0"
'.
H
".
W
,
~
.
8~
NO
~~
W
"
a
o
:;i
o
o.
>:.-
0_0
~~~
> ,
".
W
.
~
!
z
,
o
<
;= ~i
~ ~~
g ~ ~.~ ~
E "'2:~ <:
.~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ i~ ~
~ i2 !;'Sl
~ g.]j~ 18",
~ct'E~mo
~"i;:~;:~
E.:. U c: 0._0
~~!~~~
~~~~~~
o
"
ffi~~~;:g~
g88~g~
0'
00
ON
~~
o
,
~
N
g
o
~
'Ii
"!
~
~
j
o
.
.
N
-
o
:;
!J
u
.
oe-
0.
~
o
.
E
0.
o
..
>
.
"
.
0:
t
w
~
N
~ .
g.~ ~
. 0 ~
- . .
> .
" .
8~
'.
H
" .
~
.
0"
0""
'.
H
" .
W
g~
N'
H
" .
W
~ :;
O.
N'
H
"$
~~
N>
H
"$
g -~
N'
H
lJ..,n
O.
N-
>.-
,_0
~'g(;;
H
" .
W
!
z
o
<
o
<
0_ _
O. .
..
~~ a
o
o
~
"
"
E
~
<
o
,
~ ,~
"
".
g~
n
0,
~o
"~
Siii
z>
O.
NN
00
""
o
*
.
N
!
i
o
<
~
i
o
~
i
"
~
N
!J
u
.
oe-
0.
1:-
E
""
:::;
o
.
w
~
N
~ .
~,~ ~
h"
. 0 ~
- . 0
it :
.
g~
~~
" .
w
- !
o'
0"
N>
H
"$
8~
N'
H
".
W
g~
N'
H
"$
,
, ,
0'"
N'
~
W
0'
o'
0''''
'.
H
"$
O.
N-
~~o
0'_
?'J~;;'
H
" .
~
!
z
,
.
,
o
<
'0 N
. _ N
NO _
:~ ~
....-... ;;f
NO
R~
-
~
o
N
~
.
o
-
o
.
N
-
,
.
~
>
~ ~
00
00
~~
00
u"
H
o.
00
N
;;:;~
"Z
i
,
"
>
.
o
.
.
N
!J
u
.
~
0.
o
o
'"
.
e
u
.
0:
"
o
.
.
of
.
0.
.
1
w
.
..
N
oc....<c"',....o....orn<c"'O<DN<">O '"
o o....<c.... "'0 <DM....... <co 0"""'0 ....
o""o,...."'''''''_o<o<o<o<c...<c"''o ....
~~~a~~~~~~~g~5~g~ ~
" .
~ .
.:: -~ ~
"0"
. 0 ~
- . 0
[';: ~
00..."'''''.....0....0....
oO"''''....."O<D'''''''
o "'''',...."''''"'.-c....
~ ::g'", ~..;~ ~ g'--~'
...;;.::...............~...
g~
,>
> .
" .
w
-
.
~
.
o
.
o
.
~
o
;
~
"
~
o
"
.
.
N
~
g~
'.
> 0
"$
o
-
!
N
o
.
g~
'.
H
".
W
o
~
~
8~
'.
H
"$
o
~
NO.
OCO
~~~
8~
,>
H
" .
w
o
m
~
-
~ ~.~
g~
~1i
" .
w
N
~
NN
'0
00
~g
,
DE
!;:i~
0_0
0"-
F:~C;;
~!
o
.
~
._0
000
_00
~ri~
!
z
,
"e-
"
~ z
-~-€ ~ j
~~3.Q ~ <0
~ ~~~ ~ ~ i
L, 5~~ ~Cl.~ j~ l~
E~5~~~E~~~ ~~5 ~~
]g~~~~~~~~~i~~ ~~
~figE~i~!g~~~.g~~~
~~~8~~~~~~J~~~~~5
].~~~] ~~ ~ ff]~ ~~~~~ ~
~]~]~~~~~~~~~~E~~
~~5~~5j:~~58~5~~5
,
l
N ~o~~~~~o~~~o~~~
~ ~vv~~~~~~~N~~~~
5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rnZCl.Cl.Cl.Cl.Cl.Cl.Cl.Cl.Cl.Cl.Cl.Cl.Cl.Cl.Cl.
< .
81~~
~mlj
t ~
!J
o
~
E
~
>
e
c.
.5
~
~
e
"'
<;
'.
:;
I
~
~
e
0000000"'''"00'''.... '"
:;:;g;;.5S~g8~~g:3;::~ '"
~~~~~~~~~~s.~.~ ~
~;;....~ ........~~....;~... a
~g~~~gg~gg~ g
~-~~~~~.1e-~~.~8- ~
I'i.........'" ....... '" "'-" -
......... ......
.
g~
'.
> .
..
w
~~
~a
,.
-0
..
i:i~ ]
!
i
.
,
~
..
.
e
.
. "
."
:;~
.~
..
.
~'"
,.
..
~~
~
~ ~
0""
N'
H
u.~
o
"
.
g
.
.
"
~
"
8~
N'
H
.~
.
.
~
g ~
.'
'.
H
.'
W
.
~
.
g~
'.
> .
. .
w
~
0<
e-
> .
",!!!i5'
."-
~~i'o1
> .
. .
w
~
!
z
.! 'E
~"'~
!~ B ~B '"
~5~~~-€
~~i!!~ .~ ~~ ~
$eB~~~g>~~~i! G
]O,~-g:r_&11i-gB~~ g
~~ g;~~ E0E~3~ ""~
d;g1~.~~~~.rj!~~5
8 "-:;;..<:<Y <:r- . "'[;z!!' ,
~..::~",1i::!'~-. ,g~1i5
l' -"- a: 1:::S"E' e..5:] ~ c: :g.:;
~~ia~~~u5~$~~i;j~
L~~~El~~~~~~~
~rn~a..U"'::!a..::;;IJ..u.-::!'"
,.
"
]~
eg
"z
8j~\;~:-;n~f::j<D~~~a
_______'" "'::o:'!'::!::!
!-....f-I-I-f-I-f-I-f-I--I--I-
<nrn",,,,,,,,,,,,,rn"'<n"'''''''
" .
"'_5
",...""
co-:=:"
. . "
..... ., ~
t ~
!J
o
~
E
~
>
e
c.
.5
"
~
.
~
'"
~
~
~
..
.
"
ooco"'....."'...."''''....'''..... "*
a;fiJgg8J;:;t;:;g:~:;;~t;:;
~~~g!~~~~g~~g ~
~
0000
0000
01"'00
~~~g
. ;
~~
H
.~
.
.
,
. "
."
~1i
.~
'".
.0.
~:;~
.
, "
g .~
'.
H
u.~
"'''''''....
.......00'"
..... ""., N
16"..-"':",'
"':;"'~
g~
~~
..
w
"'....."'.....
"'....ON
~~.:::;;
~~
8~
:;]
..
w
"'""0'"'
"''''.......
.....",0Lt>
":"'",.",'
" .~
~ ~
8~
~]
..
w
o
;:;
...
~gJ;;';
",";00'
;1......
2
0<
"~
0"'
.'-
~~(;;
H
.~
,
o
o
~
'"
00'
,,-
!ii~
!
z
"
"
,,8 ii
-2., :2
< " 0
~ j ~ ~
~ ~ i ~
"C~~ 8~~~~~~i~
'>;E-g ~g~E~H!~~~
; ~ ~ ,a ,a g g, g 15 a ,a ~ a
,!:i EJ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~
~!~~~~~~~~~i~
e"''''......iij......iioo..
a..o;o;o::t:t:oc~c::o::a:a:..o::
i ~ ~ i ! I ~ III i i !
UJa..Cl...l/JtIJ",3;tIJ<l)OOCIJ:!;<IJ
,
l
.11
"z
~H~H~~H~H
z",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,m,,,,,,"'''''''
.
,
,
;:
!
.
,
"
]
~
~
..
~
OOOOOONON~~OO~~OOOO~-V~VV-"'O ~
gggg~8~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~ ~
~~~g~~g~~~~~~ ~~~~~!~~~~~~ ~
g......... ...;;;-......... ............ ~
" .
~.O; ~
~ml
OOOOOONOOO
00000000000
como....ooocD'"
0",.,,,, ","",.'ri","c;j",-,.:
:2~::;;~~f;;"'~;:
g......... ......
.
.
.
"
N
~
m:;; . ,
. ..
"'_rD. ..
8~ ~ . fi;;;
,0
~; t
w
. ",0>0""'" . .
~ .
. LO",,,,":I<" 0 ~
"'NN.......
. ' "'-N-'" ci a
." . ,. 0 ..
'. " ~ .
> . ~ c
.~ ..
.
"
_0 "NO . ,
. , 0- .. .
.. ~;:;~ . .
, " " ~! " :;i
. '
0"" ~ ~ .
'.
~i
w
. . ~ 00 '"
. .. .
, " ..
8' ~ ~~ ~~ ~i ~
'.
H
. .
w
~ .. ,. .00 ..
; " . .. . 0__
0_ " 'ov
8~ ~ o'~ :~ ~ ...aiN ~~
. ...:;'"
,> ~
tx.
~
0 N ~~* "
. . "'
. " ~ a ~~~ "'~
0'" ~
'.
H
. .
w
, -.
8! . . ..
00
:;i ~ ~l!
>-~-
g~;::
"'11;';
~ .
.
w
!
z
. >
iJ;i "
1!! z ~ ~ " ~ : -;; ';:
c:-*~]di 8", ij.~ ~ ~:::
~~~~~ i~ii",,, $~c;. c;:,.~~ '"
~f~5~ E E~~~ ~ ~gJ~j~~~ ~
g"C;i~ ~iiijge~ 0 ~~Ec;E~c;c; ~
a~~~g @~~IE~ 0 o~~_,~~~_, ~
um ,-;::> 0;:;:,",_--" .c:' ;:I(/Jco"2'i;i;o ~
.,,>1;5.0"" ~_D:ii8>..c:~:;c~,f;'.2EEi=EE <:
o~ ~1:J~"O~E,,~Co_~om~m~~~~~~
f"i!i[BII~~~~~g;~~~~~~~~i~
tiiiiitiftifillil!I!llli~I
:;-D 80 8>8o!'! ~ ~ 800 'is 0 ~ 0 ~ 8. ~ 0'" U '" '" ~ al (I)-g
~~IIII~]I~~~~~~I~i~i~:~~i;
~m6~6~~~~G~G~m~6~g~8~~~~d~
!J
o
~
E
~
>
e
c.
.5
~
'"
.
o
.~
C
.
,.
"
y:g
e~
"z
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ooooOOOOOOODOOOOOODOOOOOOZ
:J
o
.
E
.
>
~
Co
E
~
.
E
ii)
..
u
o
....
i
!
~~~88ree~g~8~~88ggg8g~g~*~~g~~g~~ggg~~g~~g;~~~~~~sg~~~m~~~*g~~m~~~~
g~g~g~~~i~~~~~~~~~;~g~;~~mig~~~g~g;~g~~g~gg~gi~~~g~g~~~~~~~~;~~gg~
~~__~_~~~_M~~W~~_M~M"~. ~~N~M"~~NMM~~~~ MM _MMMMM _~ MM . M V_~~M_
MMMM M ~MM M MM M~M MMM MMMM M M~ M MMMM M
~
"
" .
" .
':.!: ~
on
. ."
t"~
g~g88~~~gggggggg~8ggggg~~~
~~~OON_vOvO~~OO~~OOONO_O~~
ri~OOO~N~.N~~ri~~~~~~~mO_N~m
mm~~mNMM~V_NvN~~__VvMmVMN~
MM____MMM_MMMM_~_M~MMmv M~
MMMM M ~MM M MM ~
........0<00000....0>00..."'0_
"''"'001000.....,00....'"0'''
..."'o,......ooo"'oo_w"'.-
;t~ ~ ~ gf~::f.;~ :if\i,;;: i:i ';;> ~
......__N....._"''''...
......... .........
.
. c
0'
0"
"~
H
.$
0 " 0 0
.
. ;;~
.
0 0 ,
.
" ,
0 0
- 0 "
0
" ~
~ g
. 0
0
0
.
0
~ ,;
.
0 0
. 0
,
. 0
. .
8~
"~
H
.$
.
" c
0'
0"
~i
..
w
.
g :;-
~'g
H
..
W
o!
0'
o'
"~
1::!-
g~
"~
H
..
W
00
~~5
~~~
H
.$
!
z
.
" "
2,g
OOmO ~~ ~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~E ~~ D 5
~~~~~~~~ii~ ~ ~~~ ~g~
Jiiiii~~ii~~) ~~~! iji~
Sil~~ggg~g~~ ~~ ~~~S ~!~~
~jjjj~~;~~~~ E~ <~~: ~~~~~
J~~2~~~~liii ig~E!_! ii~~1
~iiii~~~~~~~~~B~!~~~!z~~~11
iiiii!!!I!I!~~i~I~~;~~~!!l~
~oooo~~~~~~~~~_~~~~~~~~~Sf~
~!~]]~~~1!~~>~~~~~]:1~~~g]g
~m~~~~ro~~oooo~~~~~oa~~~~&~~~m
~
"
'" ii c 8
'" i"jii B
E;<,::!i. €
\'i,~ B ~ E
e?:1J,E"-
o..e"e-><'
i:3 <5 ~1
~ B ,,' "'-"C
",,:g ~ ~<ii
~ '" ~ i ~
~ <,~ 0 ~
" ~ ... c ~
~€!~~
>=>-,::>..
tUU3.J:o
o
<
,
o
<
0"
.0
--.
.
'" "'.... ~....
"'''''''~'''
<0 "'''' "'N
....."i....."'d
"''''.......~
.. .
"
o
.
0"
00
u
"'g
...."''''''''''
"'''''''....'''
"''"''''''''''
::;;~~~
..
"
o
,
.
o
uo
;:!;~~
r-:"'''''
" 0
~ .
.
"'....~<C
"''''....-
g!g;;'
"'
00
o.
~
.
"''''....'''
"'...."'~
~:;2i
"'''''''''''''....''''''''''''
...."'...."'...."'tlI_tlI'"
"''''....<O'''~'''''''''C>
...~~g;t~~:ia~
0 0 . ...."''''...
0 0 . "'-<:II....
. ~"'........
:i ~~~~
~~~a
~;:!;.;!-~-
..............
.
o
~
q
g~
;..,~g :
~~i ~~E~~
c,;';;"'g~~~~
01" ~o:= c: ":n""
~!iil!~!1
III ..c: '" ~ a. ~ I.IJ ..c: '"
~~~~]5J~~...
t'ija~5i1i~:!'i~
<I~n".h
=::5! ~,,'" "'.'!2 "
<('" "'-...JOU"'IJ..
"'....~...."'''''''c8~'''~Ca~~~N~~....~~~~~;~g~~ffi~m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<{<<{~~~~~~~~~~2~~~~~~~~~2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
zz2222222ZZZZZ"''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''"''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
o
o
~
o
.
~
"'...."'......."''''
...."'0...."'''''''
...."'..,"'...."'~
i~...~.~:;S
0"'''''''
8::~~
ffg2f~
"
o
~
"''''.....,
'"''''''''''
0.........
~'ri~-'"
...
o
~
,
~
.
.
.
.
"
B
€ :3.
a g ; ~: ";",~
<o~ ~ ~ . ~..~ Iii';: :.. ~~
'" _ E. ". '" 1:: ~ >< i" 0 a.:::I
~~~~g: ~gJi ~ ~ ~~~;E~: i5: ~~i
~1~!~ ~E~~~~!1~~~~~~~~
~~~!I~~~~:~~:~~~:~~~~~~
"i ~ -0 i.:!! E ~ ~ E ~ ~ E.i~ ~ E~ ~ E ~ ~ E
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i ~ ~ 5 Iii ~ ~ i ~ i E~ ~ ~ tI) ::; ~ Iii ::; i ~ ~
E co;! E t.1 i E: U E: _..c: c: '"I ,u i ~ t.1 E t.1
~~~c,~<{ ~<{~rio ~< ><{~3<{
~OO~~~~~~~~~5~~~ffi~~~3~
"
.
,
o
'"
o
o
u
:!
o
.
E
.
>
~
0.
.5
~
.
E
u;
0;
u
o
..J
~
~
!
~~~~~~;~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~~ ~
~~ .CN~~~~N~~~~~ 0
"~ ~~a"" ~ "
~
e
~~~
"'.O!!'"
h"
..0
q.
(;: i
g~
".
H
"~
- ;
00
0"
""
~ '
~
g~
~i
"~
.
8~
N"
1::: ~
~
. ;
00
0"
".
H
".
W
o-
N-
'"
",-":
":
o
"
"
"
8~
".
~!
:g:e;;;~~~
~~~;;~~
o........~<C
00,.,..,.'"
<C"''''~'''
:;~~g~.
;;
2
D'
,-;
",ec;-
DO_
~~;;,
H
""
~
,,'"'' ~ Ll>
<e..-"''''
.......0'"
~~;;
oo"'...~'"
gC;;:;~!E3~
fi~~g:;;;
'"
,-
~a
o
"
~
!
z
~
.
"
:"15
~~
o C
" j~1O ~. ~. . ~
e:' ~5~ (;:~ E:g g ~
i 8~i iiE~ ~g ,~~i~. ~
... g: c; "':: .. '" ,,; .. g.E] is' 8 c; ,,::;:
iilll!~!;iii~il!i
~~~~~EE~t~~1~~~::;:~
~~~€e~~~~~~~E€~;E
B~~8w~w~~~~~E8m~E
<~~<~~a3~~~m~<~~~
~~~~~~B~~~a8~~~~~
,
"
<
- ,
IE
.j;
~@~~gQg8~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~55555
~~rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
ww~~~wwwoooowwwoooooooo
;
l
.
i
.
]
~
e
!
z
,
<
:!
0
.
E
.
>
~
0.
.5
u
IE ,
m <
.=
~
~
"''''OOOOOOON'''O<e'''OO~OO'''''''_M<eool
"''''0000000'''_0''''''00<e...0''"'0'''''''''......1
"''''OLl>O_C>O<DLl>N<e'''....NNLl> OOOM_O
~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~ g~~~~~ ~
............ .... ...... ~
e
" .
o .
.::~~
.~"
. . 0
~ " ~
~~ggg~gg2~g~;~~~
~~Q~~~~~~~NM~O~~
~~:~~~:~~~~~~M~~
............ ...
8 ~
0"
".
H
"~
0
0 "
.. 0
~ "
;
" "
; 0 ;:
0 ~
~ ~
"
..
~
0 0
. ,
0 0
" ~
.
00
0""
".
H
"~
.
" c
00
0-
".
> .
"~
.
" c
00
0"
".
H
"~
. c
00
c""
~]
"~
~8;:::ffi
"',...,....,.
;~~~
. c
00
0"
".
> .
" .
w
~re8~~
"'''''''''''''
~"''''!~
2
D'
~io
00_
~:gM
H
"~
",.
..0
...",-~
h
. .
""~" ",~"5 ~~
r~' j~ "'-[~~ ~ "gg
w~ ~~~ !~~I s~_" ~~
~~~~ 3'e~ a:~:i],,~~."':r ~~~
~~~O~~~~~ ~E~:~~~~ 0 G~~~
~O~~E~~E'" ~~E~" ,~~E~~~~" --
~~~E~<~;i c~~~~~;~B<~~~~~~
!~~~~~~~~"'~<~;~]~~~~~~"g~~~
~~~~!~itllilll~~~~..~i~iit
~W.,.C~~OEEW~~~~~~a=E~~~~~~~
1~Ai1A111~~111~~~11]~I~t11
w~w~wwwwwEwww~wE~wWE~EE~ww
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~e~~~~eee~~~e_~~~~ee
~~~W~~~~~~~~~~~ww~~wwwww~~
"'~~"'~~,..."'~OOO"'~O"',...~"'~~O~
~~~~N~~~~~~~~re~~gg~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
w
C>
<C
a..
~
<C
::;;
::;;
:::J
'"
~
~
o
~
"
~ '- ~
","""
""'1:"
. . 0
q.
it ~
0"
00
~;g
H
.0
00
0"
"~
H
.0
.
gg
"~
H
.0
.
g~
".
H
.0
.
."
00
0"
".
> .
"-en
.
. "
00
0.'"
".
H
. .
W
2
o.
!;i_
0"0
00.
~ii;;:;
> ,
u.~
I
..
~
m
Q
~
~
N
~
~
M
M
~
..;
..
m
'N
~
=
..
~
'"
~
..
..;
~
o
m"
N
..
..
~
m
o
~
'"
~
o
.;
~
o
~
M
,..:
m
o
..
~
N
N
..
..
~
M
..
~
..
~
M
..
~
o
..
~
.
..
<;
...
".
M
~
..
~
m
0"
~
~
N
~
~
m
m
~
'"
=
m
.
E
"
'5
c
.
0.
.
W
jj
'0.
.
"
".
~
M
~
:l
..
~
..
Q
M
~
~
o
o
N
6
o
o
N
~
.
"
'5
c
.
0.
.
W
jj
'0.
.
"
o
'"
N
~
..;
=
~
.
u
.
0'
0:
"
..
<;
...
.
.
<5
c
<5
o
~
.
c
o
'il
E
J
.
.
"
13
.
"e-
o.
c
o
~
D
.
~
.
'"
..
J
C
C
"
ts i5 iii
. . .
~~~
-roiii1ii
.sEE
"Ec"E
. . .
0.0.0.
. . .
(ij<ij<c
:EBB
o 0 0
;fC.'#."#
~oo
N~~
. . .
tJu13
"c.."6.."6..
. . .
000
. ,
Montgomery Area Capital Improvement Projects
By Project Type
General Government/Public Safety/Miscellaneous
Redevelopment
Library
Parks and Recreation
Major Streets
Local Streets
Sewers
Drainage
Traffic
$6,885,400
$531,143
$15,091,322
$7,205,301
$22,924,036
$18,071,644
$1,099,384
$9,379,787
$2,048,314
TOTAL
$83,236,331
Montgomery Area Capital Improvement Projects
By Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
1986 thru 1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006 (thru March 10th)
$2,943,633
$3,469,548
$6,429,110
$5,079,709
$4,097,360
$4,364,422
$4,074,354
TOTAL
$83,236,331
ATTACHMENT 7 SUMMARY
Montgomery Area Capital Improvement Projects
General Government/Public Safety/Miscellaneous Projects
Project FY 2006 YTD FY2005 FY 2004 FY 2003 FY2002 FY2001 FY20DO
Number ProJect Name Expenditures (Ihru Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures
$7,010
GG176 Oxford Street Property Acquisition $2,270,000
GG18a Western CV Infrastructure Program (RCT) $122,968 $325.792
OP107 Woodlawn Park Boundary Survey
LD106 MTCB R.O.W. Beautification Palomar to L $60,043 $313,957 $22,428
PS145 Fire Station No. 5 Programming/Site Analysis $1,030
Total General Government Proje
Redevelopment Projects
Project FY 2006 YTD FY2005 FY2004 FY2003 FY2002 FY2001
Project Name Expenditures (thru FY2000
Number Expenditures Expenditures expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures
RD244 Street Widening $396,126 545,567
Total Redevelopment Projects
Library Projects
Project FY 2006 YTD FY2005 FY2{)04 FY 2Q03 FY2002 FY2001
Project Name Expenditures (thru FY 2000
Number Expenditures Expend1lures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures
N/A
Total Library Projects
Parks and Recreation Projects
Project FY 2006 YTD FY2005 FY2004 FY2003 FY2002 FY2001
Project Name Expenditures(lhru FY2000
Number 3/10) Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures
N/A Harbo~ide {School
PR133 Otay Park Renovation $44,214 $19,720 $13,618 $29,663 $144,326 $1.288,119
PR140 Woodlawn Community Center Rehablhtalon
PR142A Lauderbach Center Parking and Security
PR144 Otay Community Center Parking Lot
PR149 Lauderbach Restroom
PR1e3 Playground Modifications. Lauderbach
PR185 Park Acquisition. OVRP
PR210 Lauderbach Improvements $5,445
PR214 Olay Park Restroom $130,846
PR215 Connoley Park Renovations $49,110 $201,578 $16,610 $11,587
PR228 Playground Equipment Renovation. Los Ninos $91,600
PR240 Otay Park Renovation $61,022 $167,434 $2,942
PR249 HarborsidePark $1,580,164 $172,697 $63,781
PR273 SDG&E Park Lighting Improvements $5,563
PR277 Olay Rec Center Expansion $20,000
Parks and Recreation Projects
ATTACHMENT 7 (PROJECTS)
1
Major Street Improvements
Project FY 2006 YTD FY2005 FY2004 FY2003 FY2002 FY2001
Project Name Expenditures (thru FY2DOO
Number Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures
L
5T119 Street Imps., Fifth Ave., Orange to
$T137 Main Street Widening, 1-5 to Industrial
5T143 Pavement Rehab" Broadway, Naples to Anita
5T144 Cross Gutter Removal, Hilltop and Naples
5T151 Street Widening, Orange Ave., Fourth to Third
5T153 Main 51. @ MTDB Crossing
5T922 Palomar Imps., 1-5 10 Industrial $14,314 $91,169 $1,671,610 $934,169 $715,836 $97,607 $129,714
5T961 Main Street, Induslnalla 4th $3,543 $393,959
STM302 Fourth Ave., CV Adult School to Orange
STM3D6 Fifth Avenue, Naples to Orange
STM332 Main Street Overlay $2,664,998 $161,297 $2,817
STM333 3554 Main 51 - Olay Rec Ctr.lmps. $289 $86,068
Total Major Streets Projects
Sewer Improvements
projecl FY 2006 YTD FY2005 FY2004 FY2003 FY2002 FY2001
Project Name Expenditures (thru FY2000
Number 3/10) Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures expenditures
NIA 2nd to
SW202 Parallel Sewer, Industrial, Palomar to Anita
SW203 Parallel Sewer, w/o 2nd, btwn Palomar & Quintard
SW215 Sewer Rehabilitation
SW220 Sewer Rehabilitation 99/00 . $5,148 $18,007 $21,844
SW222 Sewer Rehabilitation 00101 . $11,358 $114,949 $164
SW223 Wastewater Management Plan (10% of total) $1,957 $4,589 $31,162 $16.417 $1,398 $550
SW227 $ewer Rehabilitation 01/02 * $555 $4,058 $33.264
SW229 Sewer Rehabilitation 02103 * $186 $49,403 $49,070 $3,273
SW230 Sewer Rehabilitation 03104 . $2,993 $3,543
SW231 Sewer Rehabilitation 04105 . $108,292 $8,545
SW235 Main SI. Sewer Imp. Hilltop to Fresno $9,382
SW239 Sewer Rehabilitation 05106 . $5,877
Total Sewer Projects
Drainage Improvements
Project FY 2006 YTD FY2005 FY2004 FY2003 FY2002 FY2001 FY2000
Number Project Name Expenditures {thru expenditures expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures
Canyon
DR104 Storm Sierra Way
DR108 Drainage Imp., Oxford St.. 2nd to M"
DR109 Drainage, Tobias Drive between Oxford and Naples
DR110 Drainage Imp., Crested Butte, Welton to Broadway
DR121 Rienstra Park Drainage
DR125 Telegraph Canyon Channel @ Fifth
DR126 Industrial Blvd., West of Marsat
DR127 Drainage Imps., Tobias Dr.lGlenhaven $26,666 $202,765 $212,214 $301,189 $41,458
DR130 Storm Drain Replacement, Hilltop Dr JSDGE Ease. $8,693
DR133 Emerson Street Drainage Improvements $7,443 $26,446 $56,030 $19,105 $31,031 $29,859
DR137 Storm Drain Lining, Fifth and Westby $194 $134,696 $44,510 $2,259 $2,899
DR139 Malta Avenue Emergency $260 $1,447
DR140 Storm Drain Repair, south of Orange $87
DR152 CMP Replacement 00/01 . $4,267 $16,230 $26,506 $80,78S
DR154 Drainage Master Plan (10% of total Expenditure) $911 $8,552 $29,755 $7,390 $252
DR155 CMP Rehabilitation - City Streets 00101 . $85,980 $270
DR156 COSG CMP RehabilitaUor\fRemoval . 02103 .. $77,819 $8,854
DR158 CMP RehabilitationfRemoval . 01/02 . $4,269 $63,853 $2,949
DR161 CDBG CMP Rehabilitation/Removal _ 03104 u $94,585 $49,919
DR163 CMP RehabilitatlonfRemoval - 03104 . $19,828 $2,486
DR164 CMP Rehabilitation/Removal - 04/05 Phase 1 . $105,651 $18,983
DR165 CMP RehabilitationfRemoval . 04/05 Phase 2 . $36,954
DR909 Judson Basin Drainage $3,097 $57,734
DR931 Oxford Street Drainage $274 $161,199 $37,031 $7,577 $9,194
NfA Alley and Drainage Channel Cleaning
Total Drainage Projects
2
Local Street Improvements
Project FY 2006 YTD FY200S FY2004 FY2003 FY2002 FY2001 FY2000
Number Project Name Expenditures (thru expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures
3rdAve.. Ltc
NJA Street Overlay, Various Locations in 861B7
NJA Street Overlay, Variouslocalions in 87/88
NIA Street Overlay, Varicrus Locations in 88/89
NIA Street Overlay, Various locations in 89190
NIA Slurry/Chip Seal, Various Locations in Bl/BS
NIA Slurry/Chip Seal, Various locations in B6JB9
NIA Slurry/Chip Seal, Various locations in 89/90
NJA Sidewalk Improvements - William Avenue
NIA Sidewalk Improvements. Orange Ave" 2nd to Albany
NIA Sidewalk Improvements - General Rehabilitation
NIA Sidewalk Improvements - Safety Program
NIA Pavement Testing
NIA los Ninos Park Streelimprovements
5T119 Fifth Ave. Oxford to Orange
5T127 Shy Lane, East of Fifth
SHOS Orange Avenue, 2nd to Albany
SH07 Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Emergency Fund
SH09 Street Imps., Fifth Ave., Naples to Oxford
ST410 Moss St., 4th Ave sidewalk installation
SH13 Wheelchair Ramps
ST420 Fifth Avenue, L to Naples
ST506 Fourth Ave., Kittiwake to CV Adult School
ST513E ADA Curb Ramps, Third and Emerson
ST525 Misc. City Improvements - Beyer and Fourth $3,153 $271,638 $46,157
STl143 Broadway Imps., Naples to Anita
ST1201 Block Act - Districts $81,165 $93,818 S17 $13,888 $15,000 $55 $1,056
STL203 Sidewalk Rehabilitation 98 .. $26,033
STL211 Pavement Management Program 95 .
ST1218 Fourth Ave., Anita to library Sidewalk
STl219 Third Ave. Sidealks, Orange to Main $10,790 $110,326 $51,555 $13,764 $270 $8,764 $0
STL221 Pavement Over1ay Program 95 .
STL222 Orange Avenue Sidewalk, Fourth to Quintard
ST1223 Sea Vale, Third to Second
STl224 Pavement Overtay Program 96
STl228 Orange Avenue Sidewalk Safety $48,346 $145,089 $1,637
STL229 Oxford SI. Sidewalk Safety $57 $427
STl232 Twin Oaks Ave., Naples to Emerson
STL233 Pavement Rehabilitation 96 . $195 $70,611
"':TL237 ADA Cur\:! Ramps 99
TL241 Sidewalk Safety - Palomar from Fourth to Fifth -$12,797 $2,177 $75,495 $24,625
STL242 Pavement ReI1abilitation 99 . $479 $50,258
STL250 ADA Curb Ramps 99/00 .... $1,284 $4,554
STL252 Pavement Rehabilitation 2000 . $1,039 $93,830 $84,416 $8,611
STL254 Alley Improvements. BannerfAlbany $40,249 $3,428 $10,254
STL256 Fourth ANe. Imps., slo Orange $1.464 $13,000 $272
STL2S7 Dixon St. Imps., Naples to Oxford $428 $9,119 $10,068
STL259 Sidewalk Rehab - Citywide' $9,769 $18,742 $16S
STL262 Naples SVlndustrial Blvd Sidewalks $5,338 $9,692
STl265 ADA Curb Ramps 99100 Phase 2 ... $4,975 $1,062
STL266 Sidewalk Rehabilitation .. $687 $44,449 $70,127
STL267 Pavement Rehabilitation 00f01 . $15,511 $1,730,354 $53,353
STL268 ADA Cur\:! Ramps 00f01 ... $805 $2,615
STL273 Pavement Management Program. Test. $11.644 $38,355
STl274 Local Streets Pavement Resurfacing' $59,497 $3,002
STl276 ADA Cur\:! Ramps 01f02.... $449 $4,550
STL277 Pavement Rehabilitation 01f02' $109 $127,346 $312,632 $22,152
STL279 Alley Improvements eJo Date $428
STL281 Sidewalk Rehabilitation 02103 .. $3,508 $62,964 $8,527
STL282 ADA Curb Ramps 02/03 ... $7,350
STL283 Pavement Rehabilitation 02/03 . $69 $219,436 $225,056
STL284 Local Street Pavement Rehabilitation 02103 $14,054 $110,945
STl285 Quintard Street Imps., 3rd to Orange $11,797 $11,197 $272.041 $88,800
STL287 CasUe Park Elem. Sidewalks $434,610 $61,015 $15,116
STl289 Sidewalk Rehabilitation 03104 .. $14,930 $45,798
STL291 Fourth Ave. Sidewalks $66,132 $77,774
3
Local Street Improvements Continued
Project FY 2006 YTD FY2003 FY2002 FY2001 FY2000
Number Project Name Expenditures (thru Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures
STL292 ADA Curb Ramps 03J{)4 0...
STL293 Pavement Rehabilitation 03104 . $81,211
STL295 Sidewalk Rehabilitation 04/05 "*
STl29? ADA Curb Ramps 04105 .... $122
STLJOO Local Street Pavement Rehabilitation 03104 . $6' $42,919 $1,358
STL301 Tobias St. Imps, Naples to Oxford (consl. Started 3/13) $72,745 $31,579
STl302 Dixon St. Imps., Naples to Oxford $626,091
STl306 Southwest CV St. Imps. $1,635 $1,600
Sn307 Sidewalk Rehab. Transnel FYOS. $11,907
STl310 Pavement Rehabilitation 04105 . $47,285 $11,937
STl311 Castle Park Dislnct Info. $9,141
STL313 CDaG Street and Drainage Imps. $2,300 $1,524,366
STL315 Pavement Rehabilitation 05106 . $5,510
STL317 ADA Curb Ramps 05106 ..... $7,845
STL319 Sidewalk Rehabilitation 05106 .. $9,324
STL323 Pedestrian Master Plan. $1,268
STL325 Pavement Testing and Management. $1,753
Total Local Streets Projects
Traffic Improvements
Project FY 2006 YTD FY2005 FY2004 FY2003 FY2002 FY2001 FY2000
Project Name Expenditures (thru
Number 3f10) Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures
NlA
NlA
NfA
TF133
TF135
TF145
TF146 Lorna Lane
TF211 and Anita
TF221 Traffic Install, I-Sand Palomar
TF227 left Turn at 3 Signals
TF232 Traffic Signal, Main and Date $24,617
'c235 Traffic Signal Safety, ADA Push Buttons
:240 Traffic Signal Upgrades - Third and Naples
.'F2S0 Traffic Signal Upgrades - Hilltop and Orange $3,660 $28.412 $16,340
TF260 Traffic Signal Loop Upgrades, 7 locations
TF266 Sigl"lallnstallalion, Albany - Main
TF269 Street lights Orange Ave" Palomar to Fourth $12,676 559,665
Tf300 Traffic Signal InstalL, Hilltop & Oxford
TF302 Traffic Slgnallnstatl" Palomar & 1st $147,377 $12,623
TF307 St.lIght Installation. 4th Ave. $326 $8,706
TF309 Signal Upgrade, 4th Ave and Orange $29. $74,711
TF315 Signal Install, Fifth and Moss $621 $166,314 $11.456
TF316 Signal Install, Fifth and Naples $13,879 $16,274
TF319 Signal Modification, Anita/Industrial $2,096
TF330 Traffic Signal Modifications, 4th/Main and 4thfBeyer
TF331 Traffic Signal Modifications, 3rd and Montgomery
Total Traffic Projects
4
Footnotes
SUMMARY PAGE
Totals
Capital Expenditures 1986-1999
Capital Expendituers 2000-2006
Total All Projects
Annual Rehabilitation Project Assumptions
Depicts 25% of total spent that year
Depicts 50% of total spent that year
Depicts 10% of total spent that year
FY 2006 YTO
Expenditures (thru
$52,778,195
$30,458,136
$83,236,331
FY 2004 FY 2003 FY 2002 FY 2001 FY 2000
Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures
63%
37%
5
COST DETAIL PUBLIC WORKSI OPERATIONS (WID leave)
CITYWIDE MONTGOMERY AREA
YEAR DEPT #of WOs Total Cost #of WOs Cost %of
Total Cost
2000 Pumps & Pools 2321 $114,731 15 $621 0.54%
Signs & Striping 3789 $426,400 370 $41,761 9.79%
Storm Drains 354 $171,088 45 $21 ,277 12.44%
Streets 1504 $460,187 126 $35,024 7.61%
Urban Forestry 1559 $318,718 57 $14,404 4.52%
Wastewater 3580 $1,082,761 272 $107,984 9.97%
2001 Pumps & Pools 1056 $138,831 15 $1,191 0.86%
Signs & Striping 3618 $556,533 427 $49,405 8.88%
Storm Drains 191 $207,114 40 $32,800 15.84%
Streets 1925 $610,271 249 $67,443 11.05%
Urban Forestry 1781 $399,704 84 $26,140 6.54%
Wastewater 1699 $776,993 162 $70,750 9.11%
2002 Pumps & Pools 20 $183,005 5 $496 0.27%
Signs & Striping 1617 $533,579 133 $19,050 3.57%
Storm Drains 125 $262,959 17 $15,001 5.70%
Streets 2477 $710,422 323 $100,801 14.19%
Urban Forestry 1360 $385,611 37 $18,489 4.79%
Wastewater 1685 $1,084,368 149 $75,417 6.95%
2003 Pumps & Poois 348 $1,359,238 10 $2,039 0.15%
Signs & Striping 1037 $536,644 88 $10,966 2.04%
Storm Drains 170 $201,778 30 $29,132 14.44%
Streets 2384 $650,789 247 $53,231 8.18%
Urban Forestry 1497 $334,872 70 $9,633 2.88%
Wastewater 2029 $1,042,921 196 $79,000 7.57%
2004 Pumps & Pools 455 $177,947 19 $3,810 2.14%
Signs & Striping 1218 $857,876 114 $13,792 1.61%
Storm Drains 199 $316,439 23 $19,772 6.25%
Streets 2470 $769,447 250 $75,569 9.82%
Urban Forestry 1349 $380,968 59 $14,069 3.69%
Wastewater 1717 $1,196,347 135 $61,655 5.15%
2005 Graffiti 1391 $145,560 270 $23,052 15.84%
Pumps & Pools 1136 $123,974 1 $105 0.08%
Signs & Striping 921 $408,098 116 $45,670 11.19%
Storm Drains 344 $393,513 28 $25,029 6.36%
Streets 2191 $853,664 251 $108,335 12.69%
Urban Forestry 1217 $537,511 65 $28,880 5.37%
Wastewater 1517 $1,384,089 86 $83,413 6.03%
ATTACHMENT 8
(PWO MISCELLANEOUS)
-
en
.... 0
OU
~J9
o
f-
'0
o
..
a.
<C
w
0:::
<C
-
~ ~
WU
::i:
o
C) en
1-0
z~
o '0
::i:'It
en
z
o
i=
~
w
c..
o
'0
2
a.
-
en
o
U
iU
-
o
f-
en
o
~
-
en
~
r:x:
o
s:
u
::::i
a:J
~
c..
-oJ
;5
W
C
....
en
o
u
-
o
'It
~
en
w;:
c
3:
~a::
!::: <I:
U~
?fi.?fi'#rfl.
(J)"'d"CX>W
IJ)O>MN
cx)...t""":"":
~ ~
LLLLLLro
enenenw
001..00
1.00"""0
NMoq:,...:
IDvNv
,....,.......O"'=t
-~lri
~ '"
-.:::ttONO
(00')0(")
"""MNN
Eh cri cO M-
"..,..,.
CJ)MLOI.O
.....,.N
~
LLLLLL('IJ
enenenw
0000
0000
"":""':<riM
..-C"')....--M
.............M,....
o "fI:t-CX)~
'" "')t"
'"
C"')C)NLO
0>('1')01'--
COI'-...-v
roNN--<::i
YTC'\Ir---.v
"..,..,.
co O':IN 0>
CO"""WCD
"'NN
C-
o
ii5
-
'in
c: Q)
~ 15 .~ N
f->:OX
"i:: :::J N
roc...c...m
o
.!::
(5
a.
~~!E
'" '" '"
<5""
o
o
o
N
?fl.?fi.?fi.?fi.
CO......MI'--
"":NN.,....
,....",,:OCO
~ ~
L1..LLLLro
en en en. w
0000
LOOOO
""":OcON
tDIDtON
.............C"')CO
N"..oM-N'
MI.C,)f"'-L{)
tDMNI'--
,....NOc>
N-~r-:~
tR- EA- ~......
'"
"""tOI.ON
MMiDCJ)
LLlLLLro
enenenw
0000
~qqq
vCOMC"')
NLONM
CJ)~"l~~
vCOvN
~""'"
'"
OOONLO
.,."'....
ro......CDO>
00- ,.....~ 00- ltf
......,.... CO to
{fi (fi tR- Y7
C"')Cf)C")CD
NNON
NNc)..q
C-
o
ii5
-
'in
c: Q)
CC 15 .~ N
~>::c><
oi::::J N
roa..c...~
o
.!::
(5
a.
iE!Ejg
'" '" '"
~ ~ ~
C)C)C)
~
o
o
N
?fi.?f!.*-?fi.
-q-C:OCCM
qo~,,:
......ONlD
LLu..lLro
enenenw
00
00
"":0
.... ~
N
00
"'0
c:ri""':
""....
00
cON
vCDI.O.......
V,....CCt--.
NtR-CJ)CJ)
'" --
~....
'" '"
M......,.....('I')
"''''
lL.LLLLro
enenenw
0000
oooq
c.DcOr---:N
N,.....!'--r---.
v......Nf'..
"ONc.D......
m......LO......
~
(DLO..qO
<omCDN
I,{)O>N.......
Mm-M-6
C'\I,....r---1.O
Y7 tR- EA- tR-
,.....0)0>......
MvDN
.,..,.
C-
o
ii5
-
'in
c: Q)
CCI 15'~ N
~>:c><
"i::::J N
roa..c...m
o
.!::
(5
a.
eiEE
'" '" '"
"t5(5
N
o
o
N
?f!.?fi.
"".,.
~~
?f.?f!.
"'....
~N
-.:icci
~ ~
LLLLu..ro
enenenw
0000
OOL1?O
Nar>OO
lC)tDOC\l
'" ~....
NNC....r
'"
c.oOMM
",,"CX)vCX>
M""'NCD
Y7b9-C"'"im
'" '"
"'d"LOMN
.,.'"
u..u..u..m
enenenw
0000
oooq
cr>c:i~oo
f'-.,.O>('I')O
lO 0 V tOR
tri~M~N
'" ~....
~ '"
COOOU1c.o
lOf'-.,.vO>
('I')VOO>
Mv~a:iN~
NT"'"f'-.,.lO
Y7~Y7Y7
T"'"COO>O>
('I')Vc.oOO
.,..,.
C-
O
ii5
-
'in
c: Q)
C'C 15 .~ N
~>::cX
-i:: :IN
15Cl..Cl..~
o
.!::
(5
a.
jg~~
'" '" '"
~ ~ ~
C)C)C)
'"
o
o
N
'#.'#.?fl.'#.
('I')T"'"I.(')I"
""",,:f'-.,NO
ONlOlO
LLLLLLC'C
enenenw
0000
001.(')0
oLri-q:~
OO)f'-.,c.o
c.oRf'-:~
""'"
..,.
c.of'-.,('I')T"'"
Nf'-.,lOc.o
Y7lO00v
Y7f'-.,-cci"
'" '"
T"'"f'-.,lOO>
........
LLu..u..C'C
enenenw
0000
0000
-q:cr>cDM
o>c.oVlO
tOR T"'" "'>t~ tOR
O)OMO
"'.,.'"
.,.
OO)VC"?
l{)O>('I')c.o
('I') N lOT"'"
OT"'"-mcD
NNVU1
~~T"'"~
'"
O)"'>tOO
T"'"I"MCO
"'.,.
C-
O
ii5
'in
c: Q)
~ 15 "~ N
t->::CX
"i:::J N
15c...c...~
-iE-a
~'ffi~:5
I..... '- '- 0
C)C)C)a.
.,.
o
o
N
?fl.?fl.'#.?fl.'#.'#.?fl.?fl.
T"'"O) 0) tOT"'" ONN
~vqT""f'-.,lONO
Nc:iN~cicciu?~
('I')NM "o::tNT"'"T"'"
~
V1
LLI
-'
o
OJ:
I-
o
c..
'-
~
I--
~
LL.
LL.
c(
'"
'"
*'*'
0'"
00
cia.ri
~
~rou..roLLLLU.U.C'C~
IwenwenenenenWI
0000000000
0000000000
-1.ri -q: Lri"": Lri 0 Lri 0 M
"o::t tONMO)tO co
N T"'"Nf'-.,f'-., to
~"o::t-Lria;j N-
~ '" '"
00
I-
:z
LLI
::E
OJ:
w
c(
l-
I--
e>:
T"'"O"d"'vvf'-.,c.of'-.,Oc.o
NT"'"COMNl{)OvE>'7V
~ONlO('I')VC"?CD N
N-~Y7('1')-~OO~c:i N
~ E>'7~Y7T"'" T"'"
'" '"
T""NNMlOf'-.,lOMOCO
C"? VT"'"T"'"O f'-.,
~ ~
~C'Cu..rou..LLLLLL~C'C
IwenwenenenenIW
0000000000
0000000000
Mcci<<:iOONc.ricr>-q:cciLri
COVO':Iv!DT"'"f'-., N
o lOOQ')"o::tN N
T"'"~ M llitritri lli
NT"" 0) f'-.. T"'"
N
lON lOLOCD Nf'-.,CDOT""
(OT"'"OOLO(OT"'"f'-.,VC"?(O
Y7COCOVT""T"'"lO(O~M
O)-~"":a;jL6v~cD T"'"~
Y7 Y7Y7~LOQ') co
'" '" '"
MLO CO 1.0 (0 LO(ON
f'-., VT""VO)(O
T"'" T"'" LO f'-.,
....
N
....
to
E
'('
2~a. ]110
~~c5 ~~.~
:;: CD _ 0 Q) Q)
~.?;- 'in ii5 E E
> = c: CI) E E
E:;: ~ :J 0 0
1:Jf-aJUU
-- ...!.. .- .- .- --
iEiEiEiEiEiEiEiE
C'C ro ro m ro C'C ro m
t5c9t5c9t5c9c9t5
Q)
15 .2
>:0
'i:: :J
a. a.
NN
XX
NN
CI) CI)
Q) Q)
00
.!:: .!::
015
a. a.
It)
o
o
N
'-
Sewer Rate From Annexation To Present.
Mont1!omerv Area I Other Chula Vista Area
Year SFD Sewer Rate/Mo/Yr SFD Sewer Rate /Mo/Yr
1986/87 $ 39.00 $ 5.40/64.80
1987/88 $ 39.00 $ 8.701l04.40
1988/89 $ 70.00 $ 8.701l04.40
1989/90 $ 70.00 $ 8. 701l 04.40
1990/91 $ 100.20 $ 10.41/124.92
1991/92 $ 131.16 $ 12.21/146.52
1992/93 $ 16.001l92.00 $ 16.001l92.00
I During the period that the funds were accounted for separately, the City Council adopted annual rates for
Montgomery and monthly rates for the rest of the city.
ATTACHMENT 9 (SEWER RATE)
Utilitv Undergrounding Projects
Location
Main St. from 1-5 to Industrial Blvd. (border)
Est. Cost
$427,000
Date of Est.
11/91
Broadway from L St. to Moss St.
(border, partially affects Montgomery)
$427,000
11/91
Orange Ave. from Third Ave. to Fourth Ave.
$396,000
11/91
Main St. from Industrial Blvd. to Third Ave.
1,437,000
9/02
Orange Ave. from Palomar St. to Fourth Ave.
$440,000
9/02
Quintard St. from Third Ave. to Orange Ave.
$280,000
9/02
Fourth Ave. from L St. to Orange Ave.
(currently in design)
$2,967,000
11/05
ATTACHMENT 9 (UTILITY UNDERGROUND)
O~
"'...
M'"
N" ci
'" N
o V C"')~
oeOv
N~N
V> V>
~~
~ ~
0;
C!;55
ocD
N;;;
'"
'"
N
N
M'"
0'"
0...
N~
V>
o
....
o
M
~M
OM
N;;;
....
o
....
'"
0'"
0"'.
N
~
;;;
0it2:;j:
0....'"
o.......,f
NCDN
,90<0
O)~ r-:
~:.::;;t
'"
VJ
Q)
::J
c:
Q)
>
Q)
a::
1:-
rn
c:
o
~
~
u
VJ
is
"'...
....MCD
"''''~
maiN
...'"
.9 ,.... M_
l.O..oco
",NM
",V>V>
"''''
... "'...
",...CO
0>..0..0
~""N
BVC"')
<6..0
NNM
~fhfh
...'"
~"'M
",~CD
O'>rio
"'...
.8-.:tN
Q)~ri
",NM
",V>V>
"'...
"'N
"'. '"
",0;
"'...'"
"'CD CD
0> (6 ai
V> V>
"'N
"''''
CD'"
<Ii "",,-
...."'CD
C:OCO~
0)..000
V> V>
F
"
E
o
0>
- "'
c: '"
o )(
:=!: ~ ~
g:~~
" '" "'
" c. '"
"00-
gQ:~
,,~ N
"
1:
C3
f'-.VVO
OVO<O
C"') en N N
..oa:i"":ci
O>tDv.....
f"-..NO>O
..fNriv~
fA. UT..... tA-
V>
cD
....
o
N
N
V>
t--cococo
1.Ot--.....1.O
<D-.::tf'-.t--
cO oi t--~ C\I~
.....1.0(1")("')
lO..........t--
..fC\icriri
Y)-Y)-Y)-Y)-
....
'"
o
M
N
ei
N
V>
"'CD"''''
vCDa......
.....C"')C)N
c~j v. r---- 6
MNOLO
MOOCD
M-N""":ri
Y)-Y)-.....(/)
V>
N
M
CD
oO
'"
M
0;
;;;
......("')0:><0
to 0.....('\1
vNCOr--.
ci""':NM
I"'--LDLOCO
MONCO
NNOM
y} fA...... tA-
V>
o
M
o
M
;
0;
;;;
1.0000<0
0')<.0<00>
...;t0100
..fMMO
f"-. 11)..... 0
N.....Nv
tONairi
fhER-fhtA-
'<tM.....O
r--(O",,"o
c])cx)coo
<<iaiMI.O
C\/O<D"If
.....vcot--
cD ..0 .....: oi
y)-y)-NER-
V>
co-.::rooo
CJ')t--NCO
OI.O..--C'\j
..0 ,,- ai oi
<DLONCO
mO)O'>v
NMWai
Y)-Y)-.....Y)-
V>
coo v"'"
COt--COI.O
Q..q-<DN
L6"":..f6
OONV
1"-("').....0
N"riLl"io:i
tA-Y)-.....Y)-
V>
r--.....O<D
C\lMMM
COC\iLO(()
cD"":"":"':
Ll)0)1'--.....
vl.O(D.....
C\iMrir-:
ER-ER-.....Y)-
V>
OOCDf'-..LO
OM......m
0...... v It)
M-C"'it---c6
COO>'O:tM
.......ocoO'>
fA. - - -
~M~
V> V> V>
vvl"'-co
v eo......,.....
NO"'ltN
cD..fOC'i
..........vCO
COC>>LOM
tA-tA-riN"
V> V>
"'
'"
'" "'
u.. ig
"' '" c:
'" "' '"
'" c: >
u.. 8 Q)
Q) :..:iC:::
"' )(
:.c CD (U
u 131-
e I- --
m 0 ~ ~
ILI->C9
M
OOCD
"'~o
~....",
m-m-r-:
M"'M
v. to_ co_
NMM
V> V>....
V>
"''''0
"'CD 0
"'....CD
air--:.....:
"'CD'"
"'ON
"":a.riLI'i
V> V> <0
V>
CD"'N
"''''N
....N~
oiaici
"'CD'"
M"'O
....:~.,...:
V> V> CD
V>
"''''0
"''''N
OCDCD
<600"":
O"'N
N"''''
.....-rian
V> V> '"
V>
M"''''
~N'"
..."''''
NV.c6
"''''....
"'M'"
V> . .
.......
V>'"
V>
<OM<O
"''''N
"'''''''
cD CD- ..0
"''''CD
CD~CD
"":oici
V>V>M
;;;
"'........
"'...'"
..."'....
..j"":",:
;;;:;j:~
tA-LCiN
V> 0
~
V>
NCD'"
"'0'"
~~'"
t---..jM-
"'ON
...."''''
V> . .
M'"
V> '"
V>
"''''CD
CD"''''
...~...
...... -.:t. (0"
M........
"'N....
V> . .
...'"
V> '"
V>
"'",M
..."'....
oo....'"
ccioai
OCDM
NN'"
V> . .
~'"
V> N
V>
NM....
"''''...
"'...'"
<6..0 ",-
",CD",
NO~
V> . .
~M
V> N
V>
)(
'"
f-
~
.S1
"'
c:
!"
1-2<11
~~E
8.~ ~
e Qj <11
,,-",0:
CiiaJ]i
~~~
.
M'"
"'M
"'M
i--CV>
~
N
ON
O~
~M
0; V>
o
N
OCD
00
....M
0; V>
'"
~
OM
0'"
"'N
eiV>
'"
0'"
O~
MM
MV>
'"
o
o
M
...
....
o
o
"'.
CD
'"
~
o
o
'"
cD
...
o
o
M
c5
M
~
ON
00
ON
cD V>
N
~
O~
0'"
CD~
. V>
N
J!!
'Ci.
'"
()
~
'"
"-
'"
::J
c:
'"
>
'"
0:
5"
.- '"
0000
:; E
a.:.;:::::;
0",
"-w
'"
"
4:
c: "'
o '"
:;:; x (I)
'" '" '"
)( f- )(
~~~
c: '" "'
<( c. '"
",0-
~;a:~
E - ~
o
S'
c:
o
:e
0'"
~N
CD CD
N- cD .......
M"''''
"'
~
V>
M~
NM
oM"
0....
"'. ...
~M
V> V>
...."'CD
CD"'N
"''''M
ocricri
"'OM
NN;;.
~g
M"''''
"'O~
..."''''
..0 N"~-
..."''''
N"OER-
M
;;;V>
CD'"
oo~
MO.
i
~
o
~. ~
M
V>
~
V>
"''''CD
CD"''''
...."'....
cci Lti aJ-
"'.... N
N'"
MaiER-
V> V>
"''''
"'0
~ "'.
i--C
'"
o
M
V>
oo
CD
o
0;
CD
...
M
V>
"'...
'" N
N....
cri"':
N'"
"'0
cri"':
V> V>
~
..tV>
V>
~
CD
....
.....
V>
~
M
O.
~
'"
CD
i--C
V>
N
"'.
CD
...
....
ei
'"
;;;
'"
oo
'"
i--C
'"
N
V>
~~
N
uiai
"'....
"'v>
V>
'"
M
M
i--C
CD
;;t
t--LONN
r--NLO~
aJ c:o~ aJ
~ t--~
~ 0
;;t :.':
V>
'"
'"
CD
M
...
V>
CD
o
o
ei
CD
V>
"''''
0'"
....~
Ni--C
"'CD
V> CD.
...'"
NM
0_ M_
;~
V> CD.
~
V>
<D
o
M
...
V>
........
'" '"
~<<>.
M
'"
....
g;;.
'"
o
~
V>
'"
N
o
cD
CD
V>
....
V>
CD
M
N
i--C
....
"'.
;;;
N
'"
'"
...
M
M
~
V>
N'"
"'~
"''''
N" ~~
~;;.
~V>
V>
M
M
M
ei
'"
"'.
V>
"'M
....M
"''''
ciui
NCD
~ "'.
M
V>;;;
~M
"'....
... N
..0 aJ~
....N
co_ LO_
~;;.
~
.....
o
....
N
V>
N
CD
....
c5
CD
'"
V>
N
...
...
i--C
~
V>
....
o
...
c5
N
N
V>
'"
N
M
oO
...
oo
V>
'"
o
o
cD
~
V>
'"
N
'"
M
N
N
V>
"'....
M'"
"'~
ai L()~
N~
V>i--C
V>
M
N
0;
o
CD
V>
MM....
"'MCO
....NCD
M..oo
~N~
V> cD
V>
o
CO~~
aJ ....... O~
0;
...
'"
V>
OM
M
;;;
M
N
'"
~ei
N~
V> cD
V>
N
...
....
0;
co
CD.
M
o
o
oO
M
V>
....
M
'"
c5
o
CD
V>
....
CD
....
M
M
V>
'"
M
...
M
....
'"
V>
'"
...
CD.
...'"
CDN
MN
cici
:2;&J
V> cD
V>
~
M
V>
o
M
'"
cD
N
V>
8;;;1;
~CD
aio:i
00
"'CD
V>oO
V>
0> 0> 0> 0> 0>
CD"''''
oo"'oo
O. '"
cococri
~... M
"'O~
ER-N"ER-
V>
N M
... 0
'" N
ai o:i
... M
.... ~
V> V>
M W ~
"'
'"
'" "'
u.. '"
::J
"' '" c:
'" "' '"
'" c: >
u.. 1J '"
Q) :::i 0::
"' )(
:.c: Q) <<I
u 131-
I:: I- :.c: U)
en 0 Q) en
LL:I->e>
00
"'....
N N.
.....
~
V>
;:::
'"
V>
00
... '"
N. '"
~~
N
V>
OM
NM
~'"
ei
...
~
...
V>
M
CD
;;;
)(
'"
f-
~
.S1
<1)
c:
'"
t= ~ <11
~ ~ ~
'" Q) "
c. "- >
e Qj <11
"- "' 0:
ro ~ ~
~:3~
ro
...
'"
oo
cD
'"
.....
'"
V>
M'"
"''''
"'N
eiV>
M
N
...
'"
....
M
N
i--C
V>
"'....
"'M
"'N
eiV>
M
"'CD
"'M
NN
eiV>
M
CDO
~~
0; V>
N
ON
"'M
CDN
0; V>
N
'"
;
i--C
N
N
0;
;;;
CD
'"
M
0;
N
o
'"
o
.....
;:::
cD
;;;
'"
....
....
c5
N
M
'"
i--C
N
;
'"
cD
N
N'"
"'OO
o~
cD V>
N
~
....
oO
N
J!!
'Ci.
'"
()
Q;
"-
"
"
c:
'"
>
'"
0:
c:"
o Q)
~m
" E
c.:.;:::::;
0<1)
"-W
~
,j
Q)
>
.~
i"
E
=>
o
E
'"
'"
'"
~
0>
.!!!
<ii
o
I-
~
~
o ~
g ~ ~
1:: 0 '0
o c: Q)
a. co ro
en,g
'"
Q)
c:
'"
N
o
o
N
.~
E
'"
E
0>
=>
<(
'"
.&
'"
en
g
:c~
=> >
!J; .~
~ ~
'" c:
Q) 0
co :e iii
C/J 8. ~
'" u
~ '"
=> c:
" 0
X "0
~ '"
o '"
0> '"
Q) .c
is ~
'"
E
'"
E
0>
::J
<(
'"
.&
'"
en
~ ~ 0
~ .g 0
0"- N
",~.9
5 I- ~
8 ~ <:n
Q) ~
c. '"
'" Q)
<ii "0
=> =>
u u
<( E
N M
~
o
""
c:
=>
o
'-'
E
,g
'"
'"
'"
E
~ ~
CD di
"0 "'
o "
E '"
'" ~
:.c <.)
f-E
<;;
lri c
<X> Q)
~ E
.0 Q)
J!i
ni lri ~ I/'J
Q) OCI :;, co
>.<:n-,.u
.r:: c:" c:
~ 0 ~
Q) ~ It=
?ft .t:! I/'J
N co-co
c::.... ::I 1;)
.Q~~g>
.5 ~ ~ 5 b ~
Q) a. -c .r::
(j)8. ~(ij()
~ en 0
I/'J ~ en
$ ro '*
o E Ci)
E t;
5 Q) E
o Q) .!=?
.s L.L. -E ~
'"
"0
'"
i"
'"
>-
.c
"5
o
c:
Q)
"
~
.c
0>
c:
'0;
.c
Q;
0>
c:
.Q
o
c:
."!
'"
"0
Q)
:;
.9
'"
=>
"0
"0
Q)
'"
=>
.!!!
~
Q)
E
o
2'
c:
o
:2
0>
c:
'c
c:
'm
'"
'"
.,;
o
0; ~
'" "'
0>
-E 5
.~ ~
0>
c:
'E
'"
1;;
'"
i'j
'i: ~
~ '"
.2 It=
=>
:2
<(
E ~ a;
1t:2
,g
I/'J -ffi ~ co
co :;, :;, ::I
~:l~:l
o
0>
Q)
Q
c:
'"
en
~
o
'"
c:
=>
o
'-'
'<I" I() (() r-
,;
=>
c:
Q)
>
i"
f-
a
f-
'"
"0
1
'u
'"
:;
'0
'"
~
1ii
"0
$
'"
"5
"
<ii
"
i"
'"
'"
i"
=>
0>
'"
N
o
o
N
"'
0>
=>
~
:;
'"
<X>
0>
.,;
o
o
N
Ii;
~
1'j
'"
'"
.~
c:
~
o
"0
"0
Q)
'"
o
"
i"
~
Q)
'"
o
:;
'0
o
~
f-
M
o
o
N
.~
'"
~
c:
.Q
1ii
x
'"
c:
c:
<(
~
Q)
E
o
2'
c:
o
:2
Q)
:;
'"
o
o
N
Ii;
'"
>-
~
'"
c:
.Q
1ii
c
.~
c:
'"
>-
.c
c: "0
o ~
"0 '"
Q) Q)
gj 0
.a .S
Q) ~ OCI
Co co ~
CJ> '"
<X> <X>
CJ> '"
~ ~
$
'"
5
1;;
Q)
c:
.Q
1ii
"5
0.
o
0.
.s.s co
0> i"
c: <(
:e c:
co ..... .2
1;).Ero
~ ~ ~ co
co m c: .....
E E ~ .E
t;t;~~
Q) Q) Q) :;,
Q) Q) E 0
~ ~ g, C/J
Q) Q) c .m
a; a; 0 0
e::: a::: :2 z
~
~
'"
15.
.~
i"
0>
c:
'E
'"
1;;
'"
Q)
1ii
E
t;
Q)
Q)
=>
c:
'"
>
Q)
'"
ro ~
o
c:
'"
E
.<:
"
'"
t:
<(
.,;
o
o
N
.9
<X>
<X>
'"
~
i!!
'"
~
~
$
!"
"'
j
~
0>
..
~
'"
>-
'"
:2
'0
'"
c:
=>
o
'-'
>-
.c
"0
'"
"'
'"
'E
.2
'0
'"
C3
Q)
:;
."
$
o
c:
"
~
'"
~
'"
Q)
>-
<ii
"
'"
'"
=>
o
:;
';0
."!
'"
"0
Q)
"0
1
'u
~