HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1997/10/14
Tuesday, October 14, 1997
6:00 p.m.
"I d.cI..... under penalty of par!ury that I am
employed by the City of Chule Vista ,n the
Offic. of 'he City r;I"'r~ and t~.;~! I pos',8(\
this Agen\,~6ij No~~j, "e on tha ifh.dijt9~;h, 80elld at
the Public f....~i.ce. I3wUin" ~ ~'" on Council Chambers
DATED..J.Q-I1Jl_(1::J.. SIGI1ErJ...: . f)~ y~ublic Services Building
RellUJar Meeting of the Citv of Chula Vista Citv Council
CALL TO ORDER
1.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Moot _, Padilla _' Rindone _' Salas _, and
Mayor Horton _'
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TIlE FLAG. MOMENT OF SILENCE
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None submitted.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF TIlE DAY:
a. Oath of Office: Carol Gove - Safety Commission.
b. Check presentatioo from the Couoty of San Diego to the Bayfroot Conservaocy Trust in the
amount of $30,000 for the Clapper Rail Exhibit to be presented by Supervisor Greg Cox to Mayor
Shirley Horton and Executive Director Stephen Neudecker.
c. Friends of the Arts board member, Gene Clement, will introduce Dave Trevino, Sweetwater
Union High School District's School for the Creative aod Performing Arts and a vocal group.
d. Announcement of a special event for residents of Chula Vista, FREE HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE RECYCLING EVENT to be held on Saturday, 10/18/97 from 9:00
a.m. to I :00 p.m. at Marina Parkway aod "G" Street. This will be the last "free" disposal option
in the South Bay for a long time.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 throuxh 8)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by
the Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff
requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish 10 speak on one of these items, please fill oul a
"Requesllo Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeling. Items pulled
from the Consenl Calendar will be discussed after Board and Commission Recommendations and Action Ilems.
Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that to he best of his knowledge from observance of
actions taken in Closed Session on 10/7/97 in which the City Attorney participated, that there
were no actions taken which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. it is
recommeoded that the letter be received and tiled.
Agenda
-2-
Octob~r 14, 1997
b. Letter from Gary Duggan, President, Board of Directors, Rios East Homeowner Association,
requesting to be placed on a Council agenda so residents can speak regarding Police
intervention in their area. It is recommended that staff continue to work with the Association
regarding appropriate Police matters.
c. Letter from Richard H. Jackson with a petition requestin~ that the City resolve the noise
problem for the residents on Gentry Way, Oxford Street, Orlando Court, Hilltop Drive, and
Tobias Drive. The petition has been referred to Police and Code Enforcement staff for
investigation and report back to Council.
6. RESOLUTION 18793 WAIVING THE BID REQUIREMENTS REGARDING PUBLICATION
FREQUENCY AND APPROVING A PURCHASE ORDER CONTRACT
WITH THE STAR NEWS AS THE NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL
CIRCULATION FOR THE PUBLICATION OF ALL LEGAL NOTICES
AND OTHER MATTERS REQUIRED TO BE PUBLISHED BY THE
CITY AND APPROVING THE USE OF AN AL TERNA TIVE SOURCE IN
CASES OF EMERGENCY - In June 1996, The Star News went from a bi-
weekly publication to a weekly publication and moved its printing and publishing
services to North County. This created a problem for the City in trying to meet
legal publishing requirements within the weekly deadlines established by The
Star News. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Clerk) 4/5th's
vote required.
7. RESOLUTION 18794 WAIVING THE BIDDING PROCESS AND AWARDING PURCHASE
AGREEMENT TO CALIFORNIA TURF PRODUCTS FOR THREE 84"
RIDING LAWN MOWERS - The fiscal year 1997/98 Equipment Replacement
Budget provides for the purchase of three 84 inch riding mowers. California
Turf Products has agreed to sell the mowers (if available) to the City for
$22,590 each plus tax ($24,341). The City purchased an identical mower from
California Turf Products as part of the:: fiscal year 1996/97 Equipme::nt
Replacement program for $27,925 plus tax ($30,090). Waiving the bidding
process and purchasing the mowers at the quoted price would provide significant
savings for the City. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Dinxtor
of Public Works and Director of Finance)
8. RESOLUTION 18795 APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF "OXFORD STREET
IMPROVEMENTS FROM FOURTH A VENUE TO FIFTH A VENUE IN
THE CITY (STL-229) - This project was originally funded during the fiscal
year 1996/97 Capital Improvement Program budget process. The project was
funded to improve pedestrian access, circulation, and alleviate a local drainage
problem at mid-block. It is also part of the overall sidewalk safety program
which provides for the construction of sidewalk facilitie::s in the:: Montgomery
area. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
4/5th's vote required.
* * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * *
Agenda
-3-
October 14, 1997
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject matter within the
Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda for public discussion. (State law, however, generally
prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to
address the Council on such a subject, please complete the "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications
Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak,
please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to
speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City
Clerk prior to the meeting.
None suhmitted.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council will consider items which have been forwarded to them for consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions, and/or Committees.
None suhmitted.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by
the Council, staff, or members of the general public. 17/e items will be considered individually by the Council
and staff recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please
fill out a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
PCM-96-24; NOTICING PROCEDURES FOR LAND USE PUBLIC
HEARINGS - CITY-INITIATED - This report is in response to a Council
request for information regarding procedun:s for public noticing on land use
hearings with respect to notification of tenant residents. Staff recommends
Council approve the resolution and provide direction on certain other items
related to public noticing. (Acting Director of Planning)
9.
REPORT
RESOLUTION 18796 AMENDING CITY COUNCIL POLICY NUMBER 400-01 PERTAINING
TO LAND USE HEARING PUBLIC NOTICES AND PROVIDING
DIRECTION REGARDING CERTAIN OTHER PROCEDURES RELATED
TO LAND USE HEARING PUBLIC NOTICING
10.
REPORT
PCM-98-01; DISCUSSION OF STATE AND LOCAL SIGN
REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO FREEWAY ORIENTED SIGNS - In
August 1996, Council requested that staff work with the business community
and the Chamber of Commerce to look at the City's sign ordinance, with
particular attention to freeway signage and enforcement. As a result, an ad-hoc
committee was formed with representatives of the various commercial business
districts, Chamber of Commerce members, and staff. The committee developed
a number of recommendations regarding signage which are being presented for
discussion and direction. Staff recolnmends that Council discuss state and local
sign regulations concerning freeway oriented signage, consider the
recommendations of the roundtable committee, am.l provide direction to staff
with respect to possible actions. (Acting Director of Planning)
Agenda
-4-
October 14. 1997
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar.
Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers.
OTHER BUSINESS
II. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTCS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
12. MAYOR'S REPORTlS)
13. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the regular City Council meeting on Octoher 2 t, 1997
at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A special joint meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City
Council meeting.
'" declere ",nct", penalty of perjury that I am
em~'oye-j by ~ne ::ity of Chuts Vista in the
Oi,tlce of ~~ ~~,: ;J't'f C!€in"t; and that I oos'\.e1
thIS Agen,'>>'/ ,N,,':k~ on tit" 6uUetil1 &,~' <I t
Tuesday, October 14,1997 th" f'Ubl~YiC~. Bu"hiing ~nd i/-~council Chambers
6:00 p.m. . . DATED, . o/;$'?StGI~I!D.,~ ,.. . Services Building
(Immediately followmg the CIty CouncIl Meetl g) ~ 4- - <<--
Citv of Chula Vista Citv Council
CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. Unless the City Attorney, the City
Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will discuss and deliberate on the following
items of business which are pennitted by law to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the
Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Council is
required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of final action taken in closed session, and the votes
taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be tenninated
at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return/rom closed session, reports of final action taken,
and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report of final action taken will be recorded in the
minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office.
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING - Existing litigation pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9
. Jom~s lntercable y. City of Chula Vista.
. Jaffee v. City of Chula Vista.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
. Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CYEA, WCE, POA, lAFF, Executive
Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of
Engineers (WCE) , Police Officers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire
Fighters (IAFF).
Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented.
2. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
,
October 9, 1997
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City counci1_ (
John D. Goss, city Manager ~q by,~)
city council Meeting of October (1, 1997
TO:
FROM:
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular
city council meeting of Tuesday, October 14, 1997. Comments
regarding the written communications are as follows:
5a. This is a letter from the city Attorney stating that to the
best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in
Closed Session on 10/7/97 in which the City Attorney
participated, there were no actions taken which are required
under the Brown Act to be reported.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED.
5b. This is a letter from Gary Duggan, President, Board of
Directors of Rios East Homeowner Association, regarding police
intervention in their area. Attached is a memo from the
Police Department chronicling the history of this issue. As
you can see, staff has spent a considerable amount of time and
resources in an attempt to address Rancho Rios HOA's concerns.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT STAFF CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE
ASSOCIATION REGARDING APPROPRIATE POLICE MATTERS. Many of the
remaining problems, however, need to be addressed by Rancho
Rios HOA through civil remedies.
5c. This is a letter from Richard H. Jackson regarding a noise
problem surrounding the Pentecostal Church located at 1236
Hilltop Drive. The petition has been referred to Police and
Code Enforcement staff for investigation and report back to
Council. Representatives from the Police Department will be
present at the 10/14 Council meeting to respond to any
questions Council may have.
JDG:mab
To:
John Goss, City Manager
Date: October 9, 1997
From:
Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager
Jim ZOl~olice Department
Pending Council Appearance by Members of the Rios East Home
Owners' Association
~
/?
Via:
Subject:
As you are aware, representatives from the Rios East HOA wrote a
letter to Council members dated June 26, 1997. They expressed concern
over a lack of cooperation by the police department. The department's
Street Team was assigned to meet with the homeowners and residents,
and to work with them in resolving their issues regarding criminal
activity.
The Street Team, under the direction of Sergeant Richard Coulson, met
with the members and residents on several occasions, and identified
their concerns regarding speeding, auto theft, illegal immigrants and
transients.
During their first meeting, staff discussed and offered
recommendations, as well as a variety of resources that could be
implemented to combat these problems.
Traffic Enforcement: Staff discussed the effectiveness of speed bumps
and additional signs, and contacted the Chula Vista Transit Department
reference complaints of buses speeding in the area. They also
utilized beat officers to provide extra patrol and had the Traffic
Division work selective enforcement.
Gang Activity: Staff made several recommendations and supplied
handouts to association members explaining the proper procedures
associated with the eviction process: "As of August 14th, the Street
Team had made four arrests for burglary and narcotics, issued six
citations, and documented over 21 field interviews.
Illegal Immigrants: Staff arranged for two representatives from the
Border Patrol to attend the monthly HOA meeting in order to answer
questions and offer recommendations.
Transients:
bottom area
conducted.
Members of the Street Team conducted a sweep of the river
where several contacts were made and field interviews were
On September 17, 1997, Gary Duggan, President of the REHOA, wrote a
letter to the Mayor and Council expressing concern that the Street
Team had not resolved their issues and that "police intervention has
failed." On Saturday, October 8, 1997, the Street Team met with
representatives of the HOA and discussed with them the amount of time
and resources used to address their concerns.
The Rios East Home Owners' Association has asked to be placed on
Council Agenda for October 14, 1997. Staff believes they will be
addressing the need for more officers to be assi~ned to the area of
their complex, as well as the additional availab~lity of officers to
deal with their concerns.
Staff has offered to continue their assistance with representatives of
the HOA and residents within the com~lex to resolve the issues. We
believe several residents have been ~dentified as the source of many
of the complex's problems, and that the HOA needs to address these
problems through civil remedies to effectively resolve continual
problems.
Copies of support documents are attached for reference
rehoa
,
RECEIVED
RIOS
EAST HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION
BOARD OF DIRECTOR~_
;:--"\ -- ----::.-
Ii..: 1 :,
)ILF}~___.___
'I '
t~j sce',
1
'97 SEP 30 1\11 :30
Gary Duggan, Pr...
John Barano. Vie. Pr...
Ella M. Croahier, S.c.
Peggy Banducci, Tre.a.
Eric B-v.ridge. Wbr.
at Large
CITY OF CHULA VIS: i,
CITY CLERK'S OFFIC~
Sept. 17, 1997
0D
City of Chula Vista
Mayor and City Council
276 4th Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Ref: Crime
Dear Mayor & Council Members,
:r.~~~~~~A~~?~iS.~~J:~f,~~1?-~!i(~,~.~Jap~!:iM,i~e.x:t', regular
C.oun~J.:I~Meet:J.:ng;,Agenciii:Lrega,:r.dJ.:Ilg<: crJ.Jlle1!,a t" RJ.:os;r Eas t:', ".' ...
~- - .... -', ............_.._-~...~.., ...._.~.>.~~.i-:u~;'-:.~_.;:,:,',....,."
Our previous request to speak to the Council was cancelled as a
result of your directing the Police Dept. to address the problem.
The C.V.P.D."Sweep Team" presentation at Rios East HOA meeting
was quite impressive and the residents felt that they were
finally going to be taken seriously. However, many of the pro-
blems still exist and the "Sweep Team" effort has not solved the
problem.
There are 264 families living in this "Blue Collar" community who
pay their taxes and are entitled to sae living conditions. Many
residents attended the 9-11-97 HOA meeting voicing their concern.
Officer Witte (CVPD) was supposed ,to be present at our monthly
meetings working closely with res~ents and Board of Directors.
He wasn't present at the 9-11 ROA meeting and no word from any-
one at CVPD.
,
,
Rios East residents have made every effort to cooperate with
CVPD and the Board's efforts to obtain police intervention
has failed. Therefore, it is encumbent upon the Board of Dir-
ectors to call upon our elected officials for assistance.
Please advise as to when this matter is scheduled to come
before the city council.
Sincerely,
~vt?t~.;;J ;; f?
ary Duggan, Pres. REROA
CLst~ WRITTEN COMMUNICA; T&O~~S
, ~ /1/6:/'17
, "~~Dr,- ~?)/
,
--
1)1 W;/
RIOS EAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Fernando Lugo, Pres.
Gary Duggan, vice Pres.
Ella H. Croahier, Sec.
Peggy Banducci, Treas.
Joseph Douglas, Gen.
Chairman-Committees
March 6, 1997
Chula Vista Mayor & City Council
276 4th Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor & Council Members,
A new Board of Directors and Management Company for Rios East has
been in effect Since Sept 25,'96 and Oct. 2,'96. Soon thereafer
we found we had no funds and lots of problems. One of our main
concerns was the amount of crime in our area.
With no money for a guard service we immediately formed a new
New Neighborhood Watch Committee with the help of policewomann,
Mary Jane, of the Chula Vista Police Dept. She presented a pro-
gram to our residents informing us that the success would depend
upon cooperation between the Police and Residents.
We realize that to have an effective Neighborhood Watch Program
it takes the support of all our residents. It is with this in
mind that the new watch program has proceeded to organize. They
have developed sections and section leaders and will be doing
their own monitoring. We have purchased signs and decals which
we are in the process of installip.~"and distributing.
Also, with our limited budget, we have installed several new
light poles around the peremiter of the complex with more to come
as we are financially able. We know that good lighting is one of
the best deterents against crime.
Some of our residents have called the police, and some have been
put on hold and some have been put off due to other priorities.
This is understandable considering Chula Vista is a fairly large
small city and we know crime is not only happening in our area.
What we would like to see is enforcement. We have regular groups
that hang out around the pool area and the less lit locations.
They are smoking pot and drinking. It is suspected that at least
several of these are minors.
When the police have been called, before, they have just broke up
the party and it all begins allover, again. There is no doubt
that some of the crime and vandalism is connected with this type
, ,~
~
of activity. Jack Kuda, Manager of Rancho Rios (adjacent our
complex) is also having the same problem.
What we would like to have is more surveilance, if possible, and
to take measures to enforce whatever laws on the books that are
available to discourage this type of activity.
This is
adults.
dark.
a family neighborhood with small children and some older
They do not feel safe to walk about the complex after
Also, parking laws have been violated. It is our understanding
that the streets and cultisacs are city streets. Especially
after hours and on weekends you can drive through and find many
violations. We would like you to take action on those under
your jurisdiction and advise us of any that would be our respon-
sibility. .
Also, we would appreciate your attention regardin street repairs
and safety. There are several asphalt areas that need repair &
there are several large drain holes along the curbs that have no
grates on them. ~hildren & animals could easily pass through
these holes. Cars are consistently speeding beyond the 25 mile
speed limit along Rancho Drive. Some speed bumps installed
near the 25 MPH sign would be helpful.
Several city signs are completely faded out and should be re-
placed. We can't tell what they used to say.
Our new board and management company are making a great effort
to bring this community under control so that it will be an
attractive and well maintained complex.
Nothing detracts from property values more that the p~oblems
cited above. Therefore, we would~ppreciate the City's co-
operation and request to be placed on the next City Council
Agenda for discussion. Please advise me as to the time and
place for the meeting.
Sincerely,
~~~.
Ella M. Croshier, Secretary
cc: (file)
.-.--
~\f'-1
ill
RIOS EAST.HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
~
~(i;fEn~7
r:- rtJL I 6
'5 n
, I r, '
" '
1.., '
"',
,
i" ,
j "--
I
I
~
Gary Dug9ao, Pres.
John S.reno, Vice Pree.
Ella M. Croshier. S~C.
Peggy Banducci, Treae.
ErIC Bev~.jdge. Mbr.
at L.i\rge:
CO,I :t.:;,r; {,;: ;C~ ';
U'::~: i:,.-:: (.,
__."Ii
C">C">
=4:::;
-<-<
("")0
,"'"
mC")
:::Ox
~C
V>'
O~
.,..,<
""'Vi
0-<
m:r-
I forwarded a letter to you some time ago regarding crime
and ordinance violation in the area of Rancho Dr. & Rancho
where the Rios East Planned Unit Development is located.
June 26, 1997
City of Chula Vista
Attn: City Council
276 4th Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Council Members,
Shortly thereafter I received a call from the police department
which offerred little encouragement about what we could expect
due to lack of manpower.
I asked for some specific instruction as to how the residents
should deal with ordinance violations. This information was
provided to all the residents (264 units).
~
:xl
F: fTI
(")
- fTI
0- -
<
-0 fT1
0
U't
0-
Court
Since that time several of the residents have advised that they
have received little or no cooperation from the police department
when they have called for assistance.
Our concern about groups gathering' 'in the alley using drugs and
drinking was also expressed to you and we asked your cooperation
to help discourage this activity. 'For a time we saw more police
cars in and about the area. However, that is no longer the case
In short, we have not received the help we need and there are
many probl~s in our area that needs to be addressed specificly
by our police dept.
Therefore, we are requesting this matter be placed on your next
meeting agenda and to advise us of the date giving our residents
the opportunity to address this issue before you. Your early
response is appreciated.
_S~~~/
UN\CA. T\Oi'
COMtA ~c ~i(/J7
Ella M. Croshier, secretary
(by direction REHOA)/cc: (file)
CC. 531~ ('I) ~1l\1'TEN
1.-<.1.-" .-~ ~ : '\..- ~
f~~',"~';: --
.'."."~" ~..,~ ...-....~"._:.~
RIOS
11,] " (C, ,co n ",
,I D L~ Ih it I!,! '":1
! i I -, "
II n)'
EAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIO~JU i AlJG - 8
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ~ ; '-~
CD~'~~-~,: [;--1 ;
CP- ~ . I'". , . ,) I'
I.......... ',f ,I.
;-
,
,-
"
Gary Duggan, Pres.
John Sareno, vice Pres.
Ella M. Croshier, Sec.
Peggy Banducci, Treas.
Eric Beveridge, Mbr.
at Large
August 4, 1.997
Ref: Letter July 21,'97
City of Chula Vista
Shirley Horton,Mayor
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91.91.0-2699
Dear Shirley,
Thanks for your letter and prompt response to our letter
requesting police assistance to help eleminate unreasonable
crime conditions in our neighborhood of Rios East at Main
and Melrose.
The Chula Vista Police Dept. Sweep Team met with residents
of Rios East Sat. 8-2-97. They listened to the problems
told to them by the residents and then appraised everyone
how the Sweep Team works.
With the current program underway, I don't feel it is necessary
to speak before the city council on this issue at this time.
Therefore, I respectfully request that I be removed from your
agenda at this time.
The Board of Directors will be working with the commUnity and
the Police Dept. in this very important endeavore.
Again, on behalf of the entire Board of Directors, our sincere
thanks for your help.
Very Truly Yours,
d~/ ~wI -
Ella M. Croshier, Sec. -
By Direction REBOD
cc: (file)
:REBOD
cC:: C'~ CCu"C' {
cQpt:'2.oI1
RIOS
EAST HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS___
!;---. ',. -~-----"
Ilnl , .
I!t);----.....
II \
In,
/!11'
,Ill" r;:-::??
I" - ~ .
I L---_ .
I
Gary Duggan, Pr...
John Bareno, Vie. Pr...
Ella M. Cro_bier. S.c.
Peggy Banducci. TJ;....
Eric Beveridge. Mhr.
at Large
Sept. 17, 1997
City of Chula Vista
Mayor and City Council
276 4th Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Ref: Crime
Dear Mayor & Council Members,
This letter is a formal request to be placed on the next regular
Council Meeting Agenda regarding crime at Rios East.
Our previous request to sp~ak to the Council was cancelled as a
result of your directing the Police Dept. to address the problem.
The C.V.P.D."Sweep Team" presentation at Rios East HOA meeting
was quite impressive and the residents felt that they were
finally going to be taken seriously. However, many of the pro-
blems still exist and the "Sweep Team" effort has not solved the
problem.
There are 264 families living in this "Blue Collar" community who
pay their taxes and are entitled to sae living conditions. Many
residents attended the 9-11-97 HOA meeting voicing their concern.
,
Officer Witte (CVPD) was supposed to be present at our monthly
meetings working closely with res~dents and Board of Directors.
He wasn't present at the 9-11 HOA meeting and no word from any-
one at CVPD.
Rios East residents have made every effort to cooperate with
CVPD and the Board's efforts to obtain police intervention
has failed. Therefore, it is encumbent upon the Board of Dir-
ectors to call upon our elected officials for assistance.
Please advise as to when this matter is scheduled to come
before the city council.
Sincerely,
~'1t?f!~ J; f?
ary Duggan, Pres. REHOA
cc: (file)
""~....,'" ''''t.~1'1t.lk;'~'''
, _.c.., .-."h4.1;..",..... ".'0 .,_. ", '~~I:;'":,~'
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
DATE: 10/08/97
TO: Captain Jim 2011
FROM: Agent Steve Witte
RE: Rios Homeowners Association meeting 10/04/97
On October 4, 1997 at 1000 hrs, Lt, Miller and r attended a meeting
with the Rios East Homeowners Assoc. in Coronado at the home of
Ella Croshier a board member.
We attended this meeting to clarify an issue that was written in a
letter to the city council dated September 17, 1997. The issue was
the Street Team is not providing satisfactory service to their blue
collar community.
During our meeting Lt. Miller and r informed them that in fact we
have been working their project and spending more time down their
then in any of our other 12 projects. r provided the board with our
latest statistics on our efforts which were the following:
'four ":arrests'lj!\i' (3'" ourglary/'i"l':"narcotic) .;"" six ,,;'citations;t,,(traffic:>;,
'vioUitions,'to,' trespassing) ; '.:and "21' ffeld"interviews of'indi viduals~
loitering in the 'area."" .
The boards comment, "they did not realize we were working the area,
they thought we had moved on". They had assumed this because r had
missed their last meeting. r apologized for missing their last
meeting r was out On rOD.
The board inquired about trespassing and what rights they had as
citizens to make an arrest. Lt.. .Miller explained the laws of
arrests as a citizen. He also described the difference between
trespassing in a structure verses someone walking and/or loitering
in an open space the community has public access to. We will supply
the board with sample letters that we have received from other
property owners who have given us written authorization to arrest
anyone trespassing on their grounds. We suggested they have their
attorney look at it before submitting such a letter.
r again explained to the board the solutions we are speaking of
arrests, citations, etc. are short term solutions. We need to
concentrate on a long term solution. We have identified two
residents that are responsible for probably 70% of the problems in
this area. Get rid of these tenants and you will have accomplished
the long term solution.
During the first meeting (August 2, 1997) I supplied the board with
literature "Safe Streets Now". This gives them step by step
instruction on the proper eviction process to get rid of nuisance
tenants. The first step is to petition everyone the nuisance is
effecting (stake holders). I have personally checked with the
homeowners in the area and a petition has not been started.
I have also spoke with the property manager of the Rios Association
Beverly Robertson. I supplied her with the same "Safe Streets Now"
booklet. She is anxious and eagerly waiting for the petitions and
letters from the homeowners so she may start the eviction process.
Regarding thetraffi'c. issue of vehicles and city buses speeding
through the area. On August 13, 1997 I sent a letter to the Chula
Vista Transit supervisor, William Gustafson, regarding the speeding
buses. He left me a message saying he would speak with his drivers.
On 10/03/97 I sent a memo to our Traffic Division requesting their
assistance with selectiveenforcemen~. This assignment was given to
a traffic officer who will be working this project starting
'10/06/97. through "1'1/15/97". The traffic will be re-evaluated after
that date.
On 10/09/97 at 2030 hours, I will be attending the monthly meeting
with the homeowners informing them on what we have done thus far.
At the same time Beverly Robertson (property management) and I will
be stressing the need for the homeowners to start their petitions,
letters, and documentation on what violations they are witnessing.
Citv of Chula Vista
-~,~.... ~~~~-,..,q1\1,~.'''-
~:)""""'" , -, -, .~", ....,.....,
........ . .,.. -" ,_.~. ..'...' -~~." .
DEPARTMEf>iT AL C()RRESPONDENCE
DATE: October :C, 199~
TO: Captain Jim Zo11
FROM: Agent Steve Witte
RE: Rios Homeowners Association
This memo is in response to the recent complaint that the Chula
Vista Police Department is not providing sufficient service to
the Rios Homeowners Association. I have compiled information from
two meetings that the Street Team has attended with the
Association. I have also researched the efforts of the Street
Team and regular patrol officers who have worked to attack
several issues that we were faced with.
The issues addressed in the first meeting were the following:
Speeding; Gangs; Autotheft; Illegal immigrants:
and transients in the riverbottm.
During the first meeting we offered suggestions and
recommendations as well as outlined a variety of resources that
may be. implemented to combat the problems. Below I listed each
issue and what part the Street Team played in addressing the
problem.
SPEEDING
Agt. Witte wrote a letter to City transit regarding the
complaint of city buses speeding through the area. A
supervisoi from the Transit Dept: assured me he would look into
it and speak with his drivers.
Agt. Witte researched the possibilities of speed bumps or stop
signs. The price of speed bumps were to expensive per'the
associafion. Statistics show that stop signs generally cause
traffic speeds to increase (Traffic Div.). I asked the
committee to discuss it and decide if they would like to pursue.
either resource. I never heard from them regarding this issue.
I also asked them for specific days and/or times the traffic
was at its worst and we would utilize our Traffic Division for
selective enforcement and/or set out the SMART unit as a
deterrent. I have not heard from them regarding this issue.
City of Chula Vista
GANGS
Since our last meeting with the Association on OS/1~/97 Officers
hli'~ COIlducteJ the followinz:
21 field interviews ~
6 citations ranging from trespassing to vehicle violations
4 arrests three for burglary and one for narcotics
We have found that a majority of the contacts were generally the
same individuals in the same area. The above actions are only a
temporary solution. We have explained this to the association
more than once. To rid their community of these undesirihles they
are going to have to put effort in having these people evicted
and forced to leave the area. Unfortunately we as Law Enforcement
can not participate in civil actions regarding lanlord tennant
issues.
We made recommendations and supplied handouts to the association
with information on proper procedures on the eviction process for
unwanted tenants ie, petitions to property owners.
How many petitions ~
How many letters to the property owner?
Have you obtained an attorney for civil advise"
Kote: On 10/01/97 I spoke with Ella Crosier and asked her the
above questions. They have not put any effort in attempting to
have these people (gangs) evicted (long term solution). However I
did speak with the property management, Beverly Roberts, who is
eager to send letters to the property owners but has not received
any support from the association in way of p8titions.
AUTOTHEFT
A recommendat ion to increase 1 ight ing in the carport, areas.
Also to contact SDG&E and have street lights upgraded from 100
watt to 400 watt. "<
We suggested anti-theft devices such as the Club and/or alarm.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
Agt. Witte arranged for two representatives from the US Border
Patrol to attend the monthly meeting. These agents answered
questions from the board and supplied handout~.
A fence was also suggested' to be placed along the south portion
of Rancho Drive. The board is not sure who owns the property. I
recommended they visit the City of Chula Vista planrring
department who would provide property owner information.
City of Chula Vista
:n~A.NSIEN:TS IN THE RIVERBOTTOM
Street Team conducted a sweep of the riverbottom shortly after
our first meeting. several transients were contacted,
interviewed, and asked to leave the area. The Street team now has
a new project with a transient problem along the Third Ave. and
Broadway Corridor.
COMMENTS:
As I had said in the very first meeting, to combat these problems
is going to take team effort between the Rios Association and the
Chula vista Police Department. The Police can provide a short
term solution by utilizing enforcement. We have addressed the
listed issues and offered recommendations. We have also exhausted
our resources and are continuing to patrol the area. The arrests
and field contacts we conduct are only temporary solutions.
Unfortunately these unruly people reside in this Rios East
Development, therefore they will always return. Our only answer
is to organize a long term solution. Like I said in the beginning
you must target the property owner and hold them responsible for
their tenants ~ctions, not the police department we did not plice
these people in your neighborhood.
I would also like to note that the Street Team currently has 12
projects they are actively working through the city. The Rios
project has received more patrol time and enforcement then any of
the remaining projects. We realize the frustration the
Association is feeling. We are going to continue to work this
area as a project but are going to request cooperation among the
homeowners and the, association.
..,
City of Chula Vista
,
/-;.:.-
q~<(~
"
rr12A f:Wrc.
CHULA VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC COMPLAINT FORM
DATE RECEIVED: 10-06-97
RECEIVED BY: Agt. Witte
DATE ASSIGNED: 10-06-97
DATE DUE: 11-15-97
OFFICER ASSIGNED: Polan, M.
DATE COMPLETED:
REPORTING PARTY: REPORTING PARTY CONTACTED:
NAME: Rios East Homeowners Association
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
LOCATION: Rancho Dr.
COMPLAINT: See attached
(SMART)
ACTION TAKEN:
cc: Gama, Dodge, Davenport, Munch, Guthrie, ROdriguez, Patrol
_~~.. ,....;' ~-.rr~;.;.'<<S-).~.....-
. ..".' ....~~ "-~'''''''c''''
. ;,f~ .~:::,~ioi,~'~,~~~~J~~,J. -'''.- .,.,,~;;~. _
--",~~~",;;o''';'''._ '-. ~~,....J..,;... . - '.. _._::.-'Uk....
. . ." .- ~ ... ~ '-;" .0;. !" ,.'. - _
. . .
..~.
~..
",__A~
-rB.;:~ {.._i~--,'~_
_:,~,' -
.'-..-...-
~
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
DA TE: 10/03/97
TO: Sgt. D'Ablaing (Traffic Division)
FROM: Agt. S. Witte ID# 329
RE:Traffic enforcement 200 and 300 Rancho Drive
I have recently been working a proj~ct with the Rios East
Homeowners Association. One of the concerns was the traffic
traveling at high speeds in the 200 and 300 block of Rancho Dr.
The homeowners have specifically identified the Chula Vista City
Transit buses dS being part uf the problem. On 08/13/97 I sent a
memo to the supervisor of the Transit Department who said he
would speak with his drivers. A copy of the memo is attached.
As of a meeting 10/03/97 with the Association the problem still
exists.
Attached is a layout of the streets with the areas highlighted
that the association is concerned with. According to the
homeowners the peak hours for the violations occur in the
mornings from 0700 - 0900 primarily w/btraffic. and in the
evenings 1700 - 2100 hrs primarily e/b traffic.
I am requesting your assistance in terminating this problem.
Either by selective enforcement and/or utilizing the "Smart
Unit".'Can you please let me know if you can offer any
, ,
assistance.
"~' :: '
'0
, :'~;o~I?;~~>.~ :.~ ~
,-
'.'
,.
'''''''''''~' "
~'~\.l ,-
,- -".-.
"
"
.r)f'_ _. ,-":i:..
. ':- .~':; ~
">--'\'
, .,.
'-, '\~'i{!-{.,-(./, ,.,... '
:~.. -',,~~:~"'~:;'.:" ,'" '~;\_"
:~
". ".
~ ,.:;
"'II :..
....
. ".'-'
'"
"- ~ 6
".
..
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
DATE: August 13, 1997
TO: William Gustafson (Transit coordinator)
FROM:
Agt. Steve Witte (Street Team)
RE: Bus traffic 200 & 300 block of Rancho Dr.
On August 2, 1997 I attended a meeting with Rios East Homeowners
Association regarding a number of problems in the area. One of
the issues was the constant vehicles traveling at high speeds
through the 200 and 300 block of Rancho Dr.
Unfortunately several homeowners complained that the City of
Chula Vista buses were one of the main perpetrators. They are
insisting that ~his issue be addressed with the Transit
Department. I informed them that I would contact the proper
department and supervisor and relay the concerns of the
n,sidents.
If this is occurring could you please ask your drivers to slow
down in this area. It would be greatly appreciated thank you.
If you have any questions feel free to call me at 476-5351.
..'"
. .
,-' .,::'-.
" 11'
~ .........+.
'.'
n.. ~
. ./ . , ,
~._,' !o;.oo....;:~"""-...:'t
. . "r.. "'t ". v ...:''':''':'~.''O: " ,
, ..
;-;.~ '.
, '.
,:~~'4
,',' ;",~-;';~Ii}" ,
,"j: .;:.,u-.;.(;....~~ .~..
- :'-'~ .'. ..
., .~ . .
~.. . )": .;
.- -.~,
~
. \
'"
i" "/!
~ . . i'
f:
~ ~~JO'~'<" 'I~~ ~
[ i.r \ .....
~- .
_. ,
( ~ to-fkJBTT J
, A
~
t"t.
ffJ,
=<-.
~ 00- 00.. :~
'-0,- ,.. :..
.... "'~.
'" !"I.
r~ ,i M r$;o ~~
i~~t~~'
~0
oom
I::f'
::1:1.
~
A't
.
c=
~
. ,
"
I
j~
!,'
H
,.
~ ':/" ~;';- .-.
~~~
=~~
~~~~
~~~~
OlY OF
CHUlA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Date:
October 8, 1997
From:
The Honorable Mayor and City C~
John M. Kaheny, City Attorney ~_~~~
Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed SeSSlon
for the Meeting of 10/7/97
To:
Re:
The city Council met in Closed Session to discuss labor
negotiations.
The City Attorney hereby reports to the best of his knowledge from
observance of actions taken in the Closed Session in which the City
Attorney participated, that there were no reportable actions which
are required under the Brown Act to be reported.
JMK: 19k
C:\lt\clossess.no
----
~a--/
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5037 . FAX (619) 585-5612
'it.; Pos1-Cuw:nfJFlflqQ;ldP48
TO: CITY OF CHULA VISTA
F ST. /275 4TH ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
PETITION AGAINST:
PENTECOSTAL CHURCH
1236 HILLTOP DRIVE
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
WE THE UNDERSIGNED WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FORMAL COMPLAINT CONCERNING THE
LOUD OR AMPLIFIED SOUNDS EMANATING FROM THE CHURCH AT THE ABOVE MENTIONED
ADDRESS. THE LOUD MUSIC, SINGING AND MISCELLANEOUS NOISES ARE HIGHLY
DISRUPTIVE TO THE COMMUNITY AND WILL HAVE TO STOP IMMEDIATELY OR ACTION
WILL BE TAKEN BY THE COMMUNITY TO CORRECT THIS PROBLEM AND RETURN THE
TRANQUILITY TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
ANY OTHER CONCERNS OF THE UNDERSIGNED MAY BE MADE IN THE SPACE PROVIDED
BELOW.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
....."
7.
8.
PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED PAGE FOR PETITIO~ UNDERSIGNED NAMES AND ADDRESSES.
~
5c-3
PRINT NAME
SIGNlTURE
1.
j\ 'Cc \,1.-,,_ (\q~l,^,,-
5. P4Y
6. DAVi D /1. NELSON
7. {I LOS E
8. ,{
9. 'S Net< 'V'
10. ~'--'~\. ~l2-oV-:>"-
11.
12.
15.
16.
22.
23.
25.
.
5c-i
I
1-
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
13.
14.
15.
16.
18.
20.
21-
22.
23.
24.
25.
~
3c ~~~
RECEIVED
RIOS
EAST HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION
BOARD OF DIRECTOR8-____ VI SEP 30 All :30
I II ... ~:.---c--n
i! D. I ~---- CITY OF CHUlA VISTA
i i r ' ~. r CITY CLERK'S OFFIC~
I I I i <;;~~~.,
1<'
I
L=-~_
---.
Gary Duggan, Pr...
John Bareno. Vie. pr...
xli. K. Cro.bier, S.c.
P~gy B.nducci. Tr....
Brie Beveridge. Mbr.
at Large
Sept. 17, 1997
City of Chula Vista
Mayor and City Council
276 4th Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Ref: Crime
Dear Mayor & Council Members,
This letter is a formal request to be placed on the next regular
Council Meeting Agenda regarding crime at Rios East.
Our previous request to speak to the Council was cancelled as a
result of your directing the Police Dept. to address the problem.
The C.V.P.D."Sweep Team" presentation at Rios East HOA meeting
was quite impressive and the residents felt that they were
finally going to be taken seriously. However, many of the pro-
blems still exist and the "Sweep Team" effort has not solved the
problem.
There are 264 families living in this "Blue Collar" community who
pay their taxes and are entitled to sae living conditions. Many
residents attended the 9-11-97 HOA meeting voicing their concern.
.
Officer Witte (CVPD) was supposed to be present at our monthly
meetings working closely with residents and Board of Directors.
He wasn't present at the 9-11 HOA meeting and no word from any-
one at CVPD.
Rios East residents have made every effort to cooperate with
CVPD and the Board's efforts to obtain police intervention
has failed. Therefore, it is encumbent upon the Board of Dir-
ectors to call upon our elected officials for assistance.
Please advise as to when this matter is scheduled to come
before the city council.
Sincerely,
f:-
ary Duggan, REHOA
a~~:(file) VlRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
. ~ /~~<J7
, ,~~Dh- -:J"?;/ 5j;-)
--
1)&;1
RIOS EAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Fernando Lugo, Pres.
Gary Duggan, Vice Pres.
Hlla H Crouhier, Sec.
Peggy Banducci, Treas.
Joseph Douglas, Gen.
Chairman-Committees
March 6, 1.997
Chula Vista Mayor & City Council
276 4th Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91.910
Dear Mayor & Council Members,
A new Board of Directors and Management Company for Rios East has
been in effect Since Sept 25,'96 and Oct. 2,'96. Soon thereafer
we found we had no funds and lots of problems. One of our main
concerns was the amount of crime in our area.
With no money for a guard service we immediately formed a new
New Neighborhood Watch Committee with the help of policewomann,
Mary Jane, of the Chula Vista Police Dept. She presented a pro-
gram to our residents informing us that the success would depend
upon cooperation between the Police and Residents.
We realize that to have an effective Neighborhood Watch Program
it takes the support of all our residents. It is with this in
mind that the new watch program has proceeded to organize. They
have developed sections and section leaders and will be doing
their own monitoring. We have purchased signs and decals which
we are in the process of installin~ and distributing.
Also, with our limited budget, we have installed several new
light poles around the peremiter of the complex with more to come
as we are financially able. We know that good lighting is one of
the best deterents against crime.
Some of our residents have called the police, and some have been
put on hold and some have been put off due to other priorities.
This is understandable considering Chula Vista is a fairly large
small city and we know crime is not only happening in our area.
What we would like to see is enforcement. We have regular groups
that hang out around the pool area and the less lit locations.
They are smoking pot and drinking. It is suspected that at least
several of these are minors.
When the police have been called, before, they have just broke up
the party and it all begins allover, again. There is no doubt
that some of the crime and vandalism is connected with this type
5);-02-
~~~
of activity. Jack Kuda, Manager of Rancho Rios (adjacent our
complex) is also having the same problem.
What we would like to have is more surveilance, if possible, and
to take measures to enforce whatever laws on the books that are
available to discourage this type of activity.
This is
adults.
dark.
a family neighborhood with small children and some older
They do not feel safe to walk about the complex after
Also, parking laws have been violated. It is our understanding
that the streets and cultisacs are city streets. Especially
after hours and on weekends you can drive through and find many
violations. We would like you to take action on those under
your jurisdiction and advise us of any that would be our respon-
sibility. .
Also, we would appreciate your attention regardin street repairs
and safety. There are several asphalt areas that need repair &
there are several large drain holes along the curbs that have no
grates on them. Children & animals could easily pass through
these holes. Cars are consistently speeding beyond the 25 mile
speed limit along Rancho Drive. Some speed bumps installed
near the 25 MPH sign would be helpful.
Several city signs are completely faded out and should be re-
placed. We can't tell what they used to say.
Our new board and management company are making a great effort
to bring this community under control so that it will be an
attractive and well maintained complex.
Nothing detracts from property values more that the p~oblems
cited above. Therefore, we would appreciate the City's co-
operation and request to be placed on the next City Council
Agenda for discussion. Please advise me as to the time and
place for the meeting.
Sincerely,
~:J/~'
Ella M. Croshier, Secretary
cc: (file)
Slr:3
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
October 5, 1997
Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council,
The members of the community residing on Gentry Way ,
Oxford St., Orlando Court, Hilltop Drive and Tobias Drive
affected by the noise created at the establishment at 1236
Hilltop Drive would like to submit to you this petition for
relief. Many of the residents signing this petition have stated
they have repeatedly called the police concerning this
disturbance to the community with no response or corrective
action being taken. I myself have repeatedly called the police
and have been informed that there would be a car dispatched
as soon as one became available , or there would would be no car
dispatched as this was a zoning problem, or take this complaint
to the planning commission.
September the thirteenth, the one time that I did get a police
officer to come out, I explained the problem to them and received
a complaint number from them. The officers proceeded to 1236
Hilltop Drive and the amplified noise was stopped for the
remainder of the evening. The noise resumed the next day, police
were called again, the planning commission excuse being used to
explain the lack of response. The people on Gentry Way requested
that since my wife and I have no children at home and as she has
no other commitments she should go to the planning department and
see what could be done. She was told this problem was found to be
a police matter and not a zoning or planning problem and was
directed to the Mayor's Office, Police Department City Clerk and
City Attorney. She found at this time tAat none of our calls to
the police were found on the computer,. including the one which we
had a complaint number for. The City Attorney sent a letter to
the occupants of 1236 Hilltop Drive notifying them to keep the
noise down. The next couple of days there was very little
disturbance. Then the volume increased again to the previous
level. The meetings are held at this establishment usually on
Wednesdays, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays from approximately six
p.m. until nine or ten p.m.
When the City Attorney's office was contacted again after the
noise resumed , it was suggested that a petition be circulated
and presented to the City Council.
When we circulated the petition we were surprised at the number
of people affected by this disturbance who had been calling the
police with absolutely no response to their pleas.
('L.'
The people of this community have suffered enough. The occupants
of 1236 Hilltop Drive'have been contacted personally and the
ocepants have stated that they can do as they please on their
C!-?;:J!;" WRlnEN COMMUNICATIONS
~~V7~ / . 5C-/ ~ /~/~i7
~ "4~---T ?-t"~
property and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it.
This statement was made personally to myselr ~~d other residents
of the area.
The People signing this petition plead with you to give them some
relief. This problem has been ongoing for over a year and the
residents feel they have had enough.
We hope the City will be able to resolve this issue.
Thank you for your consideration. We will be waiting for your
decision and response.
R"2eeifJ'(lL .
! .~!;;u~ ~~(!;;;:;:. z;;~-- / ) 93
R1chard Hf~ackson
44 Gentry Way
Chula Vista, CA 91911-3404
<:::cl
City Attorney
Planning Department
Chief of Police
C,iy c.cuL~\
7
~-~
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date
t
It? /I ~/r)
/
SUBMITTED BY:
/g'793
RESOLUTION WAIVING THE BID REQUIREMENTS
REGARDING PUBLICATiON FREQUENCY AND APPROVING A
PURCHASE ORDER CONTRACT WITH THE STAR NEWS AS THE
NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION FOR THE PUBLICATION
OF ALL LEGAL NOTICES AND OTHER MATTERS REQUIRED TO
BE PUBLISHED BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND APPROVING
THE USE OF AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE IN CASES OF
EMERGENCY
City Clerk'p~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes~ No_>
ITEM TITLE:
in June 1996, The Star News went from a bi-weekly publication to a weekly
publication and moved its printing and publishing services to Carlsbad. This created
a problem for the City in trying to meet legal publishing requirements within the
weekly deadlines established by The Star News. Notices of public hearings need to
be printed ten days prior to the hearing date with another 2 1/2 day lead time required
by The Star News. With the amount of work requiring to be legally noticed, it has
become necessary to establish a newspaper with a more flexible publishing schedule.
Section 313 of the Charter states: "In the event there is more than one
newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City, the
City Council annually shall publish a notice inviting bids and contract for
the publication of all legal notices or other matter required to be
published..... The newspaper with which any such contract is made
shall be designated the official newspaper for the publication of such
notices...." (see Exhibit A for Charter ~313).
Since there is more than one newspaper of general circulation operating in the City
of Chula Vista, it was decided to publish a notice inviting bids for legal publications
and public notice advertizing services. Currently, there are no daily newspapers being
published in the City of Chula Vista.
The Star News has made some written commitments to be more sensitive to the City
in cases of emergency (See Exhibit B). Although their deadline for legal ads is
Wednesday noon, they have committed to accepting City legals up to Thursday at
3:00 p.m. In the past, they have not been willing to accept any legal notice after the
Wednesday 12 noon deadline. They have also agreed to take last minute emergency
corrections as late as Thursday at 7:00 p.m. and that their Carls bad staff is capable
and would make corrections right up to their press time of Friday a.m.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve contracting
with the Star News as the official publication for all of the City's legal notices and
t---j
Page 2, Item No. _
Meeting Date:
using an alternative source such as the San Diego Daily Transcript in cases of
emergency when The Star News cannot accommodate the City. By naming The Star
News as our official newspaper for the publication of our legal notices and stating that
an alternative such as the San Diego Daily Transcript be used as an alternate source
for emergencies, would meet the requirements of the Charter. With this action, the
public is being officially informed where the City will be publishing legal notices. Both
newspapers have been adjudicated by the courts: The Star News in August 1932 and
the San Diego Daily Transcript in January 1909.
BACKGROUND:
According to City records, The Chula Vista Star News received adjudication by the
courts on August 8, 1932 and declared it was a newspaper established, printed, and
published in the City. The City of Chula Vista has been using The Star News ever
since for the publication of all its legal notices. In researching the records, no contract
can be located awarding a contract to The Star News. In the past, they have been
the only newspaper printed, published, and circulated in the City.
DISCUSSION:
The Purchasing Agent released a bid for "Legal and Public Notice Advertising
Services" on August 2, 1997. Five bidders were contacted. Only two bidders
responded -- The Star News and San Diego Daily Transcript. See Exhibit C for copies
of the bids.
Star News: Although The Star News is the apparent overall, low bidder, they did take
exception to the publishing frequency requirement. However, their change to a
weekly schedule is exactly why the City went to bid. Deadline to submit ads to The
Star News is 12 noon the Wednesdav orior to Saturdav's oublication.
In the past, issues have come up after the publishing deadline which legally could not
wait. When this has occurred, staff simply sent the legal ad to another newspaper.
Switching from one newspaper to another is not a good business practice, and
according to Charter ~313, we should have an established paper designated as "the
official newspaper for the publication of notices". The public should be aware of
where we publish legal notices and expect to find them there.
As stated previously, The Star News has made written commitments to the City
expressing how they would be more flexible when emergencies arose after the
publishing deadline of Wednesday noon. Also, The Star News has agreed to putting
all the City's legal notices under a special column heading with a title, The City of
Chula Vista. This means that all of our legal notices will appear together in one place
under this heading.
San Diego Daily Transcript: Although their publishing cost is higher than The Star
News, the San Diego Daily Transcript has several advantages: (1) their deadline for
&>-~
Page 3, Item No. _
Meeting Date:
submittal of ads is 12 noon the business dav orior to oublication -- they publish five
days a week, Monday through Friday; (2) we could send our legal notices by E-mail
which would reduce the cost of publishing and would reduce staff's time at the fax
machines; and (3) notices would be placed on the Internet.
FISCAL IMPACT: There would be no fiscal impact on the budget since there would
be no change in the way we are currently doing business.
attach
Exhibit A, Charter ~313
Exhibit B, letters of commitment
Exhibit C, the bids
&-3
RESOLUTION NO. ~~/?7I~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE BID REQUIREMENTS
REGARDING PUBLICATION FREQUENCY AND APPROVING
A PURCHASE ORDER CONTRACT WITH THE STAR NEWS
AS THE NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION FOR
THE PUBLICATION OF ALL LEGAL NOTICES AND OTHER
MATTERS REQUIRED TO BE PUBLISHED BY THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA AND APPROVING THE USE OF AN
ALTERNATIVE SOURCE IN CASES OF EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, in June 1996, The Star News went from a bi-
weekly pUblication to a weekly publication and moved its printing
and publishing services to Carlsbad which created a problem for the
City in trying to meet legal publishing requirements within the
weekly deadlines established by The Star News; and
WHEREAS, notices of public hearings need to be printed
ten days prior to the hearing date with another 2 1/2 day lead time
required by The Star News; and
WHEREAS, with the amount of work requiring to be legally
noticed, it has become necessary to establish a newspaper with a
more flexible publishing schedule; and
WHEREAS, Section 313 of the Charter states:
"In the event there is more than one newspaper of
general circulation published and circulated in the
City, the City Council annually shall publish a
notice inviting bids and contract for the
publication of all legal notices or other matter
required to be published..... The newspaper with
which any such contract is made shall be designated
the official newspaper for the publication of such
notices...." (see Exhibit A for Charter 5313).
WHEREAS, since there is more than one newspaper of
general circulation operating in the City of Chula Vista, it was
decided to publish a notice inviting bids for legal publications
and public notice advertizing services; and
WHEREAS, currently, there are no daily newspapers being
published in the city of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, The Star News has now made a written commitment
to be more sensitive to the City in cases of emergency; and
1
~-1
WHEREAS, The Star News committed to accepting City legals
up to Thursday at 3:00 p.m. and has also agreed to take last minute
emergency corrections as late as Thursday at 7:00 p.m. and that its
Carlsbad staff is capable and can make corrections right up to
their press time of Friday a.m.
WHEREAS, it is recommended that the City Council approve
contracting with the Star News as the official publication for all
the city's legal notices and to use an alternate source such as the
San Diego Daily Transcript in cases of emergency only when The Star
News cannot accommodate the City; and
WHEREAS, by naming The Star News as our official
newspaper for the publication of our legal notices and naming the
San Diego Daily Transcript as an alternate newspaper for
emergencies, meets the requirements of the Charter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby waive the bid requirements
regarding publication frequency.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does
approving a purchase order contract with the Chula Vista Star News
as the newspaper of general circulation for the publication of all
legal notices and other matters required to be published by the
City of Chula vista and approving the use of alternate sources such
as the San Diego Transcript in cases of emergency.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
/-~
M. Kaheny,
Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
C:\rs\legal.ad
2
~/~~b-6
Exhibit A
Sec 313.
PublishinG of LeGal Notices.
(a) Newspapers Generally. In the event that there is more
than one newspaper of general circulation published and circulated
in the City, the City council annually, prior to the beginning of
each fiscal year, shall publish a notice inviting bids and contract
for the publication of all legal notices or other matter required
to be published in a newspaper of general circulation published and
circulated in said City, during the eTIsuing fiscal year. In the
event there is only one newspaper of general circulation published
in the city, then the City council shall have the power to contract
with such newspaper for the printing and publishing of such legal
notices without being required to advertise for bids therefor. The
newspaper with which any such contract is made shall be designated
the official newspaper for the publication of such notices or other
matter for the period of such contract.
(b) Rates. In no case shall the contract prices for such
publication exceed the customary rates charged by such newspaper
for the publication of legal notices of a private character.
(c) posting. In the event there is no newspaper of general
circulation published and circulated in the city, then all legal
notices or other matter may be published by posting copies thereof
in at least three public places in the city.
(d) Defects. No defect or irregularity in proceedings taken
under this sections, or failure to designate an official newspaper
shall invalidate any publication w)1ere the same is ,otherwise in
conformity with the Charter or law or ordinance.
k-~
Fxhihit R
279 Third Avenue
Chula Vista. CA 91910
(619) 427-3000
Th{$tar.News
RECEIVED
P,O, Box 1207
Chula Vista. CA 91912
Fax (619) 426-6346
-.
JT .41 29 ... r 'JJ
September 26, 1997
CITY OF CHULA VIST A
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Attn. Beverly Authelet
Dear Beverly,
I would like to express to you how concerned I am regarding the legal advertising for the
City of Chula Vista. It is very important that I find out all I can do to accommodate you in
placing your legal advertising and expediting this process.
At this time our deadline is Wednesday at noon, but we have and will continue to accept the
city legals up to Thursday at 3PM.
Furthermore, we are aware of last minute issues that may come up after our deadlines. I
have spoken to our production statf at our press/printing facility (Carls bad) and they feel
they can accommodate any emergency corrections as late as Thursday ?PM if needed by the
city. If you are in an urgent position that requires changes after the paper has left Chula
Vista, the Carls bad staff is capable of making those changes right up to our press time
(Friday AM).
If there has been any situations in the past year where we were not able to accommodate
you I was not aware of it. I would like very much to discuss these situations and do
everything in my power to provide the proper medium to expedite the placement of legal
advertising for the city.
The City of Chula Vista and the Star-News have successfully worked together for many
years. I would like very much to continue this long and mutually beneficial relationship in
the future.
Thank you for your time. If you have any questions you can contact me directly at 427-
3000 ext. 122.
Advertising Manager
~-?
\
Fxhihit R
279 Third Avenue
Chula Vista. CA 91910
(619) 427-3000
Th{$tar-News
P.O. Box 1207
Chula Vista. CA 91912
Fax (619) 426-6346
-.
Dear Beverly,
UI
'0
I want to thank you for your time Monday morning. I am glad to know that your recommendation
to "go with the Star News" for your bid award is being written into your draft to the city council.
Your idea to bring forth a default publisher in the event of an emergency if the Star-News is not
able to accommodate the city for that notice I believe is a wise and eHicient recommendation.
QD
-t-t
-<-<
(")0
r;;'TI
::on
:;oo:::Z::
cn~
0:1>
'TI<
'TI-
C'5~
'"":t>
~
B
::u
IT!
(')
IT!
-
<
IT!
o
October 1, 1997
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Attn: Beverly Authelet
I
-
"
-
As I mentioned, the Star-News is doing everything possible to accommodate d1e city and to
expedite the placement of the legal advertising.
I want to formalize the steps I have taken and discussed wid1 you to ensure d1e city of our intent to
work with you and create some flexibility when necessary:
. We request legals advertising be placed by noon Wednesday. Because of last minute issues that
may come up, we will take the City of Chula Vista legals up to Thursday 3p.m..
. In the event of an emergency and the paper has left our facility, I can personally be paged at
965-5318 and I will have our printing facility available for corrections as late as Thursday 6p.m.
The legal advertising department for the Star-News is under my management. Joann D'Aquila
handles the legals on a daily basis and she does a tine job. But [ would like for you to feel free to
call me direcdy if any situation arises where you need immediate and special attention.
As you know, the legal advertising from the city is critical to the fmancial status of d1e Star-News.
Joe Guerin, our editor, and I are keeping the council members abreast of this situation and of the
Star-News commitment to you. Therefore, please include this letter as an agenda item for the
council.
Thank you again for your consideration. If you have any od1er questions please feel free to contact
me direcdy at 427-3000 ext. 122.
~~
Advertising Manager
t~Y
~
Sin(;e~1886
Exhibit C
~au 1lIirgn 1lIaily IDrau1icript
City Of Chula Vista
Purchasing Division
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
August 26, 1997
In regards to Notice To Bidders for Legal And Public Notice
Advertisement Services, Bid No. 2-97/98
1) The San Diego Daily Transcript is a responsible publisher of a
newspaper of general circulation in the City and County of San Diego
having a bone fide daily circulation, which publishes five days per
week, Monday through Friday. We were adjudicated by the Superior
Court, in and for the County of San Diego, decree number 14894,
issued July 23, 1909, amended by the Superior Court on July 19,
1971, and April 16, 1980. Copies of our Superior Court petitions are
attached.
2) Advertising rate quotes are furnished on Bid Form page 3 of this
package. The price quoted for legal advertising per column inch is
predicated on a column inch equaling one and a half inches
horizontal measure by one inch vertical measure. We publish eleven
(11) lines per inch with 35-40 characters per line set in 6-point type.
Equal dollar rate bids using other page and type specifications can
result in a variance of actual advertising costs of between 15 - 30%.
3) Listed below is the average daily paid circulation of the San Diego
Daily Transcript for the County of San Diego. These figures were
obtained from our Publisher's Statement from the Audit Bureau of
Circulation (a copy of which is attached). The City of Chula Vista is
included in the "City Zone" under linelE., "City and Retail Trading
Zones", therefore accurate circulation numbers for Chula Vista are not
listed on the report.
t~t
2131 THIRD AVENUE' POST OFFICE BOX 85469' SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92186-5469' 619/232.4381
6 months ended September 30, 1996
7,346
The total circulation (includes bulk sales, samples, and
complimentary copies) of the print edition of the San Diego Daily
Transcript is between 9,000 and 14,000 daily, depending upon the
day of the week.
According to our postal and carrier records, on August 20, 1997 our
total circulation for the day was 15,019. Our circulation for Chula
Vista was 702. We believe this is representative.
4) In accordance with the General Provisions, line 28., "Award of
Contract:" we'd like to bring to the City's attention that every public
notice published in the Daily Transcript is also published on our
web site as well. This extends the life cycle costs of our bid. These
notices are available via commercial services such as America
OnLine, as well as access at public libraries, schools and universities
thus assisting in insuring the original intent and purpose of public
notice is carried out and due process for interested parties is
enhanced. Our website, the San Diego Source, currently averages over
180,000 individual requests for information from users each day,
well over 5 million per month. With this feature we feel we are
exceeding all normal requirements of the bid, in addition to
providing substantial additional benefits to the City of Chula Vista.
,
R ert L. Loomis
Chief Operating Officer
t~/O/b-/~
_...,~--,- - ..._--_._-------_._--~
279 ThIrd Avenue
Chula VIsta. CA 91910
(619) 427-3000
P.O. Box 1207
Chula Vista. CA 91912
Fax (619) 426-0346
-
August 26, 1997
City of Chula Vista
John P. Coggins, Purchasing Agent
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Coggins:
Please accept this qualified bid for legal and public notice
advertisement services.
The Star-News is adjudicated for the City of Chula Vista and
currently meets all of the specifications and requirements listed
on your bid request with one exception. Under "Publ ication Frequency"
bid specifications require that newspapers publish at least twice
weekly to be considered. The Star-News publishes once a week on
Saturday. -----
Though this may not be considered ideal conditions for timely
publication of notices. the Star-News ~ill in the future as in the
past make every effort to accomodate any requests for publication
beyond our regular deadlines.
The City of Chula Vista and the Star-News have worked together
for many years with great success. We would like to continue this
long and mutually beneficial relationship in the future.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions
regarding this bid please call me directly at 427-3000 ext. 122.
Sincerely,
Wd' ""
Advertising Manager
~~/J
CITYOFCHULA VISTA
BID NO. 2-97/98
Page 3
mY OF
CHUIA VISfA
..
BID FORM
1BE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY OFFERS, SUBJECT TO ALL SPECIFICATIONS, TERMS AND
CONDITIONS, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS HEREIN, TO FURNISH 1BE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA THE FOLLOWING:
ITEM DESCRIPTION COST
~. 1 General Listing of Legal and Public Notices $ 9.95 IColunm Inch
"
.,
2 E-Mail Listing of Legal and Public Notices $ N/A IColunm Inch
3 Dedicated Colunm Heading (City ofChula Vista)
of Legal and Public Notices $ 9.95 IColunm Inch
4 Display Ad, 1/8 Page, of Legal and Public Notices $ 124.38 lAd
Prices listed are for one time advertisements; set-up, proofing, and applicable taxes inclusive.
Payment Terms:
100
%
30
Days
GENERAL INFORMATION
Publishing SchedulelFrequency:
Once Weekly - Saturday
Deadline for Submittal of Ads (DayslHours Prior to Publication):
Prior Wednesday at Noon
Adjudicated as Newspaper of General Circulation:
Yes XX
No
Adjudication Date:
08/19/53
;; -/7
CITYOFCHULA VISTA
BID NO. 2-97/98
Page 4
OIY OF
CHUlA VISTA
,
GENERAL INFORMATION (Continued)
Circulation (paying Subscribers):
Overall
442
Chula Vista
289
Total Circulation
32,000
Public Agency Participation
Other public agencies (e.g. city, county, public corporation, political subdivision, school district, or
water authority) may want to participate in any award as a result of this bid. The City ofChula Vista
shall incur no fmancial responsibility in connection with any purchase by another public agency.
The public agency shall accept sole responsibility for placing orders and making payments to the
successful bidder. This option shall not be considered in bid evaluation. Please indicate whether
this will be granted.
Yes
xx
No
Company Name
Address
Star-News
City
Telephone
Print Name
Signature
Chula Vista
(P.O. Box 1207)
(Chula Vista, CA 91912)
State ~ Zip 91910
Fax (619) 426-6346
Title Advertising Manager
Date August 26, 1997
279 Third Ave.
(619) 427-3000
Li nda Rosas
tb/~
-ft?
~au mirgn mail!} IDrarwjR~jH
VI tm'"t(t'E'A'9'~20
ROBERT L. LOOMIS
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
CITY OF CHULA VIS T k
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
October 9, 1997
Beverly Authelet
City Clerk, City of Chula Vista
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Bid No. 2-97/98
Dear Ms. Authelet,
I understand the City Council will be asked to approve a
recommendation awarding legal and public notice advertising
services on October 14. It is also my understanding the city council
will be asked to waive the provision of the contract specifications
and RFP requiring a newspaper to publish at least twice weekly* in
order to award the contract to the Chula Vista Star News.
*Bid No. 2-97/98; page 5, Publication Frequency:
"Due to the need for timely publication of legal
notices, public hearings, bid openings, posting of
ordinances, and other requirements, only
newspapers publishing at least twice weekly
will be considered for award of the contract."
I realize that practical local politics require you to consider the
potential impact of your decision in this matter, but it seems to me
that the efficient operation of government in a rapidly growing city
will fall victim to provincialism if you ignore the reasons the
requirement was set in the first place. Potentially, this contract may
run for five years during which time the efficiency of government
may be held back by the inability of the local weekly newspaper to
adequately support growth and change.
t;-/&,
2131 THIRD AVENUE' POST OFFICE BOX 85469' SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92186-5469' 619/232-4381
The San Diego Daily Transcript is the only fully qualified bidder on
this contract. Currently, on a daily basis, in addition to the City of San
Diego, we publish required public notices for the County of San Diego,
the Port of San Diego, the U.S. Border Patrol, City of National City,
numerous school districts throughout the county, and state agencies
as well. (Please see attached partial client list). The Transcript is
capable of taking a notice by electronic means and publishing that
document in the next day's newspaper at a lower cost than bid by
the local weekly. Advertisers like the City of San Diego, Port of San
Diego, U.C.S.D., and many others have e-mail capability and are
enjoying the time savings and extra efficiency this system affords
them.
As an additional benefit, we post all governmental legal notices to
our web site as soon as they are received. This feature enhances the
value of public notice, provides due diligence for our current
advertisers, and also extends the reach of notices at no additional
cost.
I ask you to consider denying the request to waive the frequency
requirement and to award the contract to the lowest responsible
bidder, The San Diego Daily Transcript.
Sincerely,
~
cc: Guylyn Cummins, Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich
6-11
Partial List of San Diego Daily Transcript Advertisers
The City of San Diego - all city agencies
The City of National City - Engineering department
County of San Diego:
Tax Collector
Department of Planning & Land Use
Sheriff's Department
Purchasing Department
Board of Supervisors
San Diego area organizations:
San Diego Unified Port District
S.A.N.D.A.G.
San Diego County Office of Education
San Diego Air Pollution Control District
San Diego County Water Authority
San Diego Community College District
San Diego Unified School District
Otay Water District
North County Transit District
San Diego Transit
San Diego Housing Commission
State of California:
University of California at San Diego
Department of Parks & Recreation - Sacramento
State Architect's Office - Construction Services, Sacramento
California Coastal Commission
State Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush - Sacramento
California Educational Facilities Authority - Sacramento
U.S. Governmental Agencies:
U.S. Border Patrol
U.S. Customs Service
Internal Revenue Service
U.S. Marshall
/;-/8
/
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BID NO. 2-97/98
Page 3
mY Of
CHUIA VISTA
,
,
BID FORM
TIIE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY OFFERS, SUBJECT TO ALL SPECIFICATIONS, TERMS AND
CONDITIONS, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS HEREIN, TO FURNISH THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA THE FOLLOWING:
ITEM
1
DESCRIPTION
COST
$ /:2..00
$ <1. 60
IColumn Inch
General Listing of Legal and Public Notices
~
2
E-Mail Listing of Legal and Public Notices
IColumn Inch
3 Dedicated Column Heading (City ofChuIa Vista)
of Legal and Public Notices $ II" Ctftir<.GE IColumn Inch
4
$ 'fUr.oo
Display Ad, 1/8 Page, of Legal and Public Notices 0< I
lAd
Prices listed are for one time advertisements; set-up. proofing, and applicable taxes inclusive.
Payment Terms:
~
/
%
Days
GENERAL INFORMATION
Publishing Schedule/Frequency:
;PAIL 'f H"rJV~'( - r-(:?.IDA-Y ;I E')o(CI".VDJIoJ(,. :5ATvtZ-VP'} i-
Sl/fJDIt7/ /IJCi.-Uj)/N6- l-Jo/-.IDIiY5.
Deadline for Submittal of Ads (Days/Hours Prior to Publication):
/:J:t?O NtJtJN &J"s//JESS MY ;>/ZItJl'!- TO pugucli TJON
Adjudicated as Newspaper of General Circulation:
v
No
Yes
Adjudication Date: ;J/+)./Il/l-ltY 2. 3, I'itJCj
~-/y
d
I
/
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BID NO. 2-97/98
Page 4
mY Of
CHUlA VISTA
/
/
GENERAL INFORMATION (Continued)
Circulation (paying Subscribers):
Overall
PLi:ASe S$ Covc7Z LEfT!;/(.
Chula Vista
'.
~,
.
Public Agency Participation
Other public agencies (e.g. city, county, public corporation, political subdivision, school district, or
water authority) may want to participate in any award as a result of this bid. The City of Chula Vista
shall incur no financial responsibility in connection with any purchase by another public agency.
The public agency shall accept sole responsibility for placing orders and making payments to the
successful bidder. This option shall not be considered in bid evaluation. Please indicate whether
this will be granted.
Yes
/
No
Address
2/3)
VIE6-lJ DIfILY TIZ./fNSCtZlf'T
3.1lD /JV?AJ(/c
Company Name Sit tJ
City ~ft1\) .]);E6-0
Telephone (t.I$-) 232 - '13 B J
PrintNa ~
Signatu e
State CA Zip 9;u,!) I
Fax (bl7)~37-S7/b
Title .J:;k. 0c e ?1Ce51 PeN T
Date B/~/?7
I I
&, -2,0
__... _. __ .....__ _~.. -'...V~" .,~ --
::fl. ~
La Prensa San Dnego
1950 51h Avenue
Suitea 1,2 Be 5
San Diego, Calif. 92101
Ph. (619) 281-2878 Fax 2;:1] -9l8()
FAX MEMO
Oct. 13, 1997
TO; SHIRLEY A. HORTON, MAYOR
MEMBERS OF THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
JOBH S. MOOT.
STEPHEN C. PADILLA
JERRY R. RnmoNE
MARY SALAS
CITY ATTORNEY JOHN M. KAHENY
SUBJ: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA OCT. 14, 1997
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 6 RESOLUTION 18793; Waiving the bid
requirements regarding pub1ication frequ.ency and approving a
purchase ord~r contract with the Star Ne.'Ws as the paper of
general circUlation for the publication of legal notices and
other matters required to be pub1ished by the City and approving
the use of an alternative source in casas of emergencY-
La Prensa San Diego objects to the "preference" being shOwn
to the Chula. Vista Star News (White owne..'d) over minority media
and al1 other media that are lega.;L adjUdicated to carry legal
advertising in the county of San Diego klUt which here-to-for had
been excluded from bidding into the Cit1,I s advertising market.
Prop 209 approved by the voters eliminates all "preferences"
this not only includes preferences "for" as well as preferences
-against". It is obvious that there is a "preference" bias for a
"non-minority owned newspaper to the detriuumt of all non-white
media that. can leglly carry the city's advertisement.
To remove any sign of favoritism or "good-old-boy-network",
the City has an obligation to put to "bid- to all qualified media
and award the contract to the lowest bidder as is required by/law.
The -after-the-fact" changing of the rules to favor the
Star News is highly questionable and opens the city to potential
~uit. J)./ ---
~X.~~~
Daniel L _ Munoz, Publisher
La PreDsa San Diego
t-l/
~
5"" ~ 1886 RECEIVED
~au 11Jirgn 11Jaily ~r~w~'~t
%-?
October 13th, 1997
cln OF CHlILA V\S1 r
CIT~ CLERK'S OFFICE
Re: Resolution #18793
Dear Sir or Madam:
Regarding the scheduled vote on Tuesday, October 14th, 1997 on Item #6, enclosed is
additional information that will illustrate that the San Diego Daily Transcript, based on the
size difference of a column inch, is a better value, and thus, the true low bidder.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
'J~-4~
Jeff Lowe
The San Diego Daily Transcript
2131 THIRD AVENUE. POST OFFICE BOX 85469. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92186-5469.619/232.4381
, - ~ ',"'!
SDDT
$96.00
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
A. a properly ;;ner, lenanl, or
interelled individuAJ you IIhould know
lhRl the hurine offieer will hold a
publie hearine to apPrVVt!, conditionally
approve or deny an applieation for lbe
followlne; allow a aeeond llory roof
deck addition lo obaeTVe a 0'.0. frnnl
yard where 10'-0" is required. Loti 11.
18 and wellerly 16' of Lol .., Block
260 ofPacifieBeaeb, Map~, al721
Grand Avenue, loc:aled on lhe .outh
lide ofGrandAftnue, ",ul ofMiuion
Boulevard, CV Zone, Coaltal Zone, in
the Pacific Beath Community Phmninr
.vea, Council District 6.
DATE OF HEARING:
May7,1997
TIME OF HEARING:
10:30...n_
LOCATION OF HEARING:
City Council Chambers,
12th Floor,
City Administntion Buildlne,
202 C Sueet,
San Dleco. California
PROJECT NUMBER:
C.21454/Yard Variance
PROJECT NAME:
OTF PROPERTIESARD VARIANCE
CITY PROJECT MANAGER:
Leslie G__nl,
Plan Review Specialist
PHONE NUMBER:
(619)236.7205
Theplanl are Mailable f'or"publicrevi_
at the Early Aui.bnce Counter of the
Denlopment Sernce. Center, Third
door, 1222 FintA"enue. Th. decision
of the hearine officer is fina1 un1...
appealed to the BoanI ofZoninc Appeala.
In order to appeal the decision, you
mut be preMDt at the public hearine
and file a speaker sUp concernlne the
application Of" hne u:preued Interellt
by .nUna: to the hearine officer befon
the doaaofthe publichearine. To file
an appeal, conbct the Development
Servi.. Cent<<, Third F100r, 1222 Fint
Avenue. The appeal must be made
within 10 worltinedllys of the hurine
officer'adecislon.
The dea.ion made by the Board of the
Zonine Appeal is appealable lo lhe
ctt)'CoundJ irext.nordinaryconclitiODl
edit as ducribed In Section 111.0507
of the Municipal Code. I( the Cit,
Council don not determine that
extraordinar, conditions edit, the
dea.lon of the Boerd Zonine Arroeal
fa the 8na1 decision by the City.
If)'OUwiah tochaDenp the City'1ac:tion
on the abo... proceedlna:. in court, ,ou
lllAybeUmited to~nconJyo-
WUftl you or IOmeoM elp have raised
at the pub1ic hearine deacribed in this
notice, or written in correspondence
to the Cit, at or before the public
hearin&:.
I( ,ou ha.. an, quntion. after
nYi.wi.... tltl. noU~,,you can call the
City Project Manaeer Ii.led .bo...
Dale OfNoUce: April 23, 1997
'I1Ua inf'onnatioa will be made availaNe
in alternaUn formata uran request.
Ttt requllt an aeendaln alternaU"e
format or lo requelt a lien lancuaee
or oral interpnter for the meeUnc, call
Cal Jobn.on of the DIII'felopment
Service. Center at (619) 236-7218 at
le..t nye workine day. prior to the
-Una: lo INUre availability. Aamtive
Listenine Dences
(ALD'.) are a..llable ror the roeetine
apon request.
HEARING OFFICER PUBLIC
NOTICE PROCESS 3
Pub. Oct. 10...1046<43
Star News
$119.40
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
As a p-operty owner, tenant,
orinterest.ed individual you
should know that the
hearing officer wilL hold a
public hearing to approve,
conditionally approve or
deny an application for the
following: allow a second
story roof deck addition to
observe a 0'-0. front yard
where 10'-0. is required.
LotaU.18and_......l~
......14. BIod< 29J <iParific
Beach, Map 854, at 721
Grand Avenue, located on
the south side of Grand
Avenue, west of Mission
BooIoMud. eN !roe. CoootaI
Zone, in the Pacific Beach
Cooununi'" PIannb>g......
CoWlCiI DYetrict 6.
DATE OF HEARING,
May 7,1997
TIME OF HEARING,
10:30 a.m.
LOCATION OF
HEARING,
City Council Chambers,
12th Floor,
Cit AdmiIWltration
B.J!dini.
202 C Stnoet,
San Diego, California
PROJECT NUMBEa,
C-21464/Yard Variance
PROJECT NAME,
GTF PROPERTIESARD
VARIANCE
CITY PROJECT
MANAGEa,
Leslie Goouent,
Plan Review Specialist
PHONE NUMBER:
(619) 236-7205
TIle ~lans are available for
public review at the Early
Aasistance Counter of the
Development Services
Center, Third noor, 1222
FintAvenue. 'The decision
of the hearing <>ffi<o< ;. final
unIMo...,odod to IheBoonl
ofZonmg AppesIs. In anI."
to appeal the decision, you
JDust be present at the
public hearing and file 8
opeaIwoIip~the
application or have
....-........bywriting
to the hearing <>ffi<o< bem..
the clo.. of the public
hearina. 'Th me an appeal,
contact the Development
Services Center, Third Fbr,
1222 First Avenue. The
a,...u..... bo made witIUn
10 workin, day. of the
hearingofficer's decision.
The decision made by the
Booud of the Zonmg~
i. appealable to the
CilyCoundIif-....lliwy
a:mdit.ions exist as desaibed
in Section 111.0507 of Ute
Mtmicipal Code.lfthe City
CounciI does not determine
that extraordinary
aRlitioDam.t,the-
of the Booud Zonmg~
is the flnal decision by the
City.
IC""" wioh to chaII..... the
City's action on the above
proceedinga in court, you
bo limited to aoJdmooOng
::?;. those isaues you or
someone else have raised
at the public hearing
described in thia notice, or
written in correspondence
to the City at or before the
public hearing.
lfyou have any questions
after reviewing t1Us Dotic:e,
""" om aill the my Prqjoct
Managorliatod_. De'"
Of Notice: April 23, 1997
This information will be
made available in
alternative formats upon
request. To reQuest an
~ moItomaiJ,.,iamat
.. to........ a ,;g.1anguago
or oral interpreter for the
meeting, eall CalJohnaon
ofthe~l-
Center at (619) 236-7218
at least five working days
Prior to the meeting to
....... ....uIabiliIy.AamatM>
Uatening Devi<ea
(ALD'.) are available for
the meeting upoD requ..'
HEARING OFFICER
PUBLIC NanCE
PROCESS 3 ,
Pub. Oct. l(klO4843
SDDT
$117.00
ORDINANCE NUMBER
0.18392 (NEW SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER II, ARTICLE 4, OF THE
SAN DIEGO MUNICIPAL CODE BY
AMENDING DlVJSION 1 BY
AMENDING SECTION 24.0103,
AMENDING AND RENUMBERING
SECTION 24.0105 TO SECTION
24.0104; BY AMENDING DIVISION
2 BY AMENDING SECTIONS 24.0201,
24.0202 AND 24..0203; BY
RENUMBERING SECTION 24.0206.5
TO SECTION 24.0207; BY
RENUMBERING 24.02D7TOSECI10N
24.0208; BY ADDING SECTION
24.0209, AND BY AMENDING
SECTIONS 24.0210AND 24.0211; BY
AMENDING DIVISION 3 BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 24.0301 AND
24.0302,AND BY ADDING SECTION
24.0309; BY AMENDING DIVISION
4 BY AMENDING SECTIONS 24.0402,
24.0403 AND 24.0404; BY AMENDING
DIVISION 5 BY AMENDING
SECTIONS 24.0521 AND 24.0532; BY
AMENDING DIVISION 6 B
AMENDING SECTJON 24.0608; BY
AMENDING DIVISION 7 BY
ADDING SECTION 24.0716; BY
AMENDING DIVISION 8 DY
AMENDING SECTION 24.0801 BY
AMENDING DIVISION 9 BY
AMENDING SECTION 24.0907; BY
REPEALING DIVISION I2AND BY
REENACTING DIVISION 12 BY
ADDING SECTIONS 24.12l11, 24.1202,
24.1203,AND 24.1204;BY AMENDING
DIVISION 13 BY AMENDING
SECTIONS 24.1304,AND 24.1307,
AND BY REPEALING SECTION
24.1311; BY REPEALINGDlVISION
14 AND BY REENACTING DMSION
14 BY ADDING SECTIONS 24.1401,
2U402, 24..1403, 24..1404, 24.1405,
24.1406,24.107,24.108, AND 24.1409,
ALL RELATING TO THE CITY
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM. This ordinance amend.
Chapter II, Article 4, ohhe San Dieeo
Municipal Code relatine t.o the San
Dieeo Cit, Employee" ReUreroent
SysleID by Inmrporatinr the Manacer'.
Proposal whieb made chance. lo the
Retirement System related lo retiree
heaUh insurance, retirement plan
benefiw, employer contribution rate.
and retirement sylteml resenes.
Specifically, a Put. ReUnrnent Health
Benefit "as establi.j:led for HeaUh
~andNon-HeelthEticl'ble~
The .lidinc .eale health benefit wa.
elirolnated and replaclid with the POIt
Retirement lIealth Benefit for Health
E1icible RetireN. The diaability Income
ofTllll wu repealed. A6-year pun:hue
or..moecredlt benefit 111''' eat.abli8hed.
A Deferred Retireroent OpUon Plan
wa. ..t.abUshed. The requirement a
rneJDber be rnanied to h1I. or h..apouee
at lealt one1ear prior to retinment
"a. eUrolnated. A benefit permitUne
the survivlnc epouae .a rnmnbeJ" killed
wtWelnperformanc:eofdutytocontlnue
with health conra,e al provided in
California Labor Code aedion 4856 111'''
eltabU.hed. The General Member
Induatrhd DiAbllity Retirement.benefit
".. inen..ed from 33 1I3"lo 50., of
fina1 compen18tion. The remarri.ee
penal.lyfor.url'finclpOU8MoCDlelDber.
lolled in the tine of duty 111''' eliminated.
Ths retireroent c:aiculaUoD facton for
esneral and .afet, Dlember8 were
Increaaed. Employn CIInUbutioa rata
were increued. A 90" up on fianl
compenaaUon w.. iropoaed on certain
Barety Memben. Abifun:ated employer
contribution nte was e.bbUshed. A
coroplete copy of the Ordinance is
available ror inapection In the Office of
the CityCler'k of the Cily orBan Dieco,
2nd F1oor, City AdminUtntion Buildinc,
202 C Street,
San Diero, Ca 92101.
INTRODUCED ON MAR J7 1997
Pallled and IIdopled by ths Council of
the Cit, orSan Dieeo on MAR 31
1997.
AlITHENTICATED BY;
SUSAN GOLDING
Mayor of The City ofSlln Diero. CA
CHARLES G. ABDELNOUR
Cily Clerk of The City
of San Die,., CA
By Lori A. Wibel, Deput,
Pub. Oct. 10.el04524
Star News
$145.62
was established.ArompMrte
copy' of the Ordinance is
available for inspection in
the Office of the City Clerk
of the City of San Die,o,
2nd Floor, CIty
AdJDiniBtration Building,
202 C S......
San Diego. Ca 92101.
INTRODUCED ON
MAR 17 1997
Passed and adopted by
the Council of the City of
San Diego on MAR 31
1997.
AUTHENTICATED BY;
SUSAN GOLDING
Mayor of The City of Ban
Diego> ~_
CHARLES G.
ABDELNOUR
City Clerk of'The City
.fSan Diego, CA
By LoriA. Witzel. Deputy
Pub. Oct. lO-el04624
ORDINANCENlnMBER
().18392 <NEW SER1ESI
AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER
!!,~TICLE4.0FTHE
"^" DIEGO MUNICIPAL
CODE BY AMENDING
DIVlSION 1 BY AMEND.
ING SECTION 24.0103,
AMENDING AND RE.
NUMBERING SECTION
24.0106 TO SECTION
24.0104... BY AMENDING
DIVlSIvN 2 BY AMENl).
ING SECTIONS 24.020!.
24.0202AND24.0203i!h
RENUMBERING
SECTION 24.0206.5 TO
SECTION 24.0207; BY
RENUMBERING 24.0207
TO SECTION24.0208; BY
ADDING SECTION
24.0209 AND BY AMEN!).
ING SECTIONS 24.0210
AND24.02U'BYAMEN!).
ING DIVISION 3 BY
AMENDING SECTIONS
24.0301 AND24.00a2.AND
BY ADDING SECTION
24.0309... BY AMENDING
DMSluN 4. BY AMEND-
ING SECTIONS 24..040~~
24.0403AND 24.0404; B y
AMENDING DIVlSION 5
BY AMENDING SECT.
IONS 24.0621 AND
24.0532kBY AMENDING
DMSIuN 8 BAMEND.
lNG SECTION 24..0608;
BY AMENDING DIVIS.
ION 7 BY ADDING
SECTION 24.0716b' BY
AMENDING DIVlSI N 8
BY AMENDlNGSECTION
24.0801 BY AMENDING
DMSION 9 BY AMENl).
ING SECTION 24.0907;
BY REPEALING DMS.
ION 12 AND BY
REENACTING DIVISION
12 BY ADDING SECT.
IONS 24.1201. 24.120~.
24.1203...AND 24.1204;8 I
AMENulNG DIVISION
13 BY AMENDING
SECTIONS24.1304,AND
24.1307. AND BY
REPEALING SECTION
24.131!l.!'Y REPEAL.
INGD.v""ONI4ANDBY
REENACTrn'G DIVISION
14 BY ADDING SECT-
IONS 24.1401, 24.1402,
24..1403,24..1404,24.1405,
24..1406,24..107,24..108,
AND 24.1401,_ ALL
RELATlNGTO u...CnY
EMPLOYEES'
RETlREMENTSYSTEM.
This ordinance amends
Chapter IIL~ 4,ofthe
San Diag<> Municipal Code
relatin&' to the San Diego
City EJDoIoyaoa' Retiremonl
System by incorporating
the Manacer'. PropoRnl
whichmadechanees to the
__related
to retiree health inmrance,
retirement plan benefits,
.--"'...
ana retirement systems
reeems. Soecific:a1ly; a Post.
RotUomeolHeaItJ{BMefil
was established for Health
Elivible and Non-Health
EWi\bIa...w-. The oIi<ting
.ca1e health benefit was
eliminated and replaced
with the Poet Retirement
Health Benefit for Health
;,S Reli",e.. Tbe
. .. income offset was
A5-yearpuma.e
aervioe credit benefit was
established. A Deferred
Retirement Option Plan
wa. eetablished. The
requirement a member be
m8nied to his or her spouse
at least. one year pnor to
retirement W8II eliminated.
A benefit permitting the
surviving spouse of a
member killed while in
performance of duty to
continue with health
coverage al-'provided in
Caliromia Labor Code
.ection 4856 was
eltab1i8hed. The General
Member Industrial
DisabHity Retirement
benefit Wall inCl"8lUled from
33 1I3~ to 60~ of finnl
compensation. The
remarriage penalty for
.. C{~
~.::;~:r:;;:ofdutywaa
eliminated.. 'The retirement.
calculation fac\ors for
""",,",aod""""~
were increued:"Employee
contibution rate. were
increued. A 90% cap on
Ciani compenaation was
iIn~ on eertain Safety
Members. A bifurcated
emp&oyer cuntribution rate
COUNCil AGENDA STATEMENT
Item__/
Meeting Date 10/14/97
/~?'lL/
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Waiving the Bidding process and awarding
Purchase Agreement to California Turf Products for three 84"
riding lawn mowers.
SUBMITTED BY: Director Of Public Work~ A~ f..f'c..
Director of Finance ~h~ ...
REVIEWED BY: City Manager& ~ ~1 \ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_Noli
The FY 1997-98 Equipment RePlacemWt Budget provides for the purchase of Three
84" riding mowers. California Turf Products has agreed to sell the mowers (if
available) to the City for $22,590 each plus tax ($24,341). The City purchased an
identical mower from California Turf Products as part of the FY 1996-97 Equipment
Replacement program for $27,925 plus tax ($30,090). Waiving the bidding process
and purchasing the mowers at the quoted price would provide significant savings for
the City.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution which will waive the bidding process
and award the purchase agreement to California Turf Equipment for the purchase of
three 84" riding mowers.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Not Applicable
DISCUSSION: On November 20, 1996, the Purchasing Agent opened bids for the
purchase of two 48" and one 84" riding mowers. Ten bid packages were sent out with
five bidders responding. At the City Council meeting on January 28, 1997, Council
awarded the bid (the Agenda Statement from that meeting is attached) for the
purchase of one 84" riding mower (a Toro Groundsmaster 3000-D, 4WD) to the lowest
responsive bidder, California Turf Products. The price of the mower was $30,090.
California Turf Products agreed to keep the same price for three months and agreed to
permit other Public Agencies to purchase at the same price, which some have done.
As most of the sales for this particular mower are to golf courses, Toro recently
changed the design on 1997 mowers to provide for a contour cutting deck. This
flexible deck would be able to accommodate the mounds used in golf courses. All
1997 production models can accommodate the fastenings for either deck, but 1996
models cannot. Because of this, the Toro Company is offering 1996 production
models (identical to the one purchased by the City last Fiscal Year) at reduced pricing.
Through October 31, or until inventory is depleted, these mowers are available at
$24,341. Should Council approve this Resolution tonight and no mowers are available,
staff will bid the three mowers as usual. The Purchasing Agent recommends waiving
the bidding process since this bidder was the lowest responsive bidder on a recent bid
and since the price is lower than that bid, this is the most cost effective way for the
City to purchase the three 84" mowers in this year's budget.
7~/
Page 2, Item___
Meeting Date 10/14/97
Staff recommends waiving the bidding process since:
· This price is $5,749 less than the last bid for each mower for a total savings
of $17,247 and staff does not believe a cheaper price would result from
bidding.
. Since the price expires on October 31, time is not available to bid and take
advantage of this offer.
. The Fleet Manager reports that the mower received from the last bid has
been dependable.
. The City would have four large mowers of exactly the same type, which
provides advantages for maintenance. Spare parts will be available
throughout the life of the mowers. Toro will not end support with the
model change.
FISCAL IMPACT: $30,100 per mower for a total of $90,300 is available in the
Equipment Replacement budget for purchase of the three mowers. The price,
including sales tax, is $24,341 each for a total of $73,023. When the mowers are
received, the mowers being replaced will be sold at auction. Over the first year or two,
it is expected that the new mowers will cost less to maintain, which will be reflected in
their rental rates.
A TT ACHMENTS
. Agenda statement from Council Meeting of January 28, 1997.
. Letter from California Turf offering pricing on mowers
~
~G"
~O~
C:\WINWORD\BUDGET\AI13MOWR.98
File #: 1320-S0-DC
7 ~ c2.-
RESOLUTION NO.
)ff 7j;J
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE BIDDING PROCESS AND
AWARDING PURCHASE AGREEMENT TO CALIFORNIA TURF
PRODUCTS FOR THREE 84" RIDING LAWN MOWERS
WHEREAS, on November 20, 1996, the Purchasing Agent
opened bids for the purchase of two 48" and one 84" riding mowers;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council at its meeting of January 28,
1997 awarded the contract to the lowest responsive bidder,
California Turf Products at a cost of $27,925 plus tax ($30,900)
for the 84" riding mower (a Toro Groundsmaster 3000-D, 4WD); and
WHEREAS, the FY 1997-98 Equipment Replacement Budget
provides for the purchase of three 84" riding mowers; and
WHEREAS, the Toro Company is offering 1996 production
models (identical to the one purchased by the City last Fiscal
Year) at reduced pricing through October 31, or until inventory is
depleted, at $24,341; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that Council waive the bidding
process because bidding is impractical or impossible for the
following reasons:
(1) The price quoted is $5,749 less than the last bid
and staff does not believe a cheaper price would
result from bidding.
(2) Since the prices expires on October 31, time is not
available to bid and take advantage of this offer.
(3) The Fleet Manager reports that the mower received
from the last bid has been dependable.
(4) The City would have four large mOWers of exactly
the same type, which provides advantages for
maintenance. Spare parts will be available
throughout the life of the mowers. Toro will not
end support with the model change.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
ci ty of Chula Vista in accordance with section 2.56.070 of the
Chula vista Municipal does hereby waive the bidding process for the
reasons stated herein and award a Purchase Agreement to California
Turf Products for three 84" riding lawn mOWers in the amount of
$73,023 including sales tax.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Cc-~~~
John M. Kaheny, city Attorney
7-3
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 8'
Meeting Date 10/14/97
Resolution /%'7 t~propriating funds, accepting bids and awarding
contract for the construction of "Oxford Street Improvements from Fourth
Avenue to Fifth Avenue in the City ofChula Vista, CA (STL229)"
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work~ '1:/
REVIEWED BY, C"y -"':JC:\ ~ lJ.il ~ (415"" Vo", Y 6 -"- No---'
At 2:00 p.m. on September 17, 1997, in Conference Room 2 in the Public Services Building, the
Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the construction of "Oxford Street Improvements
from Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue in the City ofChula Vista, CA (STL229)". The general scope of
the project involves the reconstruction of the existing pavement and the installation of curb, gutter and
sidewalk improvements along both sides of Oxford Street between Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue.
The work to be done includes removal and disposal of existing improvements, excavation and grading,
installation of asphalt concrete pavement, crushed aggregate base, cold planing, pedestrian ramps, curb
and gutter, sidewalk, driveways, curb inlet, storm drain pipes, sewer laterals, street lighting, traffic signal
modifications, new mailboxes, adjustment of sewer manholes, pavement striping and signing and other
miscellaneous items of work as shown on the plans.
ITEM TITLE:
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
I. Approve the resolution appropriating $96,000 from the unappropriated balance of Transportation
Partnership Fund (TPF) No. 253.
2. Approve the resolution accepting bids and awarding contract for the construction of Oxford
Street Improvements from Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue in the City of Chula Vista, CA
(STL229) to MJC Construction in the amount of $355,708.00
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
This project was originally funded during the FY 96-97 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget
process. The project was funded to improve pedestrian access, circulation, and alleviate a local drainage
problem at mid-block. It is also part of the overall sidewalk safety program which provides for the
construction of sidewalk facilities in the Montgomery area. As originally budgeted, in the FY 96-97
Capital Improvement Program (CIP STL229), the City proposed to build asphalt concrete sidewalks on
the north side of Oxford Street only to provide a safe walkway for the children in the area. Funds for
this project were obtained from the Transportation Development Act (TDA) through the San Diego
Association ofGovemments (SANDAG). However, since the TDA funds will only pay for the sidewalk
and not related items such as curb and gutter, additional City Gas Tax funding was included. Staff met
with the property owners in the area and briefed them on the status of the funding for the project, and
g>)
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 10/14/97
a majority of those present indicated an interest in making up the difference necessary to construct full
improvements on that street.
On April 22, 1997 by Resolution 18645 (Exhibit A), Council adopted a petition for the formation of an
assessment district (Assessment District 97-01), 1911 Block Act for the construction of the street
improvements. Subsequently, on May 13, 1997, Council adopted Resolution No. 18663 (Exhibit B),
approving the boundary map for AD97-0 I. At the same meeting, Council also approved Resolution of
Intention No. 18664 (Exhibit B) ordering the installation ofthe street improvements on Oxford Street
from Fourth Avenue to Fifth A venue pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 (also known as the 1911
Block Act) and setting the public hearings for July 15 and 22, 1997. On July II, 1997, Council adopted
Resolution 18740 (Exhibit C) making findings of public hearing pursuant to Chapter 27 of the
"Improvement Act of 1911." The adoption of that resolution also authorized staff to proceed with the
construction schedule since none of the property owners have commenced the construction of their
portion of the improvements after the expiration of the 60 days from the date of notification allowed
under the Act, for property owners within a district to do so.
The project was advertised on August 23, 1997 for a period of four weeks and plans were purchased by
14 contractors. Bids were received from four contractors as follows:
Contractor Base Bid Amount Total Bid Amount
I. MJC Construction - Chula Vista, CA $328,708.00 $355,708.00
2. Frank & Son Paving - Chula Vista, CA 360,081.83 389,076.83
3. Single Eagle, Inc.- Poway, CA 436,293.00 461,793.00
4. Scheidel Contracting & Engineering - La Mesa, CA 479,858.00 517,358.00
The low bid (base bid) by MJC Construction is below the Engineer's estimate of $369,940.00 by
$41,232.00 or 11.2%. Staff received excellent bids for the proposed work. The Engineer's estimate was
based on bids received for similar projects in the last several bids. The difference between the base bid
and the total bid represents the cost of constructing the retaining walls, requested by some property
owners. They have elected to pay for the walls in addition to their original assessment.
Staff has reviewed the low bidder's qualifications and references and found them satisfactory. We,
therefore, recommend that the contract be awarded to MJC Construction.
Disclosure Statement
Attached is a copy of the Contractor's Disclosure Statement (Exhibit D).
Environmental Status
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and has
determined that this project is categorically exempt under Class I, Section 15301(c) of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
8/;2..
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 10/14/97
Prevailinl! Wal!e Statement
The primary source of funding for this project is Gas Tax funds, with additional funding from
Transportation Development Act Funds (TDA) and Transportation Partnership Funds (TPF).
Contractors bidding this project were not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them
for the work under this contract. No special minority or women business owned requirements were
necessary as part of the bid documents. Disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid through the
sending of the Notice of Contractors to various minority trade publications.
Assessment District
This project is partially funded through Assessment District 97-01 approved by Council on April 22,
1997, by Resolution 18645 (Exhibit A). The property owners within this district were informed of the
engineer's estimate and their individual costs are known to them. Although the contractor's bid is below
the engineer's estimate, the contractor's bid for the particular items of work being paid for by the
property owners is about the same as the engineer's estimate. So it is likely that the property owners'
cost will be approximately what is currently estimated. It is estimated that the total reimbursement to
the City from the assessment district will be about $71,000 ($33,000 in concrete improvements; $11,000
in sewer improvements; and $27,000 in retaining walls). There is a possibility that some of the property
owners might change their minds about the construction of the walls because of the amount of money
involved. They have been allowed some time to reach a decision. The contract specifications for this
project was drafted in a manner that allows the City to delete that item of work if the property owners
decide not to proceed with the construction of the walls.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funds Required for Coustructiou
A. Contract Amount (Grand Total Bid Amount) $355,708.00
B. Contingencies (approx 10%) 35,592.00
C. Water Facilities Relocations (payment to Sweetwater Authority) 60,000.00
D. Materials and Lab Testing 2,000.00
E. Staff Costs (Construction Inspection, Traffic Inspection, Assessment 30,000.00
District Formation, Construction Surveying and Design)
Total Funds Required for Construction $483,300.00
Funds Available for Construction
A. Oxford Street Improvement (STL229) $387,300.00
B. Additional Appropriation from Unappropriated Balance of 96,000.00
Transportation Partnership Funds (TPF)
Total Funds Available for Construction $483,300.00
g--3
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 10/14/97
Funding for this project was budgeted in the FY 96-97 CIP budget process as identified above. The
project as budgeted will utilize Gas Tax funds and Transportation Development Act (TDA) Funds with
an additional appropriation from the unappropriated balance of Transportation Partnership (TPF) Funds.
Prior to advertising this project for bids, engineering design staff determined that additional funds in the
amount of $140,000 would be required to complete the project. The additional funding was required
because the City's share ofthe cost of water facilities relocation, which is split equally with Sweetwater
Authority was much more than originally anticipated and budgeted. Another factor that increased the
cost was the cost of the additional work requested by some of the property owners (i.e., sewer lateral
installation, and retaining wall construction) which were not part of the original scope of work, but is
now being financed through the Assessment District. However, the City needs to front these costs. The
estimated costs for these two items is $11,000 and $27,000 respectively, for a total of$38,000 out of
the $71,000 to be reimbursed by the property owners. Staff identified the source for additional funding
for the project, but since we hoped to get bids better than the engineer's estimate, decided to proceed
with advertising the project, getting an exact bid from a contractor and determining the amount to be
appropriated after receipt of bids. Based on the bids received, the amount to be appropriated was
reduced to $96,000. The City will be reimbursed for about $71,000 over a period of 10 years at 7.00%
interest, through the administration of Assessment District 97-0 I. The award of this contract will
authorize the expenditure offunds from the STL229 Project Account. Upon completion of the project,
all funds not utilized will be reimbursed to the Transportation Partnership Fund. The project will require
only routine City maintenance, mainly sweeping, upon completion.
Exhibit:
A - Resolution No. 18645 1)
B - Resolution Nos. 18663 and 18664 ~i)
C - Resolution No. 18740 ~ ~"..
D - Contractor's Disclosure Statement ~ ~V
~O
File #0735-IO-STL229 & 0725-IO-AD97-01
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\STI.229FP WPD
?r/i
RESOLUTION NO.
/8'??S
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING
BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF "OXFORD STREET IMPROVEMENTS
FROM FOURTH AVENUE TO FIFTH AVENUE IN THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA, CA. (STL229)"
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on September 17, 1997, in
Conference Room 2 in the Public Services Building, the Director of
Public Works received the following four bids for the construction
of "Oxford Street Improvements from Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue
in the City of Chula Vista, CA (STL229)":
Contractor Base Bid Total Bid
Amount Amount
1. MJC Construction - Chula Vista, CA $328,708.00 $355,708.00
2. Frank & Son Paving - Chula Vista, CA 360,081.83 389,076.83
3. Single Eagle, Inc.- Poway, CA 436,293.00 461,793.00
4. Scheidel Contracting & Engineering - La 479,858.00 517,358.00
Mesa, CA
WHEREAS, the low bid (base bid) by MJC Construction is
below the Engineer's estimate of $369,940.00 by $41,232.00 or
11.2%; and
WHEREAS, the difference between the base bid and the
total bid represents the cost of constructing the retaining walls,
requested by some property owners who have elected to pay for the
walls in addition to their original assessment; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the
qualifications and references and found them
therefore recommends that the contract be
Construction; and
low bidder's
satisfactory and
awarded to MJC
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has
reviewed the work involved in this project and has determined that
this project is categorically exempt under Class 1, section
15301(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the primary source of funding for this project
is Gas Tax funds, with additional funding from Transportation
Development Act Funds (TDA) and Transportation Partnership Funds
(TPF) , therefore, contractors bidding this project were not
required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for
25/.3
the work under this contract and no special minority or women
business owned requirements were necessary as part of the bid
documents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the City of
Chula vista does hereby accept the four bids and award the contract
for the construction of "Oxford street Improvements from Fourth
Avenue to Fifth Avenue in the City of Chula Vista" to the low
bidder, MJC Construction, in the amount of $355,708.00.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council
appropriate $96,000 from the unappropriated
Transportation Partnership Fund (TPF) No. 253.
does hereby
balance of
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
orney
C:\rs\oxford.bid
2
f)~?
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
c;
Meeting Date 10/14/97
Report: PCM-96-24; Noticing procedures for land use public
hearings - City-Initiated
Resolution / 8'') f~Amending City Council Policy #400-01
pertaining to Land Use Hearing Public Notices and providing
direction regarding certain other procedures related to land use
hearing public noticing.
Director of Planninl]<2 _~ Kf
City Manage~ ~ ~J
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X )
This report is in response to a City Council request for information regarding procedures for
public noticing on land use hearings with respect to notification of tenant residents. Additionally,
the Planning Commission had expressed interest in reviewing the effectiveness of the City's
expanded noticing policies, the modification of the existing public notice format to make it more
easily understood, and the addition of information addressing non-English speaking persons within
the community.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is exempt from
environmental review under CEQA as a General Rule (15061)(b)(3) exemption.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the attached Resolution amending
Council Policy 400-01 related to land use hearing noticing procedures and providing direction on
certain other items related to public noticing.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: At its June 11, 1997 meeting, the
Planning Commission voted 6-0 (Davis absent) recommending that the City Council approve the
following modifications to current noticing policy and procedures:
o Elimination of the 1000' mailing radius
o Elimination of tenant noticing excepting adjacent properties and projects located in the
Coastal zone
o Continuation of the informal use of public forums
9~/
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 10/14/97
[] Direct staff to explore alternative methods of noticing, including the implementation of
posting of signs on project sites for a one-year trial period
[] Reformatting and simplification of public notices in accordance with Attachment 7
[] Addition of a standard Spanish phrase to notices to direct Spanish speaking recipients to
a bilingual staff person.
The Planning Commission also voted 5-1 (Ray opposed), in accordance with the staff
recommendation that tenant noticing for all but adjacent properties be eliminated.
PRIMARY ISSUES:
. Noticing boundaries ( distance)
. Providing both owner and tenant noticing
. Use of public forums
. Alternative methods of noticing
. Format and content of notice
DISCUSSION:
In 1991, the City Council adopted a Council policy regarding extended noticing of land use
hearings (see Council Policy #400-01, Attachment 3). Council Policy 400-01 extended the
noticing radius on land use matters from 300 ft. to 500 ft. for items to be considered by the
Planning Commission and City Council, and to 1,000 ft. for projects consisting of 5 acres or
more.
The purpose of this policy was to ensure that notice of public hearings was given to those who
might be affected by a given decision regarding land use but who might be located beyond the
State-required 300 ft. mailing radius. This policy was also intended to provide greater
opportunity for public input. At the time that the policy was adopted, it was also indicated that
internal (departmental) policy would be created to include the use of public forums and
tenantlresident noticing as a matter of course.
The primary issue to be considered is thus two-fold: first, whether the use of extended methods
of public noticing for land use hearings is accomplishing the goals of providing notice of such
hearings to those who may have an interest but not otherwise be noticed, and encouraging
participation in the planning and development processes; second, whether any such benefits are
commensurate with the cost of providing them.
As a result of the above-noted Council referral, staff has reviewed current noticing procedures
in order to assess their effectiveness in accomplishing stated goals, and has reviewed the format
of public notices with an eye toward simplification and the provision of information for non-
;-02-
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 10/14/97
English speakers. The following is a review of staff's findings, along with recommendations for
changes to the current policies and departmental procedures.
Legal Requirements for Noticing
Except as noted for noticing involving environmental review and Coastal actions, charter cities
are not required to comply with certain state laws, including those which affect noticing. As a
charter city, Chula Vista is not required to comply with state laws in this area. However, as a
general policy the City Attorney's office has advised that at the minimum, the City should comply
with state law.
Generally, state law requires that when a public hearing is required, notice of public hearings shall
be given in all of the following ways:
o mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to the hearing to the owner of the subject real
property or the owner's duly authorized agent, and to the project applicant;
o mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to the hearing to each local agency expected to
provide water, sewage, streets, roads, schools, or other essential facilities or services to
the project, whose ability to provide those facilities and services may be significantly
affected;
o mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to the hearing to all owners of real property as
shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within 300 feet of the real property that is
the subject of the hearing unless there are 1,000 or more, in which case it may be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the local agency which is
conducting the proceeding;
o either published in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the local agency
which is conducting the proceeding, or posted in at least three public places within the
boundaries of the local agency including one public place in the area directly affected by
the proceeding, at least ten days prior to the hearing.
With respect to noticing of environmental review, state law must be followed; state law requires
that notice shall be given by at least one of the following ways:
o publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed
project;
o posting of notice on and off site in the area where the project is to be located;
o direct mailing to owners and occupants of property contiguous to the project.
Coastal Zone regulations which are in effect in Chula Vista for the area generally west of 1-5
require that property owners and tenants within 100' be provided with notice.
State law requires only publishing a notice in the newspaper for general plan amendments and
certain SPA plan amendments.
9~3
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 10/14/97
Current Noticing Procedures
Present noticing procedures within the City are much more comprehensive than state law.
Currently, matters to be determined by the Zoning Administrator and the Design Review
Committee are noticed to property owners as well as residents within a 300 ft. radius of the
project boundary. Items to be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council are
noticed to property owners and residents within a 500 ft. radius of the project boundaries except
those projects consisting of five acres or more, which are noticed to property owners and residents
within 1000 ft. of the project boundaries.
In addition, the existing Council policy requires consideration of extending any notlcmg
boundaries in order to include properties that share common physical attributes as those within
the required boundaries, such as common streets, topographic features, and neighborhood
boundaries. The policy further requires that lists be maintained and notices provided for those
persons who are not legally entitled to notice, but who either have expressed an interest in the
outcome of an application or who, to the knowledge of the director, may have a property interest
which may be significantly impacted by the possible outcome of an application.
The same radius utilized for the project itself is utilized for noticing of environmental review
processing.
Additionally, public forums are often held to introduce a project to neighborhood residents and
to gain input prior to the public hearing process. These forums are held when, in the judgement
of staff, the project is large enough or an issue has been identified which is likely to generate
substantial neighborhood interest.
Issues Related to Noticing Boundaries
The issues to be explored with respect to noticing boundaries involve the effectiveness versus the
cost of providing public notices of land use hearings beyond that which is required by state law.
This includes the use of public forums, the 500 ft. and 1000 ft. extended noticing boundaries, and
tenant noticing.
ANALYSIS:
Mailing Procedures and Costs
With the City's Geographic Information System (GIS) now available, project locator maps can
be created by use of the computer, as can the accompanying mailing lists for any given radius.
While this has only recently become available, savings of staff time previously required for the
manual creation of mailing lists appear to be substantial. However, although GIS has reduced the
amount of staff time spent creating the mailing lists, clerical staff time must still be spent copying
9-Y
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 10/14/97
notices, stuffing envelopes, and affixing mailing labels to envelopes.
The costs associated with public noticing include postage, copying costs, envelope costs, and
clerical time spent preparing the notices for mailing. Postage costs are recovered through deposit
accounts (in which all costs associated with processing are billed to a "deposit" put down by the
applicant; if the costs of processing exceeds the amount of the initial deposit, the applicant may
be billed for additional funds to recoup additional expended monies). However, postage costs
are not fully recoverable on flat fee applications such as Zoning Administrator matters. Further,
the costs associated with photocopying, and clerical time are all part of overhead; they are
recovered indirectly through full cost recovery hourly billing on deposit accounts, and mayor
may not be fully recovered on flat fee accounts (depending upon the amount of time required for
processing) .
Attachment 4 provides an example of costs incurred on five conditional use permit and one
tentative subdivision map applications. These costs have been broken down to distinguish the
costs of noticing property owners from the costs of noticing tenants.
Attachment 5 provides an example of the cost differential associated with mailing lists at the 300
ft. legal minimum as compared to the 500 ft. and 1000 ft extended radius.
Effectiveness of Extended Noticing Boundaries
It is difficult to ascertain the effectiveness of extended boundaries for noticing. As noted
previously, under current City Council policy which has been in existence for six years the state
law noticing requirement of 300 ft. was expanded to 500' for items to be considered at a public
hearing by the Planning Commission and City Council; this is further expanded to 1000' for
projects of 5 acres or more. Although respondents to a public notice generally identify
themselves (i.e. as a property owner, tenant, etc) , staff has not in the past attempted to
identify/analyze the lineal distance between respondents and projects.
Significant response to public notices in general is the exception rather than the rule; some recent
projects which have been noticed even to 1000 ft. have drawn little response. One example is
a recent project in Rancho del Rey consisting of SPA plan amendments and subdivision maps;
notices to over 1200 owners and tenants within 1000 ft. drew responses from approximately three
people (see Attachment 5 for costs associated with this and other projects' mailings), and it is
uncertain how far they were located from the subject property.
A more extreme example is found in recent Sectional Planning Area plan notices for the Otay
Ranch project. By state law, only publication in a newspaper would have been required for the
SPA plan consideration. However, over 2,000 notices were mailed to property owners and
tenants within 1,000 ft. Further, notices regarding Villages 1 and 5 tentative maps were mailed
to over 1300 property owners and tenants (300 ft. noticing required by state law, 1000 ft. noticing
9-S-
Page 6, Item
Meeting Date 10/14/97
actually conducted). The total response to these two notices combined was two phone calls.
Staff surveyed other jurisdictions regarding current practices in public notice procedures
(Attachment 6). Of eleven jurisdictions surveyed, only one extends noticing beyond 300 ft. for
public hearings (Poway, which extends the radius to 500 ft. only for items to be considered by
the City Council). Two of the jurisdictions queried (Coronado and San Diego) notify residents
as well as property owners. Imperial Beach also notifies tenants, although only within 100 ft. of
the project.
At issue is the cost of providing the additional opportunity for increased participation compared
to its effectiveness. Ultimately, staff's experience since the extension of the noticing boundaries
has been that there has been no noticeable increase in public participation as a result of the
expanded mailings. While it is not possible to estimate "average" costs, recent mailings can be
looked at for examples of the additional costs involved. For example, the Rancho del Rey SPA
II subdivision PCS-96-05 referenced in the Attachment 5 Table required a mailing of 1,241
notices, resulting in postage costs to the applicant of almost $400.00, and overhead costs to the
City of $223.00 per notice. If the mailing radius had been reduced to 500', including tenants
(information not provided on table), the number of labels would have been reduced to 611;
postage costs would have been $183.30 (savings of $213.82 to the applicant) and overhead costs
would have been $109.98 (savings of $113.48 to the City).
Tenant Noticing
Of the public input received by staff regarding land use matters, the vast majority has been from
property owners. This can be stated with a large degree of certainty as Planning staff members
routinely attempt to ascertain a respondent's particular interest in a project. Further, property
owners generally identify themselves as such. When tenants do respond to noticing, it most often
involves requests to develop vacant property.
As demonstrated by Attachment 4, the numbers of tenant residents noticed is often substantial and
can add significantly to the cost of noticing the project. In fact, it is not uncommon for the
number of tenants noticed to exceed the number of property owners noticed, particularly when
a project is located in the higher density areas of the city which contain more multiple family
complexes. Also as noted in Attachment 6, Chula Vista is one of only four cities that provides
tenant resident notification.
Under state law, notice is generally only required for tenants when the property is located in the
Coastal Zone as noted previously, or as one of the available noticing methods for environmental
review under CEQA. The Coastal Zone constitutes only a small geographic area within the City,
and noticing of only adjacent tenants would satisfy CEQA requirements.
9--~
Page 7, Item
Meeting Date 10/14/97
Again, the issue is the cost of providing the additional opportunity for increased participation
compared to its effectiveness. Using PCS-96-05 again, elimination of tenant noticing in the
1000' radius would have resulted in savings of $170.24 in postage and $95.76 in overhead.
Use of Public Forums
Public forums are often held to introduce a project to neighborhood residents and to gain input
prior to the public hearing process (generally only for items to be considered by the Planning
Commission and/or City Council). These meetings are held when, in the judgement of staff, the
project has the potential to generate substantial neighborhood interest. For the convenience of
neighbors, public forums are usually held in a public facility close to the project site and take
place after normal business hours. They are run informally; although staff is present to assist and
answer questions related to processing and scheduling, public forums are primarily a meeting to
allow an applicant to explain a project to those in attendance.
Staff has found that the use of public forums can be a successful tool in obtaining public input
prior to the public hearing process. Public forums invite involvement by providing neighbors
with information regarding projects early in the process, as well as providing them with the
opportunity to communicate directly with applicants. The forums further allow both staff and
the applicant to obtain advance input as to what issues may be significant to the surrounding
neighborhood, which in turn provides more time to address these issues before the formal hearing
process.
A number of forums have been held in the past few years, and the advance input obtained from
some of these meetings has been beneficial to both staff and applicants by providing early
opportunity for input in an informal manner. However, attendance at these public forums has
been inconsistent, with many public forums only sparsely attended.
Alternative Methods of Providing Public Notice
The availability of alternatives for providing the public with notice of projects under consideration
may playa part in considering the extent to which mailings should be utilized. Staff has identified
a number of alternative or additional methods through which the public can be provided with
notice of pending project consideration.
- Posting of signs at project sites. Staff members familiar with this process through use in other
jurisdictions report that the posting of signs (large enough to be seen by passing such motorists,
e.g. 4' x 6') can be an effective tool in eliciting public response. In fact, this method provides
notice not only to those who own property or live in the vicinity, but also to the public at large.
The main drawback to this method is that signs may be removed or damaged.
- Telephone recordings. A recorded message line can be made available which would provide
9~)
Page 8, Item
Meeting Date 10/14/97
information on upcoming hearings.
- The Internet. For computer users, information on upcoming public hearings can be provided
on the City's Web site home page.
Simplification of Public Notices; Alternative (Non-English) Language Usage
Recent discussion at a Planning Commission hearing prompted staff to assess the possibility of re-
designing public notices to make them simpler and more easily understood. A new format for
noticing has been provided for Commission comments (see attachment).
Discussion at the same meeting included the possibility of providing information in Spanish.
Given the large number of Spanish speaking residents within the City, staff finds the inclusion of
information in Spanish to be a logical suggestion and believes that it can be accommodated easily
by the addition to project notices of a standard paragraph in Spanish advising that a bilingual staff
member is available to provide information regarding the public notice (and thus the project).
CONCLUSION
After reviewing the extended noticing policy and the extent to which public participation has
occurred in past land-use issues, staff has concluded that one of the most costly methods of
providing extended notice of land use public hearings - the mailing of public hearing notices to
residents well beyond the State required 300 ft. radius - is also possibly one of the least effective
methods for inviting public participation, based upon past experience. Staff is recommending that
Council take action which is consistent with the recommendations offered by the Planning
Commission. However, a number of methods and alternatives are available, and these are
summarized in the following:
Extended Noticing Boundaries
Alternatives:
II Maintain existing noticing boundaries of 300 feet for Zoning Administrator and Design
Review Committee actions; 500 feet for Planning Commission and City Council actions;
1000 feet for projects of five acres or more.
II Eliminate the 1000 foot noticing boundary, maintaining all others as currently directed.
II Eliminate both the 1000 foot and the 500 foot noticing boundaries, thereby utilizing the
300 foot state legal minimum boundary for all applications.
9-r
Page 9, Item
Meeting Date 10/14/97
II Include other methodes) of providing public notice, such as sign postings, Web page
notices, telephone recordings.
Staff Recommendation:
With regard to the issue of extended noticing boundaries of 500 ft. and 1000 ft., as indicated
previously it is difficult to ascertain the effectiveness of specific extended boundaries. Despite
the lack of consistent public turnout, items to be considered by the Planning Commission are those
which are deemed to have potential for more (and more far-reaching) impact. Therefore, the
extension of noticing boundaries to 500 ft. for such applications is in keeping with intent of
providing notice to those who may potentially be effected by the outcome. As a result, staff
recommends the retention of the 500 ft. noticing boundary for applications to be considered by
the Planning Commission and the City Council.
However, based upon the limited response drawn for public hearings on recent projects which
warranted the 1,000 ft. noticing boundaries, staff finds that this extended boundary is not meeting
the goal of eliciting any more substantial public input than the 500 ft. limit and therefore
recommends that the existing noticing policy be amended to rescind the 1000 ft. noticing
requirement.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend elimination of the 1000' radius.
Tenant Resident Noticing
Alternatives:
II Maintain and formalize within Council policy the existing practice of noticing tenant
residents on all applications.
II Eliminate noticing for tenant residents for all or selected applications.
II Eliminate noticing for tenant residents for all but adjacent properties.
Staff Recommendation:
With respect to tenant resident noticing, staff finds that response has been sporadic at best, and
as evidenced by attachments, tenant resident notice mailing costs can add substantially to a project.
However, noticing tenants on adjacent properties both ensures that those most directly impacted
will be notified and fulfills the requirements of CEQA. Staff therefore recommends the
elimination of tenant resident noticing for all but adjacent properties, excepting applications
9- ~
Page 10, Item
Meeting Date 10/14/97
located within the Coastal Zone where such noticing is legally required.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission voted 5-1 (Ray opposed) to recommend the elimination of tenant
noticing for all but adjacent properties, and excepting applications located within the Coastal
Zone.
Use of Public Forums
Alternatives:
II Continue the current informal departmental policy in which staff determines which
applications warrant a public forum.
II Modify City Council policy to formalize the current practice of holding public forums at
the discretion of staff.
II Eliminate the use of public forums.
Staff Recommendation:
While some public forums are only sparsely attended, both staff and applicants generally find the
advance input obtained at these informal meetings to be beneficial. It is staff's suggestion that the
use of public forums be continued through current informal departmental policy in which the
department determines which applications warrant a public forum and also advises applicant of
the availability of forums as a tool for obtaining advance public input.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue the use of public forums through
informal departmental policy.
Notice Simplification
A sample modified notice is attached; no action is necessary for staff to begin using the modified
format, although comments andlor suggestions can be incorporated into the standard format.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend utilization of the sample format as
presented.
9~/t?
Page 11, Item
Meeting Date 10/14/97
Use of Spanish in Notices
Alternatives:
D Maintain existing notices written entirely in English
D Modify Council policy to require that public notices be fully or partially translated into
Spanish.
D Modify Council policy to require a standard statement, written in Spanish, directing
Spanish speakers to a specific bilingual staff person to obtain information regarding the
public notice.
Staff Recommendation:
With respect to the use of Spanish, staff has considered the potentially high cost of translating and
photocopying a full notice into Spanish which would require either the locator be eliminated
(which would reduce the effectiveness of the notice) or the insertion of a second page which
would increase costs. Staff believes that an effective alternative to a full notice translation could
be the inclusion within public notices of a standard statement in a prominent type or location
which directs Spanish speakers to a bilingual staff member for information regarding the notice.
Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council policy regarding public notices be modified
to include such language.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend utilization in public notices of a
standard paragraph in Spanish directing Spanish speakers to a bilingual staff person for assistance
andlor direction.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Both the elimination of the 1000' noticing radius and the elimination of tenant noticing as
proposed would result in savings to applicants in terms of postage costs and to the City in terms
of overhead (supplies and secretarial time spent on the mailings) on deposit accounts and both
postage and overhead on flat fee accounts. Specific savings would depend on the individual
applications, but as evidenced by examples provided in the report, the amounts can be substantial
for both the City and the applicant.
The reformatting of notices and the addition of a standard paragraph in Spanish would have no
fiscal impact.
9-//
Page 12, Item
Meeting Date 10/14/97
Should the Council direct staff to explore alternative methods of noticing, including
implementation of posting of signs, the cost of the additional research along with possible
ordinance amendments is estimated at approximately $2,000.00 in staff time.
The reduction of noticing boundaries as well as the elimination of tenant resident noticing would
result in savings to the City, although the amounts are uncertain at this time.
Attaclnnents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Planning Commission Resolution_I~OT SCANNED
Plaruting Commission Minutes [, ;J~' .3t..'il'l'ii..a:J.
Current Noticing Policy V
Table - Noticing Costs 1\)OT ~r A 1\Jl\J ,,'
Table - Extended BouodafiU'Can1\1'a'H~ ~~ ,~u NOT SCANNED
Survey J<'; V 4.. S(,.i; ".-,
Noticing Forrttat - Sample of Modified Notice (mtluomg ~eference)J"J'1"'''''' ....,-, '\ '
"'-"; 0' ,"''}''>~j'
~" .l~.Io. 't~~.\.:1
(m:\home\planning\patty\pcm9624.rep)
9- ) 2-
RESOLUTION
/ 5f79~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING CITY COUNCIL POLICY #400-01
PERTAINING TO LAND USE HEARING PUBLIC NOTICES
AND PROVIDING DIRECTION REGARDING CERTAIN OTHER
PROCEDURES RELATED TO LAND USE HEARING PUBLIC
NOTICING
WHEREAS, a City-initiated report regarding current public hearing noticing procedures
was presented to the Planning Commission and subsequently to the City Council for review
pursuant to possible changes to the current City Council Land Use Hearing Notice Policy (400-
01) ; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing by the Planning Commission was scheduled on said report
and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper
of general circulation in the city; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hearing was held at the time and place as
advertised, namely June 11, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue,
before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted to recommend certain amendments to the
existing City Council Land Use Hearing Notice Police (400-01) as well as to recommend that
certain informal procedures be implemented; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing by the City Council was scheduled on said report and
notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper
of general circulation in the ci ty; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council hearing was held at the time and place as advertised,
namely October 14, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before
the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, the City currently utilizes certain land use hearing public noticing
procedures which exceed the requirements of State law; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the utilization of certain of these procedures
has not resulted in a significant increase in the amount of public participation in the
planning process by those who might not othelwise be aware of such hearings through the
minimum State noticing requirements; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to discontinue certain current methods of
providing public notice of land use hearings and implement other methods; and,
9~/3
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that due to the large Spanish-speaking population
within the City limits it is desirable to include in public hearing notices language which will
direct such persons to staff members who can communicate project information to them
and to formalize such a practice through Council policy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby amend Council Policy 400-01, Land Use Hearing Noticing Policy, in
accordance with the attached Exhibit "A", and further directs the folJowing:
1) That staff shall continue the current informal use of public forums as a method of
gaining public input on land use hearing matters;
2) That staff shall prepare and bring back for City Council review an ordinance
requiring the posting of signs at project sites;
3) That staff shall utilize a simplified notice format for public hearing notices, similar
in style to that presented at the Council meeting.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Kenneth G. Lee
Acting Director of Planning
C:\rs\400-0! .pol
9~/7
EXHffiIT "A"
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: LAND USE HEARING POLICY EFFECTIVE
NOTICE POLICY NUMBER DATE PAGE
400-01 09-03-91 1 OF 3
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 16336 DATED: 09-03-91
BACKGROUND
The law requires that when the City conducts a public hearing at which it deliberates upon a land use
issue (e.g., the granting of a lane 113e rigkt 3tlefl as a Ceneral Plall Amendment, Z6fie. Chftftge,
C6116itie>llal UJe Pel'fl'lit, ete.) (Land Use Hearing"), those persons who have a "significant property
interest that are affected by that decision" are entitled to certain rights guaranteed by the Due Process
Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution, chief among which are notice of the
deliberations ("Notice"), and the opportunity to be heard (collectively "Due Process Rights").
Currently, legal notices are given in a manner that are designed to meet the requirements of the Sfilf(:
law. The persons that are notified individually by mail are limited to those property owners owning
property within 300 feet of the affected property ("Legally Required Radius of Notice"). ',vlliell IIIII'),
l:lllaer eertain eiret1fl1:jtftnee3, Be iflftaeqtlfite 16 Rstit) th8Je ha~i:ftg a 3i~fieftftt pr6perty mtereJt iIupaetea
by tl'ie aeebi6fi The...Ciry...wishes to extend..thiS.to iriCl1ide..thosetfuttliVe'.beyoi1athe..300.foq~t1ldiuS,
, ,............. .....,.........,......... ..........,.................................................,..-,...,...,
PURPOSE
To permit the Director of Planning to exereise hiJ ifu:!epcllelellt e!iJ~rcti611 to provide notice of public
hearings as to land use matters before the Planning Commission and the City Council beyond the Ieg!I!Iy
State required distance, without creating legal entitlement thereto, and in a manner which is clear and
understandable to the general public.
POLICY
The following policy shall govern the giving of notice in Land Use Hearings:
1. Extended Land Use Hearing Notices
1.1 Language of the Notice
Under circumstances where the City is required, by law, to provide mailed notices of
a public hearing on an application for a land use matter, the Director of Planning
("Director") shall use diligent effort to prepare clear, concise, and understandable
notices from the perspective of a person not skilled in planning or land use syntax or
terminology. In preparing legal notices, the Director shall make a diligent effort to
supplement the description of property legally required to be given with a location map
which will permit the reader to determine the approxinlate location of the property
which is the subject matter of the Noticed Land Use Hearing.
9~/5
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: LAND USE HEARING POLICY EFFECTIVE
NOTICE POLICY NUMBER DATE PAGE
400-01 09-03-91 2 OF 3
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 16336 DATED: 09-03-91
1.2 B8tlftatuie8 fer Dbtrilmti8fl of the natiee
1.2 Referral;ill"S'panish
t\WEI1!?!ftj;j;89!ic~~E~ti.,i~5ijg,)!2E3.Ilappl!s~!i9ji"f'?If.~tI3.llgj!!s~~!!~!l.~!!j!JIMlgll1g!i~
sWidafd;Plitl\temeiitX.1ffXS-atiish;"iitZ/ 'tomiriiillt..typeFaffdlot'W5cafi1fA1t./adviSirt "~that
,.,..........,...."."...,...,."'~~,...,."'.....,.<;...;.,'..,,;;.._=,;',x.._.,...a".,.,,,,,.,..;..,-,;..P;.,..~..,,,,,.., ;,.,""....".,"".,,,,..."".!?....,.,,,,;,;;;. c.......".,...,.,...,..,.". .. .. """""''''''''"",'''''''',':-";"""''c'-",J.i,""~':[*,,,,,;".,,,..!!i.ih~-J-.,.,.'..,..,............:.. g, .:'" :,..';"'~
irtfo:rm~!igp'yt~gardili.gitlj~1pi1J?lis;hearirtg'ifoti~1~~Vail~!?!fJy":lp.ySQa~1E
2. ExtertdedNotiCiitg
2.1 BouridarieHor Disttibl.ltibnoftheNotiCe
a. Scope of Policy. This policy memorandum applies only to those land use
matters which require public hearings before either the Planning Commission
or the City Council, or both, or require notice of an Initial Study for such land
use hearings such as these conducted by any other decision-making body or
administrator shall be noticed in accordance with applicable law without regard
to this policy.
b. In all land use matters which are within the Scope of this Policy, the Director
shall make a diligent effort to expand the Legally Required Radius of Notice to
all property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property
which is the subject matter of a required public hearing by the Planning
Commission or City Council ("Subject Property "), artd in "additi())1t1j~t~to,~1iCh
othe~propef!Y."9wll~rs""<iu!Side."tIj~{50QFoot Railil'"J.~t!he ;PI3.lii.fi:)1gJ)ir~ct()r
detetmines;"shate;"c.ommoll.physic~I"atttiblltes ;as. thosepropertyo'\\'ilerS"within
the" 500 Foot Radhis,suchas common streets,?topographicfeatl.ltes; and
. ................... ...................... .......... .. .. .. ............... .. ......;..0... ........ .....................;m
neighborhood "boundaries.
", ........,..;.;,
e. In all lllftd tl3e fllatter:} ..fiieh Me "I. ithii~ the Scare ef thi3 Peliey 8.fl8 Ike 3h~e 8f
the Stffijeet Pr61'ert) is gIeftter tft.IUi H,e (5) aef eJ, the Direeter :Jft8.ll Bailee a
diligcflt effert 18 eJtI'fi1~tl the Legall) Reql:lirea RaditlJ af NetiEe 16 all J.3f61'el"t)
6nne.rJ nitfi 1,000 feet of tHe exteri6f 88tlnaarieJ ef the Stlbjeet Pr5I'erty
("1,000 Feet Radius"), ana in aaaiti8fl therete, 3t1eh ether j'Jr8l'ertj {) YO fiefS
81:1tJiae Ihe 1,000 ree! RatiitlJ that :diare eenm18fi j'Jfi)3ieal artri1:mteJ as the3e
15r8l'ertj 8 YO flefJ ..ithia tke 1,000 Faat Raai1:lJ, :n:leh fl.':; e5ffi1118fi 3treet3,
MI'6grllflhle feature3, ane Heigkboffl588 B8HHaarieJ.
C;-/f
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: LAND USE HEARING POLICY EFFECTIVE
NOTICE POLICY NUMBER DATE PAGE
400-01 09-03-91 3 OF 3
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 16336 DATED: 09-03-91
2.2 Extended Notice Lists
From the time that an application is made up to the City relating to a land use matter
within the Scope of this Policy, the Director shall commence and continue a diligent
effort to determine and maintain a list of names and addresses of those persons who
are not legally entitled to notice but either: (1) have expressed an interest in the
outcome of the decision on the application, or (2) to knowledge of the Director,
have, or may have, a property interest which in the Director's best judgment, may
be significantly impacted by the possible outcomes of the proposed permit
("Extended Notice List"). These may include tenants requestiilg notification of
future land use hearings. The Director may contact potential noticees and determine
their interest in being provided notice. The Director shall remove from the list: (1)
any person who has requested same, or (ii) any person who has not responded to a
request for determination of interest from the Director.
2.3 Dili2:ent Effort to Give Notice of Public Hearin~s
In addition to giving notice of such persons as are entitled thereto by State law, the
Director shall make a diligent effort to notify Extended Notices of all land use
hearings with the Scope of this policy.
3. ConseqJJence of Violation of Policy
Failure to implement this policy, or the failure to use diligence as herein required, or failure
of an Extended Noticee to actually receive Notice, shall not operate to invalidate the action
by the City at the Hearing. Such is the unequivocal intent of the City Council in enacting
this Policy.
H :\HOME\PLANNING\P A ITY\400-01.0RG
9-)7
ATTACHMENT 1
Planning Commission Resolution
RESOLUTION PCM-96-24 1i c,.
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 7
CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND
LAND USE HEARING NOTICE POLICY #400-01 AND ENACT OTHER
MEASURES PERTAINING TO LAND USE HEARING PUBLIC NOTICING
WHEREAS, a City-initiated report regarding current public hearing noticing procedures was
presented to the Planning Commission for review pursuant to a recommendation regarding possible
changes to the current City Council Land Use Hearing Notice Policy (400-01) ; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a public hearing on said report and
notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely June 11, 1997 at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said
hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the City currently utilizes certain public noticing
procedures which exceed the requirements of State law and that the utilization of certain of these
procedures has not resulted in a significant increase in the amount of public participation in the planning
process by those who might not otherwise be aware of such hearings through the minimum State noticing
requirements; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the
City Council enact the following measures: amendment of Council policy 400-01 to eliminate the 1000'
radius; continuation of the informal use of public forums; directing staff to explore alternative methods
of noticing, including the implementation of posting of signs on project sites for a one-year trial period;
reformatting and simplification of existing public notices in accordance with Exhibit "A" attached; and
the addition of a standard Spanish phrase to notices to direct Spanish speaking recipients to a bilingual
staff person, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
Commissioners Aguillar, O'Neill, Ray, Tarantino, Thomas, Willett
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Davis
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the Council
amend Council policy 400-01 to eliminate tenant resident noticing for all but adjacent properties, by the
following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
Commissioners Aguillar, O'Neill, Tarantino, Thomas, Willett
NOES:
Commissioner Ray
- / -
ABSENT:
Commissioner Davis
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves Resolution PCM-96-
24, recommending that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopt attached draft City Council
Resolution amending Council Policy 400-01, Land Use Hearing Noticing Policy, to affect
changes which will address the aforementioned items.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 11th day of June 1997.
Frank A. Tarantino, Chairman
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
-2-
ATTACHMENT 2
Planning Commission Minutes
-3-
ission~r Ray asked if the amendment only applied 10 existing prop~rty and ot to new
ment and if there would still be 10 feet between dwellings. Mr. Steic n answered
afflIII1at ely to both.
the City Council adopt an
relating to required side yard
This being the . e and the place as advertised, the public hearing was op
to speak, the puB 'c hearing was closed.
MSUC (ThomaslWill ) 6-0 (Davis excused) to recommend
ordinance to amend See ns 19.22.170 of the Municipal Co
setbacks for additions to . ing residences.
ITEM 3.
Acting Associate Planner Nevins reviewed e staff report and recommended that the entire
roadway segment between I-80S and Wu ad be renamed. This would be the fIrst phase.
Other portions would be re-signed as y were!J ilt. She noted that Public Works had applied
for a federal grant for construction. Staff reco nded approval of the renaming of Orange
A venue to Olympic Parkway, su . ct to the phasing dicated in the draft resolution.
MSUC CW' ettlThomas) 6-0 (Davis excused) to approve staff's recommen
Olympic ar1:way.
ace as advertised, the public earing was opened.
Faith Triggs, Associat irector for the ARCO Training Cen , said that she was there to
oversee the proceed' :.s and to just observe.
g to speak, the public hearing was closed.
ssioner Willett asked that staff look at the new Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce ap.
Th e was a slight error in it with reference to the Olympic Center, and he wished to d
staff's attention 10 that. Mr. Lee asked that the Chamber send Planning staff a copy of the map.
ITEM 4.
REPORT: PCM-96-24; NOTICING PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS-
City Initiated
Acting Associate Planning Nevins stated this report was in response to a Council referral. She
reviewed the tv.'o most significant issues, which involved the radius used for noticing and the
practice of noticing tenant residents in addition to property owners. She noted that depending
on the project, staff may notice up to a 1000 foot radius for projects up to 5 acres or more,
based on the current Council policy. Normally, the Planning Commission items with less than
5 acres are noticed to a 500 foot radius, and Zoning Administrator actions and Design Review
.3
PC Minutes
-4-
June 11, 1997
are noticed to 300 feet. It had been staffs experience that what little additional response drawn
from the 1000 foot boundary was probably not proportionate to the cost involved. She compared
an actual project with noticing with the 1000, 500, and 300 foot radii for the same project
showing the number of labels, total cost of postage, and overhead costs actually incurred by the
City and billed to an applicant on a deposit account through an overhead factor but not directly
recovered. This took into account both owners and tenants. Ms. Nevins stated that it was not
simply the cost to the developer, but 'also the amount of staff time involved.
The second issue was regarding tenant noticing. Ms. Nevins reported that staff members felt
the response from tenant noticing was low, if at all, in most cases. Because of the low response
coupled with the large number of tenant notices returned unopened, undeliverable, and with the
relative cost of accomplishing the noticing, staff recommended that the practice of tenant
noticing be ceased.
Ms. Nevins summarized that there were five issues relative to noticing: the extended boundary--
recommended to be reduced to 500' maximum; tenant noticing-elimination of tenant resident
noticing; use of public forums--continue the informal use; alternative methods of noticing in
addition to mailed notices; content of public noticing-providing a more readable format and
including a paragraph in Spanish that would direct Spanish speakers to a bilingual staff person.
Commissioner Thomas agreed that it was discouraging to hold public hearings where very few
people attend. He did not feel changing from 300' to 500' would make a significant difference.
Ms. Nevins replied that items going to the Planning Commission and/or Council for
consideration were deemed to have more impact, and staff recommended the 500' because of
that.
Commissioner Ray asked if the applicant paid for the noticing. Assistant Planning Director Lee
stated the applicant paid when it was a deposit account. The City operated on two different
systems--a deposit system and a flat fee system. With items that were consistent in processing,
there was a flat fee; with items that were inconsistent, a deposit fee was more equitable. Mr.
Lee noted that regarding the consideration for the 300', all of the cities in the County utilized
the 300' with one exception. Since Chula Vista had been using 1,000 feet, they did not consider
dropping back to 300'.
Commissioner Willett said the Planning Commission needed to take into consideration the fact
that with industrial units, the 300' did not take into consideration the residential. He supported
staffs recommendation. He gave some examples of large mailings with small turn-out.
Commissioner Willett was interested in the number of notices that could be on the Web-Page.
Ms. Nevins stated the Internet was suggested as an alternative. Commissioner Willett suggested
trying it to see what the response would be.
Commissioner Aguilar congratulated Ms. Nevins on her report, and the City for establishing a
policy and then requesting that it be assessed at some point as to its effect. Commissioner
Aguilar questioned what would be done in a large area, such as the Otay Ranch, regarding
J../
PC Minutes
-5-
June]], 1997
noricing. Ms. ;o.;evins replied that staff uses the outer perimeter of the project and draws the
radius from tb3.t point.
Co=issioner Aguilar agreed with Commissioner Thomas that the noticing should be from 300
feet. There did not seem to be any reason not to do that. Regarding alternative methods of
noticing, she asked if signs were not currently posted at project signs. Ms. Nevins replied
negative]y, and she stated that information from other jurisdictions showed that they may be
knocked down, and if they were down and staff was not aware of it, no notice would be given
at all.
Co=issioner Aguilar said she would be comfortable with going to 300 feet with the addition
of one of the alternative methods--posting of signs or Internet.
Commissioner O'Neill endorsed the reduction in the radius to 300 feet for the basic notice. He
felt staff should have some flexibility to expand it to 500 feet or 1,000 feet, if the project was
large enough to have an impact and would effect a larger area.
Chair Tarantino stated that even with noticing at 1,000 feet, the largest complaint the Planning
Commissioner hears is "Why didn't we hear about it?" Regarding the tenant noticing, the
amount of returned mail, he agreed with discontinuing it because of the extra expense. He did
not agree to noticing only to 300 feet. He would like to see it go to 500 feet, see how it worked
for a while, and then go to 300 feet if there were no problems. Regarding the Spanish, he was
not comfortable with the generic statement that someone would help them. He would like to see
the fIrst paragraph given in Spanish so that the people would know what was happening, and
then if they had concerns, they could call. He felt with just the generic statement, a staff person
would be tied up on the phone with a Jot of calls that were unnecessary.
Commissioner O'Neill felt the document should not be printed in a second language. He felt
if it was printed partly in Spanish that it would be unfair to the other groups who did not speak
English or Spanish. He felt the notifIcation giving the number to call would be okay, but he did
not feel the fIrst paragraph should be in Spanish.
Commissioner Thomas agreed with not reproducing any of the documents in any language except
English. He supported staff s proposal regarding the sentence at the end of the document
showing the contact person for additional information. He supported going to 300 feet for
noticing, but did not feel comfortable with allowing staff to make the decisions as to whether
to go up to 500 feet. He felt there would be problems; that there should be more continuity.
For the amoum of money involved, he did not feel any advantage of going over the State
guidelines. Tnere would always be complaints that someone was not noticed.
Chair Tarantino agreed, but felt it was good public relations.
At Chair Tarantino's suggestion, the Commissioners agreed that the points should be considered
one at a time.
5""
PC Minutes
-6-
June 11, 1997
Ms. Nevins stated that the fITst issue was the noticing boundary.
M5 (Thomas/O'Neill) to notify at 300 feet for all applications.
Commissioner Ray stated that he could either go with the 300 feet or 500 feet. He asked if
there had been any thought given to tJ:Ie applicant providing the labels. There could be a savings
averaging between $500 and $600 if the applicant was charged for the labels plus secretarial
time. Ms. Nevins replied that it would defInitely save money if the applicant provided mailing
labels, envelopes, postage, etc., it would save money. The experience of other cities was that
staff spent so much time checking it, that they might as wen have done it themselves.
Regarding tenant noticing, it goes out to the resident. The GIS system selects those and
provides the labels.
Commissioner Ray asked if the bulk rate was used. Ms. Nevins informed him that they were
mailed first class. Commissioner Ray was concerned about the cost rather than who was
informed. He felt the costs other than for mailing could be passed on to the applicant.
Commissioner Aguilar thought the 300 foot noticing should be combined with some other
methods. She favored posting of signs so the people who lived in the area would be made aware
of it. She suggested that posting of signs be tried for a year and then assessed to see how it
worked. She would be uncomfortable with going to 300 feet without any other alternative
method.
Commissioner Thomas said he had previous experience with posting signs and there had been
no response. He did not think this would be a viable thing to do.
Commissioner Ray asked if an item was classifIed as far as impact on the community. Assistant
Planning Director Lee replied that staff looked at the size of the project and the issues. The
environmental issues would be discussed with the environmental section, which largely
determined whether there would be a public forum. The forums were effective in getting the
word out, even though they may not be wen attended. It is a can by staff.
Commissioner Aguilar asked for a comment from the City Attorney regarding the issue of giving
staffflexibiJity. She did not want to expose staff to any liability. She agreed to the 300 feet and
giving staff flexibility to expand the radius to 500 feet or 1,000 feet based on their judgment.
Attorney Moore stated that at minimum there should be a 300 foot requirement. If the language
was specifIc enough, it could be increased to 500 feet in perhaps projects that are specifIcally
described in the policy. It should be clearly stated as much as possible the types of projects that
would be increased to 500 feet.
Chair Tarantino asked how that would impact staff's time. Would it be quick to evaluate? Mr.
Lee replied that if the Planning Commission was looking at the two options of having any item
that was going on to City Council at 500 feet, that probably solidifIed it a little better. He felt
to
- - PC Minutes
-7:
June 11, 1997
staff would be more comforrable with something like that, that would not be confusing to
administer.
Ms. Nevins stated that staffs recommendation was for 300 foot noticing with 500 foot noticing
specified for the Planning Commission and Council. Attorney Moore concurred.
Commissioner Willett felt comfortable with staying with the Council Policy of 500 feet, with
staff extending it to 1,000 feet if necessary.
MOTION RESCINDED by Commissioner Thomas; Commissioner O'Neill concurred.
MSC (ThomaslWillett) 6-0 (Commissioner Davis excused) to accept staff's proposal on the
noticing boundaries.
Ms. Nevins stated that the second issue was whether to discontinue the use of tenant noticing
except for adjacent tenants. Staff's recommendation, because of the cost of publication and the
haziness of the issue of posting, would be to eliminate tenant noticing except for adjacent
tenants, which staff would continue not only for environmental but for other projects as well.
Commissioner Ray felt someone who resided in a rental unit deserved as much of a right as
someone who owned the property. He felt the tenant notification should be continued.
Commissioner Willett concurred in part with Commissioner Ray, but it had been his experience
that the majority of the tenants were very mobile. He thought staff should be allowed the
exception, in the case of a project with a lot of noise or dust, etc., to expand the notification to
tenant notification. However, regarding notif'ying the tenants across the board, he would go
along with the other cities and only notify them in cases of CEQA.
Commissioner Thomas agreed with Commissioner Ray that the tenant should have a vote, but
if factoring in the transient percentages, he would not want a major decision to be based upon
transient votes, but upon the vote of the homeowner.
MSC (WilletUThomas) 5-1 (Commissioner Davis excused; Commissioner Ray opposed) to
not notify the tenants except in cases of CEQA.
Regarding the third issue, Ms. Nevins stated that staff recommended the use of public forums.
Tney were currently used as an informal method, at staff's discretion.
MSC (Aguilarf'iVilIett) 6-0 (Commissioner Davis excused) to accept staff's recommendation
to continue the use of public forums on an as-needed basis.
Regarding alternative methods of noticing, Ms. Nevins asked if the Planning Commission would
like certain additional methods of noticing tested or simply incorporated into the policy.
'7
PC Minutes.
"8-
June 11, 1997
Commission~r Aguilar said she would still like to give signage a try for som~ period of time and
th~n get a report on wheth~r or not it worked. She felt it was a good way to inform everyone
in the area induding tenants.
Chair Tarantino asked if there had to be a minimum size of sign, and if there would be certain
requirements as to space between signs, etc. Mr. Lee thought if the Planning Commission was
in favor of requiring signage as part of the policy, staff would work on the details. Other cities
that incorporated posting of properties did have minimum sizes. They required the applicant to
post the property, take a picture of it, and provide it back to the cities for their fIles. The sign
would have to be posted in advance and information that would let the people know what was
happening. The applicant would pay for the sign.
Commissioner O'Neill stated that he had just had experience with another city which required
posting of an llx17 sign, one in the front and one in the back. Some could be seen and some
could not. If people get used to the signs, it is effective. It puts them on notice that something
.is going on. If they care, they look at them and proceed further. It was a relatively low cost.
Commissioner Willett asked if staff had received any comments on the signage for public
forums. Mr. Lee answered negatively, but stated it depended on what the notices were directed
for. Mr. O'Neill was including all types of public notices relating to land use issues.
Commissioner O'Neill stated he was referring to a variance on a residential product, not a larger
scale, something small and localized.
Chair Tarantino asked if they were only looking at signs as an alternative method and
discounting other alternatives. Commissioner O'Neill felt that use of the Internet could not be
relied on because a large segment of the population would not be on-line and may not be
computer literate. He thought it would be a nice thing to do, but the sign would be more
certain.
MSC (Aguilar/Ray) 6-0 (Commissioner Davis excused) that the Planning Commission
reco=end to the City Council that they direct staff to implement posting of signs at
project sites as an alternative method of providing public notice, with the signs to be
designed by staff, and that this be implemented for one year with an assessment report
back to the Commission and Council at the end of the year.
Commissioner Ray said that something like a variance on a daycare facility would have a small
paper window sign, and something like the Otay Ranch would have a lO'x12' banner sign--
something appropriate for the site.
Commissioner Thomas asked if staff was comfortable with a trial of one year. Mr. Lee felt that
would be appropriate.
g
PC Minutes
-9-
June 11, 1997
Tne next issue was divided into two sections. The first part was the fonnatting of the notice,
2Dd whether it wou]d be a more simp]e fonnat to read.
MSC (Thomas/Ray) 6-0 (Commissioner Davis excused) to accept the revised format.
The second part of this issue was whether and how to use Spanish in the notice.
Co=issioner Thomas felt it should remain the same with no part produced in Spanish. English
was the main language. He would support keeping the line in Spanish regarding calling ahead.
In response to Chair Tarantino, Mr. Lee stated that the notices were not currently in Spanish;
however, the Co=tmity Development Department had on occasion reproduced the full notice
in Spanish for certain parts of South Bay when they were going through redevelopment plans,
etc. By approving staff's reco=endation, if a number of phone calls were received, staff could
expand the notice to include more information if it was deemed feasible.
Commissioner Thomas suggested that one copy of the report be made in Spanish and posted in
the Library. Mr. Lee felt that would be inconvenient for people. Commissioner Thomas was
not in favor of reproducing it in Spanish.
Chair Tarantino felt people needed to know what they were calling for. He would feel
comfortable, however, that if staff felt they were getting a lot of phone calls, something more
would be reproduced in Spanish.
Commissioner Ray felt the V oiceMail could be used to direct people to press certain numbers
for certain information. Mr. Lee hesitated to do this until staff found out if people were being
reached or if there were a number of concerns. There would be a point person to receive calls.
Co=issioner O'Neill stated that in most cases the children were already English-speaking and
were already translating for their parents. He felt if there was a concern, the people would call.
Again, he felt if it was printed in Spanish, it should be for other languages. Mr. Lee
co=ented that staff was suggesting the Spanish because there was a high population of Spanish
in Chula Vista.
MSC (Thomas/Willett) 6-0 (Commissioner Davis excused) to accept staff's proposal as
presented.
ITEM 5.
PUBLIC HEARING; PCA-97-04; CONSIDER,I>,TION OF AMENDMENTS TO
TIlE MlTh'lCIP.i\L CODE TO CHANGE TIlE DEFINITIONS OF SM.i\LL
.-\ND LARGE F.I\MILY DAY CARE HOMES AND FAMILY DAY CARE-
City Initiated
'1
PC Minutes
. -10-
June 11, 1997
Acting Asso:iate Planner ~ evins stated that recent changes in State Jaw had changed the
defInition of small family daycare and large family daycare. These amendments were to clean
up the Municipal Code to reflect those changes.
Commissioner Willett asked if the resolution should refer to SB 265, which was the bill which
changed the ruJes, and became effective January 1. In addition, no references were made to AB
1695 or AB 1980. He recommended those be included in the resolution. Ms. Nevins
concurred.
Commissioner Aguilar asked if the Planning Commission adopted this ordinance, if all the
language in the State's ordinance automatically included. She read a ponion of the bill which
had not been included in the ordinance. Ms. Nevins replied that the verbiage was not
automatically included in the ordinance; however, the State enforced those.
Attorney Moore stated they were requirements with respect to the license that the family daycare
received from the State.
Commissioner Aguilar concluded that it would not have to be included in the City's resolution;
it would happen automatically. Ms. Moore stated it was regulated by the State.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing
to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSC (Willett/O'Neill) 6-0 (Commissioner Davis excused) to accept stafrs recommendation
with the condition that the resolution included the numbers SB 265, AB 1695, and AB 1980.
ITEM 6.
lJ"PDATE ON COUNCIL ITEMS
Assistant Planning Director Lee reponed that the City Council endorsed the Planning
Commission's recommendations relating to the 290-acre McMillin project, agreeing to retain the
park and that the maintenance of the par1.'Ways was very crucial and required that that be placed
in the open space district. Council agreed to remove the fIxed percentage on the Hollywood
driveways, allowing them to do a model and relate it to market forces. Staff was going back
to Council to clarify an issue regarding the Hollywood driveway.
Discussion followed regarding the Hollywood driveway and the percentage to be built.
Regarding the homeowners association versus the open space district, Council had left it up to
the developer.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that there were no items on the agenda for the next
regular meeting scheduled for June 25, 1997, and asked that they cancel that meeting. He noted
a workshop W2S set for Wednesday, June 18. Food would be brought in at 5:30 p.m. and the
ID
PC Minutes
-11-
June 11, 1997
mteting wou]d start at 6:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2/3. The topic for the workshop would
be the transponation effon for aU the new communities. Duane Bazze! and Ed Batchelder would
make the presentation. All of the Commissioners indicated they would be able to attend.
ITEM 7.
ELECTION OF CHAIR/VICE CHAIR
Chair Tarantino felt it was important that all the Commissioners be present for the ejection of
Chair and Vice Chair, and asked that this item be rescheduled for the workshop the next week.
MSC (Tarantino/Ray) 6-0 (Commissioner Davis excused) to postpone the election of
ChairNice Chair to the workshop meeting of Jnne 18, and to cancel the meeting of Jnne
25, 1997.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioner Thomas asked for an update on the Broadway Business Homes. Mr. Lee did not
have an update, but said he would check with Chris Salomone of Community Development.
Commissioner Aguilar noted it would be useful to have a workshop on the Bayfront. Mr. Lee
replied that there had been a fairly extensive workshop recently with the City Council to give
them a complete update. There had been a coordinated effort with Port staff. He would talk
with Chris Salomone and possibly have a workshop in July to bring the Commission up to date.
Commissioner Ray noted that Jake's had been sold to the fo=er owners of the Chart House and
would change the name in about a month.
Chair Tarantino stated it had been a great year as Chair, and he thanked the Commission and
staff for their support.
ADJOUR1\'MEJI.'T at 8:50 p.m. to the Dinner Workshop of June 18, 1997, at 5:30 p.m. in
Conference Rooms 2/3 and thence to the Regular Planning Commission meeting of July 9, 1997,
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
/},' I
-"'"_._. "",,,-,-~'..1-~_-:"
Nancy Rlpley, Secretary
Planning Commission
(rr.: \hom~\planning\nan:Y\p:9i min\p:6-11.min)
(,
TillS PAGE BLANK
I---C
- c
ATTACHMENT 3
Current Noticing Policy
=
COUNCIL POUCY
CITY OF CHUlA VISTA
SUBJECT: LAND USE HEtJUNG NOTICE POllCY
POUCY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 16336-
400-01 09-03-91 1 OF 2
I DA1ED: 09-03-91
BACKGROUND
The law requires that when the City conducts a public hearing at which it deliberates upon a land use issue
(e.g., the graming of a land use right such as a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use i
Permit, etc.) ('Land Use Hearings"), those persons who have a 'significant property interest that are affected
by that decision' are entitled to certain rights guaranteed by the Due Process (Jause of the 14th Amendment
of the Federal Constitution, chief among which are notice of the deliberations ("Notice"), and the opportunity
to be hear (collectively 'Due Process Rights').
Currently, legal notices are given in a manner that are designed to meet the requirements of the law. The
persons that are notified individually by mail are limited to those property owners owning property within 300
feet of the affected property ("Legally Required Radius of Notice"), which may, under certain circumstances, be
inadequate to notify those having a significant property interest impacted by the decision.
PURPOSE
To permit the Director of Planning to exercise his independent discretion to provide notice of public hearings
as to land use maners before the Planning Commission and the City Council beyound the legally required
distance, ,,~thout creating legaJ entitlement thereto, and in a manner which is clear and understandable to the
general public.
POllCY
The followi:1g policy shall govern the giving of notice in Land Use Hearings:
1. Extended Land Use Hearing Notices
1.1 Language of the Notice
Under circwns:ances where the City is required, by law, to provide mailed notices of a public
hearing on an application for a land use maner, the Director of Planning ("Director") shall use
diligent effort to prepare clear, concise, and understandable notices from the perspective of a
person not skilled in planning or land use syntax or terminology. In preparing legal notices, the
Director shall make a diligent elIort to supplement the description of property legaJly required
to be given with a location map which will permit the reader to determine the approxin1ate
location of the property which is the subject matter of the Noticed Land Use Hearing.
1.2 Boundaries for Distribution of the Notice
--
(
a. Scope of Policy. This policy memorandum applies only to those land use maners which
require public hearings before either the Planning Commission or the City Council, or both,
or require notice of an InitiaJ Study for such land use hearings such as these conducted by
any other decision.making body or administrator shall be noticed in accordance with
applicable Jaw without regard to this policy.
/3
SUBJECT: 1..A1'.'D USE 1-::E.WNG NOTIONG POLJCY
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
20F2
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 16336
400-01 09-03-91
I DATED: 09-03-91
b. In all land use maners which are within the Scope of this Policy, the Director shall mak. a
diligent effort to expand the Legally Required Radius of Notice to all property owners within
SOO feet of the exterior boundaries of the properlY which is the subject maner of a required
public hearing by the Planning Commission or City Council rSubject Property").
Co In all land use matters which are within the Scope of this Policy and the size of the Subject
Property is greater than five (S) acres, the Director shall make a diligent effort to expand
the Legally Required Radius of Notice to all properlY owners with 1,000 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the Subject Property rl,ooo Foot Radius"), and in addition thereto, such
other property. owners outside the 1,000 Foot Radius that share common physical attributes
- as those property owners within the 1,000 Foot Radius, such as common stteers,
topographic features, and neighborhood boundaries.
2. Extended Notice Lists
2.1 Maintenance of Extended Notice Lisrs
From the rime that an application is made up to the City relating to a land use matter within
the Scope of this Policy, the Director shall commence and continue a diligent effort to determine
and maintain a list of names and addresses of those persons who are not legally entitled to
notice but either: (1) have expressed an interest in the outcome of the decision on the
application, or (2) to knowledge of the Director, have or may have a properlY interest which in
the Director's best judgment, may be significantly impacted by the possible outcomes of the
propo'sed permit ('Extended Notice List"). These may include tenants request notification of
future land use hearings. The Director may contact potential noticees and determine their
interest in being provided notice. The Director shall remove from the list; (i) any person who
has requested same, or (ii) any person who has not responded to a request for determination of
interest from the Director.
2.2 Dili~ent Effort to Give Notice of Public Hearin~s
In addition to giving notice of such persons as are entitled thereto by state law, the Director
shall make a diligent effort to notify Extended Notices of all land use hearings with the Scope of
this Policy.
3. Conseauence of Viol"tion of Policv
Failure to implerne.lm this policy, or the failure to use diligence as herein required, or failure of an
Extended Noticee to actually receive Notice shall not operate to invalidate the action by the City at the
Hearing. Such is the unequivocal intent of the City Council in enacting this Policy.
~)
tef
--
00
Eo<
00
O~
UEo<
~~
Eo<Z
~~
~~
foo1@
~Eo<
foo1oo
;>0
ou
N
foo1"J
~@
<Eo<
Eo< 00
000
~U
00
...<
foo1
~
<
...<
""
~
~
~><
<~
foo10
=~
Eo<
U
foo1
o
~
~
00
00,,",
('f')N~
.,.,.,.,
"""" .
, 'V
, 0\
~
'" '"
'-< -
"" e:
e: '"
;!: e:
O~
OON
Or"
-< 00
-<
""""
,
,
'" '"
'-< -
"" e:
e: '"
;!: e:
O~
NOO
O\N
-< (<)
(<)
""""
,
,
'" '"
'-< -
"" e:
e: '"
;!: e:
O~
\DC!;
-<
,
,
'" '"
'-< -
"" e:
e: '"
;!: e:
O~
ODe:
e: .-
.- S
e:-o
~<t:
'"
-
'-<
0_
_ '" ""
~cn""
~"'r::I.b
\De:cn
~.::=u
U~......
U.- 0\
~:r:.,.,
00
":0
("1")"";,..-...
NOO~
"""".,.,
, .
, r"
~
'" '"
'-< -
"" e:
e: '"
;!: e:
O~
\D\D
'V -<
000\
N
""""
,
,
'" '"
'-< -
"" e:
e: '"
;!: e:
O~
'V 'V
~OO
.,., .
-<;r;
""""
, ,
'" '"
'-< -
"" e:
e: '"
;!: e:
O~
r"N
'V\D
-<
'" '"
'-< -
"" e:
e: '"
~ e:
O~
""'
ODe:
e: .-
.- S
e:-o
~<t:
o
o
(<)
~
o
N
~~
~'::Z
U e:
U ~
~U~
00
""0,,",
~N~
'V(<)
"""" 0
, 0
, 0\
~
'" '"
'-< -
"" e:
e: '"
~ e:
O~
NN
\D-<
-<.,.,
-<
""""
,
'" '"
'-< -
~ ~
;!: e:
O~
0000
0000
N-.6
N
""""
, ,
'" '"
'-< -
"" e:
e: '"
;!: e:
O~
0\ 'V
00
'" '"
'-< -
"" e:
e: '"
;!: e:
O~
""'
ODe:
c::::.- ,..-...
.- So
e:o -0 0
....(<)
N......~
o
o
(<)
~
f;'
;!:
-0
'"
o
'-<
I:!:)
-
-< ""
N e
-.bcacn
~.:::..J
U e:
U~O
~U$
80
0,,",
OOr---:~
""r"0
"""" .
, r"
, .,.,
"''''~
'-< -
~ ~
;!: e:
O~
00
~~
o .
N~
""""
,
,
'" '"
'-< -
"" e:
e: '"
~ e:
O~
NOO
-<N
~O\
'V
""""
, ,
'" '"
'-< -
"" e:
e: '"
;!: e:
O~
'V
.,.,
-<
,
'" '"
'-< -
"" e:
e: '"
~\De:
0-<""
-<Eo<
OD
e:
'2 S
e: S
'" 0
i5:u
""'
o
o
.,.,
~
e:
.9 Q)
- '"
0\;98
~CI)o
\D""::E
~ u
u'S: 00
ut~
~cn-<
IS-
88
""'
00 [-. ","-0
N r" c'
",,-<(<)
,""-.6
, 00
~
'" '"
'-< -
"" e:
e: '"
;!: e:
o~
OON
~r"
S..;
\D
""""
,
,
'" '"
~~
;!: e:
o~
NOO
O\N
r---:rr)
-< -<
",,-<
""
,
,
'" '"
'-< -
"" e:
e: '"
;!: e:
o~
\D'V
.,.,.,.,
(<)
,
,
'" '"
'-< -
"" e:
e: '"
;!: e:
o~
OD
e:
'2 S
e: S
'" 0
i5:u
;>.
.D '"
r" '" ;!:
";IQ"g
\D""O
~ bO";:;:
U"'......
-0\
U::::N
~;>'V
ATTACHMENT 4
Table - Noticing Costs
00
":0
'V 0 ""'
V')\O~
(<)\DO\
""~ 0
I I ~
"''''~
'-< -
~ ~
;!: ""
o Eo<
N
\D \D
or"
r" .
N.,.,
-< 0\
""""
,
'" '"
'-< -
~ ~
;!: e:
O~
'" 00 '"
'-< 00 -
~-.o@
;!: N e:
O~~
'" '"
'-< -
"" e:
e: '"
;!: 0\ e:
oi2~
~
;>.
-
O'u~
--58
uo-<
~u~
o
o
.,.,
~
V')t::"i)
0.9 "'r::I
, '"
\D';;: 0
~~~
cn.De:
~J5~
OD
e:
';;:'
'"
o
u
""'
'-<
..<::
--
'"
.,
.D
,.!g
o
'V
-<
..:
..<::
--
o
o
..,f
-<
""
@)
-<
-<
-<
<(
o
<t:
~
'V
N
o
r"
-<
""
..<::
u
'"
""
'"
-
e:
""
u
o
-<
@)
""
5
-
N
(<)
.,.,
~
;:::
;9"<::
"" U
'-< '"
u ""
"" '"
'" -
'" e:
"" ""
-0 u
"'.,.,
u(<)
5
.,@)
.D a3
,.!g",
'-< 0
"".,
"'>
~ ~
e: .
""..<::
u u
00 '"
-< ""
;>. 4-< '"
~ 0 c
_ ""
'" u
8.,.,
-0 (<)
~@)
..<::
'-< '"
"" -
> '"
08
TillS PAGE BLANK
((p
rLJ
...
rLJ
o
U
~
-<
...
o
...
~~
~@
1'I;1t;:;
>0
OU
...
rLJ
o
U
~
-<
...
rLJ
o
~
rLJ
~
1'1;1
=:I
-<
~
""
~
~
~;;..
-<~
1'1;10
==:1
...
U
1'1;1
a
~
~
008
o~
. 00 t-
~tr)t-
-<<17<17
<17 , ,
'" '"
, ....-
- g 1;3
~ ~ ~
...0...
00
OOON
.t-
\D 0 .
. Nt-
oo N
"<1"<17<17
<17 ,
,
'" '"
, ....-
_ .., c
5 c <<j
o ~ ~
E-OE-
NOO
O-<N
~~o\
\D "<I"
00<17<17
<17 , ,
'" '"
, ....-
_ .., c
cd c ~
o ~ ..,
E-OE-
0;:;"<1"
-<on
t- -<
N ,
,
'" '"
, ....-
_ .., c
<<j c <<j
_ ~ c
~O~
OJ)
c
'0 s"'
c So
<<j 00
~u~
c
.9 ~
0\192
~r.I)~
\D"';:E
0;- .~
Utg(
U"'''<I"
Cl.<n-<
o
o
C')
-<
<17
,
'"
....
..,
c
~
o
00
\D
-i
<17
,
'"
....
..,
c
~
o
N
C')
00
<17
,
'"
....
..,
c
~
o
\D
N
,
'"
....
..,
c
~
o
o ~
0'"
C') c
@)~
000
ononO
o-i0
Non\D
\DC')N
<17<17<17
, ,
'" '"
, ....-
-.., 1;3
~ ~ c
E-O~
OON\D
C')\Dt-
('i')r---:.,.;
NNO\
~Y;V7
, ,
'" '"
I L-o~
-.., <<j
50 ~ c
E-O~
00"<1"
N~N
-< \D .
NO
~Nr-
~&7Y;
<17 , ,
'" '"
, ....-
_ .., c
5 c <<j
o ~ ~
E-OE-
-< 0\ N
"<I"OC')
Nt-on
-
, ,
'" '"
, ....-
_ .., c
5 c <<j
o ~ ~
E-Of-<
>,
-a
o
c
o'u~
__co
u158
~u~
>,
~
V15"i5
c:r'v.:--o
\D'- 0
O\.~ .r:
, "0 U
~.g~
Cl.<nP:;
(7
ATTACHMENT 5
Table - Extended Boundaries Comparison
o
o
-i
C')
-
<17
'"
....
..,
c
~
o
"<I"
N
00
"<I"
<17
,
'"
....
..,
c
~
o
\D
t-
on
00
<17
'"
....
..,
c
~
o
00
\D
N
'"
....
'"
c
~
o
o ~
0'"
lnt::b
"" ~ c
"'" 0 0
o
o
t-
\D
<17
'"
....
'"
c
~
o
00
"<I"
-i
N
<17
'"
....
'"
c
~
o
N
on
N
"<I"
<17
,
'"
....
..,
c
~
o
\D
C')
-<
,
'"
....
'"
c
~
o
o ~
o '"
C') C
@)~
OJ)
c
';;"
0..
o
U
~
....
.r:
--
'"
'<)
.0
~
o
"<I"
-
....
~
o
o
-i
-<
<17
@)
-
-
-
-<:
o
-<:
'-'
.r:
g
'"
'"
-
c
'"
U
o
-
>,
-a
o
@)
..,
.5
-
<d
.;:::
5.r:
'" U
.... <<j
U '"
'" '"
'" -
'" c
'" '"
"0 U
::>on
UC')
.S
'<)~
.0 '"
~o..
.... 0
"''<)
0..>
'" c
c: '"
"'.r:
U U
00 <<j
_ '"
.... '"
o c:
_ '"
'" U
80n
"0 C')
a:5@)
.r:
.... '"
'" -
> '"
08
TillS PAGE BLANK
(~
ATTACHMENT 6
Survey
CITY RADIUS TENANTS NOTES
Coronado 300' Yes
County 300' No applicant provides labels
El Cajon 300' No
Encinitas 300' No tenants notified for Coastal Permits
Imperial Beach 300' Yes* * within 100'
National City 300' No
Oceanside 300' No
Poway 300' ZA No
500' CC applicant provides labels
San Diego 300' Yes applicant provides labels
Santee 300' No Sometimes posted for condos/mf
(in complex common areas)
Solana Beach 300' No* *except for view assessment issues
!'7
THIS PAGE BLANK
'7--0
PROPOSED FORMAT
ATTACHMENT 7
Public Hearing Notice Formats
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY
THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, California, in City Council Chambers at the
Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, for the purpose of considering
a conditional use permit, summarized as follows:
DATE AND TIME OF HEARING:
Wednesday, February 26, 1997 at 7:00 p.m.
CASE NUMBER:
PCC-97-34
APPLICANT:
YMCA of San Diego County
SITE ADDRESS:
Northeast corner of Paseo Ranchero and Paseo Magda
(APN 642-392-11)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Two temporary modular buildings to be utilized for
administration and childcare in conjunction with other
(permanent) buildings to be constructed in the first phase of
development of the YMCA facility.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Previous Initial Study IS-95-22 & Addendum for YMCA
project as a whole. No further review needed.
Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the
Planning Department no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or
comments to Project Planner Patty Nevins in the Planning Department, Public Services Building, Chula
Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista California 91910, or by calling 691-5105. Please
include the Case Number noted above in all correspondence.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearings described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at or prior to the public hearings described in this
notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans are on file and available
for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special
accommodation to access, attend andlor participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodatiou at least
48 hours in advance for meetings and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please coutact Nancy Ripley for specific
informatiou at (619) 691-5101. California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired.
Date: February 13, 1997
SEE LOCATOR MAP ON REVERSE SIDE.
Si necessita ayuda en traducir esta Noticia Publica favor de llamar Lupe Lucero al
numero 691-5101.
']...(
CURRENT FORMAT
NOTICEOFPUBUCHE~NGBY
THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBUC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, California, for the purpose of considering a conditional use
permit for the property located at the northeast corner of Paseo Ranchero and Paseo Magda (APN 642-
392-11) as depicted on the map duplicated on the reverse side of this notice. The application, filed by
YMCA of San Diego County, requests authorization for two temporary modular buildings to be utilized
for administration and childcare in conjunction with other (permanent) buildings to be constructed in the
first phase of the development of the YMCA site.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has previously conducted an Initial Study IS-95-22 and Addendum
for the YMCA project as a whole and concluded that the overall project is consistent with EIR-87-01 for
the Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan. Therefore, no further review is necessary.
Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the
Planning Departtnent no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or
comments to Project Planner Patty Nevins in the Planning Departtnent, Public Services Building, Chula
Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista California 91910, or by calling 691-5105. Please
include the Case Number noted at the bottom of this notice in all correspondence.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearings described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at or prior to the public hearings described in this
notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans are on file and available
for inspection and review at the City Planning Departtnent.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON
Wednesday, February 26,1997 at 7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, Public Services Building
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue
at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American With Disahilities Act, requests individuals who require special
accommodation to access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at least
48 hours in advance for meetings and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Nancy Ripley for specific
inIormation at (619) 691-5101. California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired.
Date:
Case No:
February 13, 1997
PCC-97-34
SEE LOCATOR MAP ON REVERSE SIDE.
22-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
/tJ
REVIEWED BY:
City Manage~G
Meeting Date 10/14 /97
ITEM TITLE:
Report: PCM -98-01; Discussio
pertaining to freeway or" nte
tate and local sign regulations
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Plannin
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X)
-'7
BACKGROUND:
At the August 6, 1996 City Council meeting, a Councilmember indicated concern that the
City's sign ordinance was outdated, that there was a lack of consistent enforcement of the sign
ordinance, and that the freeways should be a source of attracting people to Chula Vista. It was
requested that staff work with the business community and the Chamber of Commerce to
create an improved sign ordinance (see Attachment for minutes).
In response to this request, the Planning and Building Department staff met with Councilman
Alevy and Rod Davis from the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce and concluded that the
primary area of concern regarding signage was the lack of freeway sign exposure for Chula
Vista businesses and a lack of enforcement of existing codes. It was decided that efforts
would be focused on these two issues, and as a result of the initial meeting, an ad hoc sign
roundtable committee was formed with representatives of the various commercial business
districts, Chamber of Commerce members, and City staff.
Discussions at the meetings of this sign committee initially involved the explanation of overall
City sign regulations and sign code enforcement, and subsequently narrowed to the topic of
freeway-oriented signs. Ultimately, the committee met with CalTrans representatives to
discuss the State regulations concerning freeway-oriented signs. Freeway-oriented signs are
subject to State law (which is enforced by CaITrans), and the requirements are summarized in
the Discussion section that follows.
/CJ~/
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 10/14/97
The issue of sign code enforcement is now being addressed separately through the budgeting
and staffing process; it is the intent of the Director of Building and Housing to issue an
informational memo once implementation measures are in place.
As a report for information and direction only, this item is not subject to environmental
review under CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council discuss state and local sign regulations
concerning freeway oriented signage, consider the recommendations of the roundtable
committee, and provide direction to staff with respect to possible actions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
The roundtable committee advocated the implementation of the following measures in an effort
to promote signage opportunities for Chula Vista businesses:
1. Direct staff to coordinate between the business community and CaITrans the installation
of additional freeway guide signs.
2. Investigate the extension of the abatement date for existing freeway billboard signs.
3. Work with the business community toward the preparation of amendments to the Local
Coastal Program to allow off-premise signage and to increase the maximum height of
freestanding signs (would require Coastal Commission approval).
4. Expand the Bayfront Redevelopment Area to include the Marina (this process is already
underway).
5. Investigate the amendment of the City's sign code to allow off-premise signage under
limited circumstances.
DISCUSSION:
CaITrans Sign Regulations
State law permits five different types of signs either within freeway right-of-way or adjacent to
freeways. These include adopt-a-highway signs (signs with "Adopt a Highway" writing and
sponsor's name/logo), guide signs (green with white lettering identifying primarily major
public facilities), motorist oriented signs (depicting gas, lodging, etc. availability), signs on
private property (other than billboards), and billboards. The first three types are permitted
within CalTrans right-of-way, while the latter two may be located only on private property.
)/J -2-
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 10/14/97
The description and requirements for each sign type is stated in more detail in Attachment 2.
Signs Within the CalTrans Right-of-Way
As noted, Adopt-a-Highway signs, motorist oriented signs, and guide signs may be located
within the freeway right-of-way. The availability of adopt-a-highway signs within the
CalTrans right-of-way is extremely limited due to long waiting lists for this type of sign, and
motorist oriented signs offer no specific advertising for a particular business because they
contain only generic logos for food, gas, lodging, and camping businesses.
Guide signs in the CalTrans right-of-way consist of white lettering on a green background and
may contain no commercial names or logos. These signs are typically only permitted for
activities which generate more than 500,000 freeway vehicle trips per year. Exceptions have
been made, however, for traffic control purposes and for commercial activities such as
Disneyland which generate a very high volume of freeway traffic. Examples of guide signs in
Chula Vista are the Southwestern College and Olympic Training Center guide signs on 1-805,
and the Chula Vista Harbor sign on 1-5.
Signs on Private Property
Freeway-oriented signage on private property is also regulated by CalTrans. Opportunities
consist of the use of billboards and other freestanding signs.
Billboards are an effective method for advertising but most freeway oriented billboards must
be removed by the year 1999 under the current Municipal Code and therefore may not offer
long term advertising potential. The City has been contacted by a representative of one of the
affected billboard companies seeking an extension; this issue will be coming forward to
Council in the near future.
According to CalTrans, both on and off-premises signs are permitted on private property.
Off-premises, private property signs give businesses that are not visible from the freeway the
most benefit because, in general, they can be placed immediately adjacent to the freeway while
the business they advertise could be several miles from the freeway on a separate property.
These signs may take the form of wall, projecting, or freestanding signs. In addition, these
signs may have business names and logos, and, for the most part, have relatively lenient
restrictions on size, color, height, or illumination.
However, while the State permits off-premises private property signs along many freeways,
the freeways that are located within the City of Chula Vista, namely the 5, 805, and 54
freeways, have other limitations which prohibit these signs. These limitations apply because
the freeways are designated as either a landscaped freeway or a protected bonus area. Bonus
areas are considered by CalTrans to be aesthetically or visually sensitive and as a result sign
/6/-.3
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 10/14/97
regulations have been established by CalTrans which attempt to minimize sign clutter in these
areas.
With the exception of two small areas along 805 (at both the 54 and "H" Street interchanges)
and specific redevelopment areas located adjacent to freeways (discussed in the following
paragraph) all other freeway areas fall into either the landscaped or bonus categories, which
prohibit off-premises signs. Although the areas are very small, the two pockets on Bonita
Road and "H" Street have the potential to provide business identification for uses that are not
visible from 80S.
Redevelopment areas provide the one exception to the prohibition of off-premises private
property signs along landscaped and bonus-area freeways. State law classifies all signs within
a redevelopment area as on-premises signs, even if the business that the sign is advertising is
located on a different property than the sign itself (however, the latter is defined as an off-
premises sign in the Chula Vista Municipal Code). CalTrans regulations require that the
business and sign must both be within the boundaries of the redevelopment area, and the
redevelopment area must be contiguous and adjacent to a freeway.
The State's relative flexibility with regard to redevelopment area freeway signs provides
possible advertising opportunities for the redevelopment areas that meet the aforementioned
criteria. The Bayfront and Southwest redevelopment areas along Interstate 5, and the Otay
Valley Road redevelopment area adjacent to 805 fall into this category. The Marina area of
the Chula Vista bayfront is not located within the Bayfront RDA so it does not benefit from its
less stringent sign rules. However, expanding the redevelopment boundaries (which is now
being proposed) to include the Marina area would provide the possibility for installation of
Marina business off-site signs within the overall Redevelopment area boundaries.
One particular type of private property sign, a message center sign, might be of particular
benefit to the City of Chula Vista as well as Chula Vista businesses, as it could advertise civic
or commercial related activities. This type of sign allows changeable messages. Examples of
this type of sign are the Mile of Cars freestanding sign on the north side of highway 54 and
the freestanding sign at Plaza Bonita. These signs are permitted, however, only if they are on-
premises, including within redevelopment areas (both of National City's signs are within a
redevelopment area and are therefore permitted).
Redevelopment Area Issues
The Outdoor Advertising Act, the law which gives CalTrans authority over freeway oriented
signs, places limits on the amount of time that redevelopment area signs may be considered
on-premises. It states that such signs shall be allowed to remain for a period of ten years
(from CalTrans permit issuance) or the completion of the redevelopment plan whichever
occurs first. The Bayfront, Southwest, Town Centre, and Otay Valley Road redevelopment
jcJ~i
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 10/14/97
plans will all expire within 10 years unless they are extended by the Redevelopment Agency
(the extension of the Bayfront and Town Centre I time limits is already underway). CalTrans
will allow signs to remain in a redevelopment area for longer than 10 years if the
redevelopment area timeframes are extended. Therefore, if on-premises signs in
redevelopment areas are to be a long term viable advertising vehicle, the term of each of the
redevelopment plans would need to be extended.
Chula Vista and Coastal Regulations
The Chula Vista Municipal Code currently prohibits all off-premises signs. The Bayfront
Local Coastal Plan also does not allow off-premises signs, nor does it permit freestanding
signs greater than 10 feet in height. Both of these documents would need to be amended to
allow off-premises signs. In some areas of the Bayfront (near the "J" Street interchange in
particular), freestanding signs would necessarily have to be greater than 10 feet in height to
compensate for the grade difference between the freeway and the Bayfront in order to be
visible from Interstate 5. Thus, an amendment to the 10 foot freestanding sign height limit
would also be required.
The California Coastal Commission, which has jurisdiction over the approval of all local
coastal plans and plan amendments, would have to approve this change as well as the
permitting of off-premises signs. The Coastal Commission, while not specifically limited by
State law, has adopted regional guidelines which generally prohibit off-premises signs and
freestanding signs greater than eight feet (although Chula Vista's Bayfront Local Coastal Plan
allows freestanding signs up to 10 feet in height). Other notable height exceptions include
National City's Local Coastal Plan, which provides for signs up to 35 feet in height in some
cases, and approval of freestanding signage up to 35 feet in height for the Chula Vista
WalMart.
Billboard Signage
Existing billboard signs adjacent to Chula Vista freeways present another opportunity for
business identification; however, the majority are not currently utilized by Chula Vista
businesses. There are 5 two-sided freeway-oriented billboard signs within the City's limits;
four located adjacent to 1-5, and one adjacent to 1-805. Of the ten sign faces available, three
currently feature messages regarding local companies - one sign face identifies EastLake
Development Company, and both sign faces of one billboard advertise Mike Farguson
Chevrolet. The remaining billboards within the City feature national products or out-of-city
businesses.
Business Community Input
A number of roundtable discussion meetings have been held between the business community
/~;~
Page 6, Item
Meeting Date 10/14/97
and City staff. At these meetings, Building and Housing staff discussed enforcement issues,
Planning Department staff presented information on the City's sign codes, and Community
Development staff addressed possible redevelopment area issues related to signage. Finally,
CalTrans staff were also brought in to discuss state signage regulations.
Discussions ultimately centered on freeway-oriented signage and it was the general consensus
of the business community participants that the off-premises private property signs and guide
signs offered the most potential benefit to businesses interested in freeway advertising.
Businesses in the Bayfront, Southwest, and Otay Valley Road redevelopment areas, it was felt,
could all benefit from private property freeway oriented signs, primarily because of the more
liberal State redevelopment area sign requirements in these areas. Businesses along Bonita
Road, "E" Street, and "H" Street might also be able to utilize off-premise signs in the two
small undesignated pockets of the 805 freeway referenced earlier, although the property would
have to be commercially zoned and the City's sign code would have to be amended to allow
off-site signage.
Since the Marina area of the Chula Vista does not benefit from the redevelopment area sign
regulations, the roundtable committee stated it was important to pursue an expansion of the
Bayfront redevelopment area to include the Marina. The roundtable committee also concluded
that businesses adjacent to designated freeway areas and outside redevelopment areas (the areas
with the most restrictive State sign regulations) should pursue guide signs for freeway
advertisement. Although these signs have less benefit than private property signs, this is their
only feasible alternative for freeway advertising under current State law.
Sign Code Enforcement
At the second roundtable meeting the business community expressed concern that the sign
regulations of the Municipal Code were not being enforced as effectively as possible. It was
concluded that while most businesses were in compliance, the who few did not conform placed
other businesses at a disadvantage and created an unattractive community. The business
community representatives requested that the City look for ways to carry out sign code
enforcement more effectively.
As noted, enforcement issues are being addressed separately. An additional code enforcement
officer has been hired, and the Director of Building and Housing will return to the Council at
a later date with an informational memo providing an update on this issue.
Conclusion
In order to accommodate the business community's desire for off-premises private property
signs, changes must be made to the Municipal Code and the Bayfront Local Coastal Plan. In
addition, the Bayfront Redevelopment Area would need to be expanded and possibly extended
j()-4.
Page 7, Item
Meeting Date 10/14/97
by the Redevelopment Agency to allow freeway signage for the Marina and areas east of 805;
this process is already underway. As stated previously, amending the LCP also requires the
approval of the California Coastal Commission. Changes in State law are possible as well, but
involve a more arduous process since they must be approved by the State legislature.
Recommendations for a number of measures relating to increasing freeway-oriented signage
for the Council's consideration were listed earlier in this report. The Council may direct that
any of the five alternatives be considered further and/or implemented to improve freeway
advertising opportunities for the Chula Vista business community.
At the City Council's direction, staff will return with a timeline for implementation of any
designated changes as well as a specific work program for goals to be achieved and items to be
completed.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The amount of staff time required for further study and/or implementation of the above
measures is undetermined. However, should Council direct staff to proceed with several of the
implementation recommendations listed above, the General Fund would likely be impacted by
$10,000.00 to $15,000.00 in staff (City's) time.
Improved freeway advertising could indirectly increase General Fund revenue by increasing
the sales tax revenues of local businesses.
h: \home\planning\patty\pcm9801. rep)
Attachments
I. Minutes of the 8/6/96 City Council meeting . ~'j))
2. Sunuuary of Caltrans qualifying criteria t\ot ~C~'" .
Ic;-?
August 6, 1996
Page g
('
A TT ACHMENT :/I: 1
OTHER BUSINESS
22.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Item pulled: 17. The minutes will reflect the publisbed agenda order.
a. Scbeduling of meetings. Mr. oss reminded Council that y were meeting with National City, Imperial
Beacb and Coronado on Saturday, 8/17 a Vista Community Park next to EastLake High
School to have a softbaiI tournament.
.9 million of tax~empted Industrial Development Bonds
hich represented Chula Vista. s share of the cost savings
He announced SDG&E had completed an offering 0
through the City of Chula Vista. He had accepted
for SDG&E in the amount of $97,250.
He stated that the next morning at 10: at the courtyard near the untain there was going to be a technology
simulation briefing and at 11:00 a. a press conference featuring ers: Johnny Williams of the U.S.
Border Patrol, U.S. Attorney AI ersin, and Chula Vista Police Chief Ri Emerson. The Federal government
was going to announce two te tests and evaluation projects: to stop flee vehicles and to permit Federal,
State and local law enfo ment officers to communicate directly. Participat" agencies would include the
California Highway Pa ,Border Patrol, DEA, Navy, San Diego Police Department,
Chula Vista Police partment, FBI, County Sheriff, and U.S. Customs.
23.
a. MSC (MooUAlevy) to ratify the reappointments of Daniel G. Wood to the International Frien
Commission and Doc Anthony Anderson to the Veterans Advisory Commission, approved 4-0-1, with Horton
ahsent.
24. COUNCIL COMMENTS
a.~,:w,::,,,CounCilmeiiibei-.AI~'statedthat therewerea'number.of signs that'did not conform to the City's'sign'
- o;drnance~ 'the-si "ordi-';';'ce'w3:s'ldo~tea.-..tIie:'Dii~i97OSand Ch.n- ed a'aui'Ui'tlie Jate1980so lie was concerned
!hat'the'Sijjnoro~nce-:was notb:;i~;'~:fIi~dly.;aDd":'-OUi::(j&iea::'ih)it.t.e~Yi~d'De:aioUrCe of.&tiiictiDg
..-1" ,to" "'"~"'''.V'sta--''- I--'"""~. .~~~,--",:;,=,.tIi=~.~ln.nce"=O....",.,,,,..".'i""";""-'-k
peop e-, . . \,;.LlWa-., 1 ;~merelWBS:'a:_......,ur.~tr~orcemen..::o." e~S1m:: _ ;~~~~-i)..........w.wor
._with'ille6USlnesscommn;;;=RDd'D~ancf.~beritci cOme u witJiasi "'oTdinin.:ethat would wOrlCoettei';';
.. '~'~~--~~:'':'''''''''''I''(''''''''',",~=--_._- .... p. gn.._ '. ""'==~___..__,
b. CounciImember Moot stated that he had attended a meeting at the South County Economic Development
Council that day involving the second largest employer in Chula Vista who was seeking assistance in ,.,m.ining
competitive and their business within City limits. There were a number of impacts that had affected the business.
He understood that staff from the Community Development Department was currently looking into the problem and
asked for a formal staff referral to for staff to continue to contact American Fashion, see exactly what their needs
were and what could be done under Section 108 BUD loans, or IDA loans to keep the business in the City.
He requested that the City Clerk set notice and schedule a meeting for Saturday, 8/10/96 at 9:00 a.m., in the
Council Conference Room for interviews for the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Growth Management
Oversight Commission and for Labor Negotiations.
.....
Council recessed at 7:10 p.m. At 7:18 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Moot stated Council would meet in closed session
to discuss conference with labor negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 and reconvened at 7:55
p.m.
....*
) f}--~
/
ATTACHMENT #"~
SUMMARY OF CALTRANS QUALIFYING CRITERIA FOR
FREEWAY ORIENTED SIGNS
A. Guide Signs for High Volume Traffic Destinations
Definition
These signs located in Caltrans right-of-way and are typically
4 feet high and 6 to 8 feet wide with white lettering on a
green background. The signs state the name of the attraction
and give a directional information such as "next exit". The
sign may not have logos or corporate sponsorship names.
Oualifvinq Criteria
An attraction must be non-profit and must generate between
500,000 and 1,000,000 vehicle trips per year in order to
qualify for this type of sign. An example of an attraction
that meets this requirement is the San Diego Zoo. Exceptions
have been made to the non-profit requirement, for the purpose
of traffic management, for very large attractions such as
Disneyland and Magic Mountain.
B. General Service Symbol Signs for Motorist Oriented Services
Definition
These signs are placed in Caltrans right-of-way and consist of
symbols for gas, food, lodging, and camping and a directional
information such as "next exit". The signs have white
lettering on a blue background. Each symbol sign is one foot
square in size and may be clustered with other general service
symbol signs. No logos or business names are permitted on
these signs.
Oualifvinq Criteria
A business must derive its primary source of revenue from the
sale of food or gas, or through the provision of lodging or
camping facilities. There are no other criteria per se
because these signs are installed by Caltrans as they
determine necessary rather than through review of a sign
permit request of a private party. Businesses may, however,
informally contact Caltrans staff and request the placement of
these signs.
/1J~1
"
;.
,-
C. Adopt-A-Highway Signs
Definition
Adopt-A-Highway signs have white lettering on a blue
background and vary in size but are usually about six feet
wide and 5 feet high. The signs have copy identifying the
Adopt-A-Highway program and indicating the service provided
for a specified length of freeway (e.g. litter control next
two miles). There is also room on the sign for the adopting
business or organization's trade name and/or logo. Caltrans
will pay for and install this logo/trade name sign. All
Adopt-A-Highway signs within Chula Vista are currently in
place.
Oual~fvinq Criteria
Any business, organization, or individual may qualify for the
Adopt-A-Highway program. The business must submit an
application to Caltraris and make a two year commitment to
either removing litter, planting vegetation, or removing
graffiti, for a given section of highway, on a quarterly to
monthly basis. The maintenance may be performed by the
adopting party or by a contractor of their choice. No other
financial obligation is required. There is a waiting list for
all Adopt-A-Highway signs within Chula Vista.
D. Freeway Oriented Signs on Private Property
Definition
Caltrans separates freeway oriented signs on private property
into the categories of on-premise and off-premise signs. A
sign is considered to be on-premise if it is located on the
same property and within a l,OOO feet of the business or the
entry to the site on which the business it advertises is
located, except within redevelopment areas. These signs may
riot be' located within Caltrans right-of-way. Off-premise
signs aresubject to the issuance of a permit by Caltrans.
OualifvindCriteria
l. Signs adjacent to a designated Landscaped Freeway
No off-premise signs are permitted adjacent to a
landscaped freeway.
/6' "'"It?
,
C:;:,'
"
--
t~.
fo
F
.!~
~ .~"
.:
~.;.
,-,
1..
~'~
":"'-
~.:
r.:'
~.-
".
,
rU
,
\
'- '
2.
Signs adjacent to a freeway designated as a protected
bonus area.
Off-premise signs are permitted in protected bonus areas
if the activity for which the sign display is advertising
is located within 12 air miles of said sign. Sign
height, area, location, number have additional
limitations.
3 .
Signs within a Redevelopment Area (RDA).
All signs advertising businesses within a redevelopment
area are classified as on-premise signs when all such
property is contiguous and/or separated only by a public
highway. In other words, a sign may advertise a business
or activity which is located on different property from
that of the sign itself.
4. Signs not within an RDA and with no special designation.
A business may have an off-premise sign if the sign
display is on the same side of the highway and within
lOOO feet from the business or lOOO feet from the
entrance to such site. The size, height, spacing and
composition of signs are subj ect to additional
restrictions.
iy r- 1/,