HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1993/06/15
Tuesday, June 15, 1993
6:00 p.m.
"I declare uPlder penalty of perjury that' 811I
employed by the City of Chula Vista in the
Office of the City Clerk and that I posted
this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin Board at
the Public ervices Building and at City Hall on
DATED,~ 'J SIGNED 'n
Re lar Meetin of the Ci
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
Councilmembers Fox _, Horton _, Moore ~ Rindone ~ and Mayor
Nader _
1.
ROIL CALL:
2. PLEDGE OF AlLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
May 25, 1993 (Regular Meeting of the City Council), May 26,1993
(Special Worksession/Meeting of the City Council), May 27,1993
(Regular Worksession/Meeting of the City Council), and June 8,
1993 (Regular Meeting of the City Council)
3.
APPROVAL OF MINlITES:
4. SPEClAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Oath of office: Earl Biggers and Bert Epsten - Ex-Officio members of the Mobilehome Rent
Review Commission.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through /0)
TIu1 staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the
Council by one motion without discussion unless a CounciJmember, a member of the pub/U; or City staff requests
that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to
Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form
to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the stoff
recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Board and Commission
Recommendations and Action Items. Items pulled by the pub/U; will be the first items of business.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter requesting the Oray Ranch Project be placed on the next election ballot to determine
whether or not it should be annexed - Thomas A. Davis, 1657 Gotham Street, Chula Vista,
CA 91913. It is recommended that the letter be referred to staff for review and report back
to the City Council.
6.
ORDINANCE 2559
AMENDING TITLE 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO MODIFY SECTIONS
19.22.160, 19.24.180 AND 19.26.180 IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE
MAXIMUM BUIlDING AREA FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWEIJJNGS ON LOTS
OF LESS THAN 7,000 SQUARE FEET AND PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION FOR
PATIO COVERS AND PORCHES OF 300 SQUARE FEET OR LESS (second
readin~ and adoption) - On 3/9/93, Council directed staff to prepare
amendments to the FAR in single-family zones in order to provide smaller
lots in the older, established portions of the City with a greater opportunity
to expand their dwellings in a manner more consistent with that in the
newer planned communities to the east. The recommended amendments
increase the FAR for lots of less than 7,000 square feet and provide an
exemption for patio covers and porches of 300 square feet or less in single-
family zones. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second
reading and adoption. (Director of Planning)
Agenda
-2-
June 15, 1993
7. RESOLUTION 17139 APPROVING FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN FOR 1HE ASSISTANf 01Y
MANAGER FOR 1992-93 - The Assistant City Manager's Flexible Benefits
Plan amount was not adjusted for 1992-93. Staff recommends approval of
the resolution. (Administration)
8. RESOLUTION 17140 APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR FIREWORKS DISPLAY FOR JULY 4, 1993
AND ENTERING INTO INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTS Willi ROHR
INDUSTRIES AND 1HE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT - The City
is in the process of finalizing plans for the annual Fourth of July fireworks
display to be held on the Bayfront. A contract with the vendor supplying
and launching the fireworks has been finalized. The City has been asked
to enter into Indemnification Agreements with Rohr Industries and the San
Diego Unified Port District. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Parks and Recreation)
9. RESOLUTION 17141 REVERSING 1HE DEOSION OF 1HE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND
TIiEREBY DENYING 1HE ISSUANCE OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCe-
93-10 FOR BEER AND WINE SALES AT 1498 MELROSE AVENUE - On
6/1/93, Council held and closed the public hearing on Conditional Use
Permit PCC-93-10, an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator
approving a request by Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. to sell beer
and wine at a proposed mini-market at 1498 Melrose Avenue in the CoN
zone. Council directed staff to prepare candidate findings for denial of
PCC-93-10. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Planning)
10. RESOLUTION 17142 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT Willi RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY TO
PREPARE TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS ALONG INTERSTATE 805 NORlli OF
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD TO SOUTIi OF OTAY VALI.EY ROAD, AND
AUTIiORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME - On 4/13/93, staff
recommended that Rick Engineering Company be awarded a contract to
provide topographic mapping for Caltran's project study report on four
Interstate 805 interchanges. Since Rick Engineering was not the lowest
proposer, Council rejected staffs recommendation and directed staff to
negotiate and obtain an agreement from the low proposer, Airborne
Systems. Staff requested Airborne Systems provide the City with a new
cost for a reduced scope of work, however, they submitted a higher cost in
response and indicated they had underestimated the cost in their original
proposal and that it was an error. Additionally, Airborne Systems does not
carry the errors and omissions insurance that the City requires and for
them to obtain it, they indicated there would be an additional cost to the
City of approximately one-half of the $17,000 premium. Staff also re-
negotiated with Rick Engineering who agreed to lower their proposal to
$86,000. Since Rick Engineering is now the lowest bidder, staff
recommends that they be retained for a cost not-to-exceed $86,000, which
is $6,005 less than their previous submittal of $92,005. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
Agenda
-3-
June 15, 1993
PUBlJC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The foUowing items have been advertised and/or posted as pub/ii; hearings as required by Inw_ If you wish to speJJIc
to any item, please fiU out the "Request to Speak Form" avaiJJJble in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior
to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; rompiete the pink form
to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five mimJh!s per inJividuDL
11.
PUBlJC HEARING
CONSIDERATION OF TIffi ADOPTION OF TIffi OIT OF GIDLA VISTA
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 1993-94 - Council has held several
worksessions to consider and discuss the proposed FY 1993-94 budget.
The public hearing is to receive additional citizen input and adopt the
budget. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Administration and
Director of Finance)
RESOLUTION 17143 APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF THE FINAL BUDGET OF THE OIT OF
GIDLA VISTA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1993 AND
ENDING JUNE 30, 1994
12.
PUBlJC HEARING
ORDINANCE 2560
ENACI1NG PCA 92-03 TO REQUIRE A CONDmONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ANY PROPOSAL TO EXPAND OR MODIFY ALCOHOlJC BEVERAGE SALES
FAOlJTIES IN TIffi CoN ZONE - OIT INITIATED. On 4/20/93, Council
adopted an interim urgency ordinance (Ordinance Number 2552) to
require a conditional use permit for any proposal to expand or modify
alcohol sales in the CoN Zone. Staff was directed to return with a
permanent amendment to the Code, which would ensure that the operation
of all alcoholic beverage sales facilities within the CoN Zone is consistent
with the intent and purpose of the zone to provide for convenient access
to goods and services while preserving and complementing the character
of the surrounding residential area. The recommended amendment
requires the issuance of a conditional use permit for any new facility and
any facilities which expand the area devoted to alcohol sales or which
require the issuance of a type of alcoholic beverage license by the State
Alcohol Beverage Control different from the license previously held. Staff
recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading. (Director of
Planning)
AMENDING SECI10N 19.34.030 OF THE MUNIOPAL CODE RELATING TO
REQUIREMENTS FOR TIffi EXPANSION OR MODIFICATION OF
ALCOHOlJC BEVERAGE SALES FAOlJTIES (first readinl!:)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunily for the general pub/ii; to address the City Council on any subject mllltD within the Council's
jurisdiJ:tion thJJt is not an item on this agenda. (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
subjec4 please complete the yeUow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" avaiJJJble in the labby
and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your 1UU>U! and address
for record purposes and foUow up action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker.
Agenda
-4-
June 15, 1993
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 submitted.
ACI10N ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by the
Cowu:il, stoff, or members of the general publU:. The items will be considered individuaIJy by the Council and stoff
recomrnendLltions may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please flU out
a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. PublU:
comments are limited to five minutes.
13.
REPORT
STATUS ON TIiE SOUD WASTE PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT AND
ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL OPTIONS - On 5/27/93, Council discussed the
proposed Solid Waste Participation Agreement even though it required
unanimous approval by all cities and it had, at that point, been rejected by
four cities. Council action at the meeting conceptually approved the
Agreement, to include committing fifty percent of the City's wastestream
to the County and bringing three specific items of concern to the
negotiation table of the Interim Commission. Subsequently, the County
Board of Supervisors approved a revised Agreement being forwarded to
Council for action which does not require unanimous approval. The report
also includes additional information regarding disposal options which could
be considered as alternatives to the Agreement. Staff recommends Council
accept the report and approve the resolution. (Administration)
RESOLUTION 17144 APPROVING AGREEMENT BY, BETWEEN AND AMONG TIiE COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO AND TIiE CITIES OF TIiE COUNTY ESTABUSHING AN
INTERIM SOUD WASTE COMMISSION AND PROVIDING FOR TIiE
DISPOSAL OF SOUD WASTE, AND COMMITTING FIFTY PERCENT OF TIiE
CITY'S WASTESTREAM TO TIiE COUNTY
ITEMS PUU.ED FROM TIiE 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 publU: will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers. PublU:
comments are limited to five minutes per individual
OTIlliR BUSINESS
14. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
Agenda
-5-
June 15, 1993
15. MAYOR'S REPORTfS)
a. Selling business ads.
b. Appointment of representative to LAFCO's Cities Advisory Committee.
16. COUNCIL COMMENfS
Councilman Rindone
a. Inconsistencies with Council approval of the allocation of Community Development Block
Grant monies. Continued from the meeting of 6/1/93.
b. Reconsideration of revised Yard Waste Recycling Service Proposal by Laidlaw Waste System.
c. South County Joint Powers Agreement for solid waste management with or without Lemon
Grove.
Councilman Fox
d. Review of Police Department policy regarding minor narcotic law violations on school
campuses.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council will meet in a closed session immediately following the Council meeting to discuss:
Instructions to negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 - Chula Vista Employees
Association (CVEA), Western Council of Engineers (WCE) , Police Officers Association (POA) ,
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Executive Management, Mid-Management, and
Unrepresented. Continued from the meeting of 6/1/93.
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - EPA vs. the City of San Diego,
Chula Vista amicus party discussion, instructions to attorneys.
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Institution of litigation against
County of San Diego regarding Daley Rock Quarry CUP.
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - 19ou vs. the City of Chula Vista.
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - County of San Diego vs. the City
of Chula Vista (San Miguel Ranch)
The meeting wi!! adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) a Joint Meeting of the City Council/County
Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, June 16, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers and thence
to the Regular City Council Meeting on June 22, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
June 10, 1993
FROM:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council_
John D. Goss, City Manager--!{::/ ~ ;i!I!
-0 -
City Council Meeting of June 15, 1993
TO:
SUBJECT:
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council
meeting of Tuesday, June 15, 1993. Comments regarding the Written Communications
are as fo 11 ows:
Sa. This is a letter from Tom Davis requesting the Otay Ranch Project be
placed on the next election ballot to determine whether or not it should
be annexed. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS REQUEST BE REFERRED TO STAFF FOR
REVIEW AND REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL.
JDG:mab
Thomas A. Davis
1657 Gotham street
Chula Vista, CA 91913
(619) 421-6577
RECEIVED
mQ..... ".I&JtrtnJ7j[~.r.~'.i i
11 '" '.' ,'I
Ii! J[ Il] 2 I~ · !
'cL5_;'~~ .,.... .', j i
-~'_._--.~"--
'93 .... -3 P 3 :06
June 1, 1993
CITY OF CHULA V:$I A
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
of the Chula Vista
City Council
The Mayor and Members
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor and Members of the Chula Vista City Council:
As a resident and voter in the City of Chula Vista, I
petition the City Council of Chula vista to place the matter
of whether the City of Chula Vista should annex the area
that is commonly called The otay Ranch Project, and identi-
fied in city records as Project Number GPA 92-3, PCZ 90-C,
and GDP 90-3, before the voters of the City of Vista at the
next general election, or as soon thereafter as possible by
special election. I further petition the City Council not to
take any action that could be interpreted as giving approval
of this project, modify any part of the General Plan, change
any zoning for the affected area, or enter into any develop-
ment agreement, until the voters can convey to the Council
their expressed approval or disapproval of this project.
The entire future of the City of Chula Vista will be
inevitability and forever changed if this project is ap-
proved, the significance of which the presently elected
officials have never placed before the voters in any form,
or have represented in detail to the voters while campaign-
ing for election. The wishes of the voters have not, there-
fore, been conveyed and understood by the elected officials
as a basis for a land use decision of such magnitude and
consequence to the city and the residents. While approval of
land use matters by the voters of Chula Vista has no histor-
ical precedent, the size and effect on the City of Chula
Vista of the otay Ranch Project is of such magnitude, and
the effects so far-reaching that the direct involvement of
the voters is only reasonable.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter, and I
look forward to your favorable action on my petition.
cc~ f5:lie (~
:;/ o-/~) ^
~ ~~~RI1TEN COMMUNICATION$
~"/ 5~-1 r 0y9J
;;;;:::7j ~
Thomas A. Davis
a) :' L - flit (12'
;:)
Iv
ORDINANCE NO.
.<ffi
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING. TITLE 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
MODIFY SECTIONS 19.22.160, 19.24.180 AND 19.26.lllJ.l.~~
ORDER TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILI)~~A
FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS O~\i-\G~ OF LESS
THAN 7,000 SQUARE FEET ~ PROVIDE AN
EXEMPTION FOR PATIO C~~~ AND PORCHES OF 300
SQUARE FEET OR LESS
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Municipal Code text amendment was filed with
the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on February 3, 1993 by the City of Chula Vista;
and
WHEREAS, on March 9, 1993, Council directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance to increase
the maximum building area for single family dwellings within R-l zones on lots of less than 7,000
sq. ft. from 45% to 50% of the lot area or 3,150 sq. ft. whichever is less, and to exempt up to a
maximum of 300 sq. ft. of patio and/or porch areas from the FAR limit, and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 1993, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PCA-93-02
. by a vote of 7-0 to recommend that the City Council enact the proposed Municipal Code text
amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS 93-31, of
potential environmental impact associated with the proposal and has concluded that there would be
no significant environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued
on IS-93-31.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine
and ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That the Project PCA 93-02 will have no significant environmental impacts and
adopts the Negative Declaration issued on IS-93-31.
SECTION II: That the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning
practice justifies the amendment and that the amendment is consistent with the City of Chula Vista
General Plan.
SECTION III. That Section 19.22.160 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended to read
as follows:
l~~~
6 -I
~
Ordinance No.
Page 2
Section 19.22.160
Construction of dwelli gs or any remodeling or additions to existing dwellings shall have a
floor area ratio (FAR) which imits the maximum building area to 45% of the lot area for single
family dwellings on lots of 7 0 0 s uare feet or eater and 50% of the lot area or 3 150 s uare feet
whichever is less for sin Ie f: '1 dwellin s on lots of less than 7000 s uare feet. ME! 55% sf the
let lIfea fer E!\IJllel[es. The floor ea ratio calculation shall also include the square footage of patios,
garages and other accessory struc es present on the lot, but excluding covered Datios ODen on at least
two sides and covered orches 0 e on at least one side with a total combined area of 300 s uare feet
or less. For these purposes, an acc sory structure is defined as any structure which rises 4 or more
feet above finished grade.
4.180 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended to read
SECTION IV.
as follows:
Section 19.24.180
(Jlart), 1986)
Construction of dwellings or any remodeh g or additions to existing dwellings shall have a
floor area ratio (FAR) which limits the maximum uilding area to 45% of the lot area for single
family dwellings on lots of 7 000 s uare feet or reat and 50% of the lot area or 3 150 s uare feet
whichever is less for sin Ie famil dwellin s on lots 0 less than 7 000 s uare feet. ME! 55% ef tae
let area fer E!\Il9leJ!es. The floor area ratio calculation sh I also include the square footage of patios,
garages and other accessory structures present on the lot, bu excludin covered Datios ODen on at least
two sides and covered orches 0 en on at least one side with total combined area of 300 s uare feet
or less. For these purposes, an accessory structure is defined a any structure which rises 4 or more
feet above finished grade.
SECTION V. That Section 19.26.180 of the Chula Vista Mum' al Code is amended to read
as follows:
Section 19.26.180
Floor Area Ratio.
(Jlllft), 1986)
Construction of dwellings or anv remodeling or additions to existing dwellings shall have a
floor area ratio (FAR) which limits the maximum building area to 55% of the lot. The floor area ratio
calculation shall also include the square footage of Datios. garages and other accessory structures
Dresent on the lot. For these DUfDoses. an accessorv structure is defined as anv structure which rises
4 or more feet above finished grade.
~ ~-?
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Ite- ~ ~
Meeting Date~~~J
Public Hearing: PCA 93-02 Modifications to the Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) requirements in single-family residential zones - City initiated
Ordinance .2.5..5', Amending Title 19 of th~M~ipal Code
to modify Sections 19.22.160, 19.24.180 and.,.J~8'O in order to
increase the maximum building area for ~1~ilY dwellings on lots
of less than 7,000 square feet and ~ an exemption for patio covers
and porches of 300 square ~ less
Director of Planning ;:-!t(
City Manager0~ lxO ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..XJ
COUNCIL REFERRAL NO. 2714
I. On September 15, 1992, in response to a letter from Mr. Harold West, the City Council
requested staff to review the existing floor area ratio (FAR) requirements for single..
family zones. Staff was requested to provide information as to whether the City's
existing FAR system is the best method, what other alternatives exist, and whether
different FAR requirements should be imposed in older parts of the City.
2. On January 12, 1993, Council considered the staff report on FAR requirements and
directed staff to obtain input from the Planning Commission and return with a report
on an alternative which would increase the FAR for smaller lots, and provide an
exemption for open patio covers and porches.
3. On February 10,1993, the Planning Commission was asked for input on the FAR report
and on the alternatives selected by Council for further consideration. None of the
Commission members expressed any concerns with the alternatives selected for
additional study.
4. On March 9, 1993, Council directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance to increase the
maximum building area for single family dwellings within R-I zones on lots of less
than 7,000 sq. ft. from 45% to 50% of the lot area or 3,150 sq. ft. whichever is less,
and to exempt up to a maximum of 300 sq. ft. of patio and/or porch areas from the
FAR limit.
5. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS 93-31, of
potential environmental impacts associated with the proposal. Based on the attached
Initial Study and comments thereon, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be
;frr ~ ..;
Page 2, ItemL
Meeting Date 6/8/93
no significant environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative
Declaration issued on IS 93-31.
6. Mr. West has been notified of the Council hearing.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the ordinance enacting PCA-93-02 to modify
the FAR in single-family zones.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On May 12, 1993, the Planning
Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that Council enact the amendment in accordance with
Resolution PCA-93-02.
DISCUSSION:
The stated desire of Council in modifying the FAR is to provide smaller lots of less than 7,000
square feet in the older, established portions of the City with a greater opportunity to expand
their dwellings in a manner more consistent with that which is provided for in the newer
planned communities to the east.
Increase in FAR for smaller lots
The present FAR for all R-I zoned areas and single-family developments within older planned
communities is 0.45. The FAR for newer planned communities such as EastLake, Rancho del
Rey, and Sunbow varies, but is generally based on a sliding scale which allows a
proportionately greater FAR on smaller lots, such as 0.45 for lots 7,000 sq. ft. or greater, 0.50
for lots between 6,000-7,000 sq. ft., and 0.55 for lots between 5,000-6,000 sq. ft. The attached
table presents a comparison of FAR's for lots between 5,000-7,000 sq. ft.
The table shows that an increase in the FAR from 0.45 to 0.50 for lots under 7,000 sq. ft.
would provide an increase in allowable floor area of from 250 sq. ft. for 5,000 sq. ft. lots (from
2,250 to 2,500 sq. ft.) to 350 sq. ft. for 6,999 sq. ft. lots (from 3,150 to 3,500 sq. ft.). These
figures would appear to provide for a reasonable opportunity to expand consistent with the size
of the lot and with homes available in the newer planned commurlities.
The table also reveals, however, that as lots approach 7,000 sq. ft., the application of a 0.50
FAR would allow more floor area than that 'which would be allowed on larger lots of over
7,000 sq. ft. subject to a 0.45 FAR. This inequity can be addressed by establishing, along with
the 0.50 FAR, an upper limit of 3,150 sq. ft., which equates to a 0.45 FAR on a 7,000 sq. ft.
lot. It is recommended this limit be used in the R-I zone.
An FAR of 0.55 for lots between 5,000-6,000 sq. ft. was also considered. This would provide
an increase in allowable floor area of from 500 sq. ft. for 5,000 sq. ft. lots (from 2,250 to 2,750
fJ4' tf,., "'-
Page 3, Item~
Meeting Date 6/8/93
sq. ft.) to 600 sq. ft. for 6,999 sq. ft. lots (from 2,699 to 3,299 sq. ft.). Although this further
increase in FAR for the smallest lots would be more consistent with that allowed in the newer
planned communities, we feel the results would be less predictable and likely less desirable in
existing, developed areas for the following reasons.
First, developments of less than 6,000 sq. ft. in planned communities are planned and
developed as a total package, including the siting and interrelationship among dwellings, the
floor plans and architecture of the homes, and development standards which strictly control or
even prohibit additions. As a result, the scale and bulk of the dwellings and character of the
neighborhood is predetermined and known to the City, the developer and each prospective
homeowner. In contrast, there is no design control in existing, developed R-l 'areas. Additions
of any sort can be added as long as they meet the bulk and setback standards.
Secondly, many neighborhoods in the Montgomery Specific Plan area have been rezoned to
R-I-5. Therefore, although the normal expectation would be to have the smallest lots
distributed throughout an area (the R-l zone provides that 70% of the lots shall be 7,000 sq.
ft. or greater, 20% between 6,000-7,000 sq. ft., and no more than 10% between 5,000-6,000
sq. ft.), these areas in Montgomery would involve entire neighborhoods with the 0.55 FAR
allowance and no design control.
F or these reasons, we are not recommending that the FAR be further increased for the lots
between 5,000-6,000 sq. ft.
Patio Covers and Porches
The City Council also asked staff to evaluate a proposal to exempt open patio covers and
porches from the FAR requirements. The newer planned communities provide an exemption.
for open patio covers of not more than 300 sq. ft. For purposes of this exemption, an open
patio cover is defined as one that is open on at least two sides, with a lattice-type roof no more
than 50% covered. This type of structure represents more of an open element rather than
building mass, and in staff's opinion could be exempted in all R-l areas without creating a
problem. If this exemption were broadened to include covered patios with solid roofs, there
could be a greater visual impact in certain cases. However, an exemption which applied
equally to all patio covers would be less difficult to administer than one which distinguishes
between a solid roof and an open-lattice roof, and staff has proposed language in the draft
ordinance which would exempt either type of patio cover, up to 300 square feet.
Finally, Council asked staff to consider whether or not covered porches should be exempt from
the FAR. Porches, which generaJ:y have a solid covering, are usually modest in size,
constituting no more than 50 square feet or so. We feel that it would be appropriate for them
to be included in the same exemption as patio covers, up to an overall maximum of 300 square
feet for both patio covers and porches.
~~-J
Page 4, Item 9
Meeting Date 6/8/93
The amendments contained in the draft City Council Ordinance include "housekeeping"
measures to include the appropriate FAR standard in each applicable zone (Chapter 19.22 R-E
Zone, Chapter 19.24 R-1 Zone, and Chapter 19.26 R-2 Zone) rather than only by reference to
the present language in the R-E zone (Section 19.22.160).
FISCAL IMP ACT: Not applicable.
WPC F:\home\planning\937.93
~(,"'f
Ordinance No.
Page 3
SECTION VI. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect on the thirtieth
day from and after its adoption.
Presented by
Aj
L~
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
\\'PC F:\home\planning\876.93
_ 9- '/ ~- 7
TInS PAGE BlANK
~t.-'j
E.A..R. COMPARlSON
~ 'r
I~__L'
#~~
Lot Area -ili'L 50 o/c 55%
7,000 3,150
6,999 3,149 3,499
6,800 3,060 .3,400
6,600 2,970 3,300
6,400 2,880 3,200
6,200 2,790 3,100
6,000 2,700 3,000
5,999 2,699 2,999 3,299
5,800 2,610 2,900 3,190
5,600 2,520 2,800 3,080
5,400 2,430 2,700 2,970
5,200 2,340 2,600 2,860
S,OOO 2,250 2,500 2,751
~-(
-/-
...
RESOLUTION NO. PCA 93-02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF AN
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 19.22.160, 19.24.180, AND 19.26.180 OF THE
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO INCREASING THE
MAXIMUM BUILDING AREA AND EXCLUDING UP TO 300 SQ. FT. OF PATIO
AND PORCH AREAS FROM THE FAR LIMIT
WHEREAS, on September IS, 1992, the City Council, in response to a citizen inquiry, directed statT to
review the floor area ratio (FAR) standards for residential development, and
WHEREAS, on January 12, 1993, Council considered the report and directed staff to obtain input from
the Planning Commission and return with a report on increasing the FAR for smaller lots, and providing an
exemption for open patio covers and porches, and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 1993, the Planning Commission was asked for input on the FAR report and
the modifications selected by Council for further consideration and none of the Commissioners expressed a concern
with modifications selected for additional study, and
.WHEREAS, City Council, on March 9, 1993, directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance to increase the
maximum building area for single family dwellings on lots of less than 7,000 sq. ft. to 50% of the lot area or 3,150
sq. .ft., whichever is less, and exempt up to 300 sq. ft. of patio and porch areas from the FAR. limit, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said proposed amendment and
notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation
, in the city at least ten days prior to the hearing, and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., May 12, 1993,
in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was therealier
closed, and
WHEREAS, the Commission found that the project would have no significant environmental impacts and
adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS 93-31.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, based on the facts
presented at the hearing, recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft ordinance amending Sections
19.22.160, 19.24.180, and 19.26.180 of the Municipal Code based on the findings contained therein.
That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
this 12th day of May, 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
Carson, Fuller, Martin, Moot, Tarantino, Tuchscher
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
ATTEST:
~'S~I
''/
)A/"/t'/{..t/dt
Susan Fuller, Chair
WPC F:\home\plannin.\l67.9J
;:;-/0
-;2--
negative declaration
PROJECT !'IiA.\IE: FAR Amendment
PROJECT LOCATIO~:
City-wide
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: N/A
PROJECT APPLICAJIol: City of Chula Vista
CASE !'liD: ]S-93-31
DATE: April 5. 1993
A. Proiect Senin~
The proposed City-iniated project would be applied city-wide, as an amendment to the Chu]a
Vista Municipal Code (Section 19.22.160). The proposed zoning text amendment regarding
the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) could be applied to small 101 single-family dwelling units (less
than 7,000 square feet) throughout the City of Chula' Vista.
B. Proiect Descriotion
Section 19.22.160 of the zoning code currently requires that construction of single family
dwellings or any remodeling or additions to existing dwellings conform to a Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) of 4551. which limits the maximum building area to 459f of the lot area. The
proposed project would amend the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance by changing the required
FAR to 50% or 3,150 square feet, whichever is less, for lots smaller than 7,000 square feel.
The project would also exempt patio covers and porches (up to a combined area of 300
square feet or less) from the FAR limit (See Anaclunent A).
"
Although the present FAR for all R-I zoned areas and single-family developments within
older planned communities is 459f. the FAR for newer planned communities such as
EastLake, Rancho del Rey, and Sunbow varies based upon a sliding scale which allows a
proponionately greater FAR on smaller lots. The proposed revisions to the FAR criteria are
designed to provide for a reasonable opponunity for homes in the older areas of Chula Vista
to expand consistent with the size of the lot and with homes available in the newer planned
communities (See Anaclunent B).
C. Comoatibilit\' with Zonin~ and Plans
The proposed project is an amendment to the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance altering the
required FAR for smaller lots. The project would not effect the underlying zoning or.
General Plan designation on a parcel. Therefore, the proposed project is compatible with
zoning and land use designations.
~Vt-
-.-
~~~ -
~= ...:~
ell)' of chula "llla planninll deplflmenl em Of
envlronmenlal revle. MCIIO" OiUIA VISTA
~-/ I
- 3-
D. Identification of Envirorunental Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project
will not have a significant envirorunental effect, and the preparation of an Envirorunental
Impact Report will not be required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in
accordance with SectioD 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The following impacts have been determined to be less than significant.
Visual Imoacts
Increasing the FAR from 45% to 50% for lots under 7,000 square feet could, for example,
provide an increase in allowable floor area from 2,250 to 2,500 square feet for 5,000 square
foot lots. The maximum square footage for any lot under 7,000 square feet would be 3,150
square feet (see table in Anachment B). These figures are consistent with the size of the lot,
and the scale and bulk of homes in the planned communities of the City, and thus would not
have an adverse effect on the visual quality of Chula Vista. The project also involves
exempting patio covers and porches from inclusion in the FAR ratio. Porches are usually
modest in size, constituting no more than approximately 50 square feet. Patio covers are
rarely a significant visual feature of single family dwellings, and open, lanice-type covers are
even less visually obtrusive. The exemption only applies to structures up to a combined area
of 300 square feet or less. Thus, due to the relatively minor nature of these structures, the
Zoning Ordinance amendment to exempt patio covers and porches from the FAR
requirements will not have a significant adverse aesthetic impact on the envirorunent.
E. Miti~ation necessary to avoid sj~nificant effects
The proposed project is not associated with any significant or potentially significant
envirorunental impacts, therefore, no project specific mitigation will be required.
F. Consultation
I. Individuals and Or~anizations
City of Chula Vista: Diana Lilly, Planning
Roger Daoust, Engineering
Cliff Swanson, Engineering
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering
Bob Sennen, Planning
Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Crime Prevention, MaryJane Diosdada
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Anorney
Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva
h ~/':<
- Jf-
"'PC I'\OCHECK.LST
Page 2
AJ.-plicant's Agent:
Steve Griffm, City of Chula Vista
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
3. Initial Studv
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial SOldy, any
comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public
review period for this Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent
judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the
environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning
Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
')1 .- ) . { (,
EI'VIROl'MEKT AL REVIEW COORDIl'A TOR
EN 6 (Re\. 12'90)
6/1}
-5'-
"'.PC f'DCHECK.L.ST
Page 3
Case No. 15-93-31
APPENDIX I
E!\"\'IRO~1\fE!\'T AL CHECKLIST FOR\f
(To Be Completed By Lead Agency)
Background
1. Name of Proponent: City of ChuJa Vista
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 276 Fourth Avenue. 691-5101
3. Date of Checklist: March 29. 1993
4. Name of Proposal: FAR Amendment
5. Initial STUdy Number: 15-93-31
Environmental Impacts
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE lli!
a. Unstable earth conditions Ot changes in
geologic SubstrucTUres? 0 0 .
b. Disruptions. displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil? 0 0 .
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief feaTUres? 0 0 .
d. The destruction. covering or modification
of any unique geologic Ot physical feaTUres? 0 0 .
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils. either on or off the site? 0 0 .
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands. or changes in siltation. deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or scream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay. inlet or lake? 0 0 .
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes. landslides. mud
slides. ground failure. or similar hazards? 0 0 .
Page 4
WPC NDCHECKUT
b'/'I
-~-
Comnl'nts:
The proposed revisions to the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) apply only to Structures which have
been previously approved for development. Thus, the project will not impact natural terrain
or topography.
2. Air. Will the proposal result in: ~ MAYBE IiQ
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? 0 0 .
b. The creation of objectionable odors? 0 0 .
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? 0 0 .
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR will not impact air quality. No air emissions
would be created by implementation of the project.
3. Water, Will the Proposal result in: YES MAYBE ~
a. Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters? 0 0 .
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
panerns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff?, 0 0 .
c. Alterations to the course or flow or
flood waters? 0 0 .
d. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? 0 0 .
e. Discharge into surface waters, or any
alteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? 0 0 .
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? 0 0 .
Page S
,,"PC ~DCHECU.sT
'~/5
_1 ~
g.
Change in the quantity of ground waters.
eithe, through direct additions or
withdrawals. or through interception of
an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
o
o
.
h.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
o
o
.
i.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves?
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR will not have any impact on water quality or availability.
No increase in water usage will result from the proposed zoning code amendments.
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: ~ MAYBE NO
a. Change in the diversity of species. or
number of any species of plants (including
trees. shrubs. grass. crops. and aquatic
plants)? 0 0 .
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique.
rare or endangered species of plants? 0 0 .
c. Introduction of new species of plants into
into an area. or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species? 0 0 .
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? 0 0 .
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR applies only to dwel1ing units which have been previously
approved for development. The project is not applicable to undeveloped or natural land.
Thus, the amendment to the zoning code will not impact any plant species or habitat.
s.
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
ill MAYBE lill
a. Change in the diversity of species. or
numbers of any species of animals (birds.
land animals including reptiles. fish and
",pc NDCHEC..l.ST Page 6
;;~/~
- 'l-
."
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)?
o
o
.
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
o
o
.
c.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a .barrier to
the migration or movement of animals?
o
o
.
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
'.
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR applies only to dwelling units which have been previously
approved for development. The project is not applicable to undeveloped or natural land.
Thus, the amendment to the zoning code will not impact any animal species or habitats.
6.
lIioise. Will the proposal result in:
YES MAYBE NO
a.
Increases in existing noise levels?
o
o
.
b.
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR will not cause an increase in ambient noise levels.
All structures must comply with the Building Code regarding noise insulation and the
City's Noise Ordinance Standards.
7.
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare?
n.s. MAYBE 1::1.Q
o 0 .
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR would not cause light or glare to increase in the City.
8.
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
~ MAYBE 1::1.Q
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed project involves an amendment to the zoning code to increasing the
allowable FAR for single family dwelling units on lots less than 7,000 square feet to
"'PC "'OCHEC.LST
Page 7
t ~/7.
-9-
50%. The allowable land use on a sit' would not be altered by the FAR revisions.
9.
Natural Resources. .Will the proposal result in:
ill MAYBE !ill
a.
Increase in the rate of use of any Datural
resources?
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR will not cause an increase in the rate of use of
any natural resources such as fossil fuels.
10.
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
~ MAYBE !ill
a.
A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including. but not
limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
o
o
.
b.
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan'
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR would not result in the use of any explosives or the
release of any hazardous or toxic substances.
11.
Population. Will the proposal alter the location
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population or an area? ~
ill MAYBE !ill
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR would not allow an increase in units or density on a site,
but only increase the amount of building coverage on particular lots. The project applies
only to single family dwellings, and would not be growth-inducing.
12.
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing
housing, or create a demand for additional
housing?
ill MAYBE !ill
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR would not result in a need for new housing or alter the
amount of housing stock in the City.
,,"PC NDCHECK.LST
b1~
Page 8
_ID -
.
13.
Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal re~.Jlt in:
us MAYBE NO
a.
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR would not have any impact on circulation or
transportation systems.
b.
Effects on existing parking facilities.
or demand for new parking?
o
14. Public Seryices. Will the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
goverrunemal services in any of the following areas:
c.
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
o
o
o
~ MAYBE 1ill
tf, ~/?
o
o
d.
Alterations to present panerns of
circulation or movement of people
andlor goods?
o
o
o
.
.
.
.
.
,,"pc NOCHECK.LST
Pag.9
e.
Alterations to waterborne. rail or air
traffic?
o
f.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles. bicyclists or pedestrians?
o
g.
A "large project" under the Congestion
Management Program' (An equivalent of
2400 or more average daily vehicle trips
or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips).
o
a.
Fire protection?
b.
Police protection?
c.
Schools?
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities?
e.
Libraries?
f. Maintenance of public facilities. including
o
o
o
o
-/1-
,"
roads?
o
o
.
g.
Other governmental services?
o
o
.
,
City routing forms indicated that the proposed revisions to the FAR will not have any impact
on or require any Public Services.
15.
Energ)', Will the proposal result in:
ill MAYBE NO
a.
Use of substantial amount of fuel or
energy?
o
o
.
b,
Su bstantiaJ increase in demand upon
existing sources or energy, or require
the development of new sources of
energy?
o
o
.
Comments:
Revision of the FAR will not cause an increase in energy consumption.
16.
Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact
the City's Threshold Standards?
:us MAYBE !ill
o 0 .
Comments:
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seven
Threshold Standards.
..
A. Fire/EMS
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond
to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in
7551 of the cases. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard,
since revisions to the FAR will have no impact on response times.
B. Police
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority
1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority
I calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2
calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority
2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Standard, as the proposed revisions to the FAR will not have any impact on Police
services.
C. Traffic
WPC ~OCHECK.LST
t -.20
Page 10
_/;L-
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate 't a Level of
Ser,'ice (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "0"
may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections.
Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No
intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour.
Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard since the proposed fAR
amendments will not have any effect on traffic.
D. Parks/Recreation
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I ,000 population. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard since the proposed FAR
revisions do not apply to and will nOl effect parks or recreation facilities.
E. Drainage
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with the Drainage Master Plants) and City Engineering Standards. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard since the proposed
revisions to the FAR will not have any impact on drainage facilities.
F. Sewer
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plants) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed
project will comply with this Threshold Standard since the proposed revisions to the
FAR will not have any impact on sewer facilities.
G. Water
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treaonent, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project
will comply with this Threshold Standard since the proposed revisions to the FAR
will not have any impact on water facilities.
17.
Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
:us MAYBE 1iQ
a.
Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health?
o
o
.
b. Exposure of people to potential health
\\'PC ~DCHEC.L5T
jp-;2/
Page 11
_/3 -
hazards?
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR pose no threat to human health as it does not involve the
use or discharge of any hazardous or toxic material.
]8.
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
ill MAYBE 1::!Q
a.
The obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view?
o
.
o
b.
The destruction, or modification of a scenic route?
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed modification in the FAR will not have. an adverse effect on the visual or
aesthetic quality of the City. The proposed increase in allowable building area is small,
(from 45 % to 50%) and applies only to single family lots less than 7,000 square feel. The
patio cover and porch exemption is also minor, applicable only up to a total combined area
of 300 square feet or less.
19.
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
ill MAYBE NO
o
o
.
'.
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR does not apply to and will not have any impact on
existing or future. recre~ti?n sites or facilities.
20.
Cultural Resources.
m MAYBE !ill
a.
Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction or a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
o
o
.
b.
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building. structure,
or object?
o
o
.
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would
WPC NDCHECK.UT
t .:.2..2-
Page 12
-/lf~
'.
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
o
o
.
d.
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
.
o
o
e.
Is the area identified on the City's
General Plan EIR as an area of high
potential for archeological resources?
.
o
o
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR apply only to structures which have been previously
reviewed and approved for development. The revisions do not apply to natural or
undeveloped land. Therefore, the project will not adversely impact cultural resources.
21.
Paleontological Resources. Will the proposal result irJ the
alteration of or the destruction of a paleontological
resource~
YES MAYBE till
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR apply only to structures which have been previously
reviewed and approved for development. The revisions do not apply to natural or
undeveloped land. Therefore, the project will not adversely impact paleontological resources.
21.
Mandator)' Findings of Significance.
~ MAYBE NO
'.
a.
Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining
levels, threaten to elimirtate a plant or
animal community. reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or elimirtate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
.
o
o
Comments:
The proposed amendment to the zoning code does not have the potential to adversely impact
the quality of the natural environment. reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, or.
eliminate a plant or community. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) applies only to built
structures, not to raw or undeveloped land.
"'PC ~DCHECKl.ST
Page 13
t';2}
~
-tJ'-
';
b.
Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term goals to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, defmitive period of time,
while long-term impacts will endure well
into the future.)
.
o
o
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR will not achieve short-term environmental goals at the
expense of long term goals. The project will not have an impact on the underlying zone or
General Plan designation of a site. The exemption for porch and patio covers will allow a
greater flexibility of design and construction. In the long-term, the project will allow houses
in the older areas of Chula Vista the opportunity to expand in a manner consistent with the
houses in the newer planned communities.
c.
Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may impact two
or more separate resources where the
impact on each resource is relatively
small. but where the effect of the total
of those impacts on the environment is
significant. )
.
o
o
Comments: "
The proposed revisions to the FAR will not result in any significant, adverse environmental
impacts which are cumulative or growth-inducing in nature. The project will not cause an
increase in density or intensity of use. The project will allow houses in the older areas of
Chula Vista to expand to a size and bulk consistent with housing available in the newer
planned communities of the City.
d.
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
.
o
o
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR do not have the potential to harm human beings either
directly or indirectly. No impacts to human health were identified in the initial study.
:
"'Pc NOCHECKLST
Page 14
t -.21
-It -
:
Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency. Check one box only.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
. I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
. 0 I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is 'required.
") /'...1 It . II. .1 (- ) l J'" "
Environmental Review Coordinator
l/17 93
Date
({;; -2_~
Page IS
_ f I) -
WPC NDCHECK.LST
Case No.
APPENDIX II
DE MI."IoThfiS FEE DETER..l\III"ATION
(Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990 - AB 3158)
l It. is hereby found that this project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either
individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources and that a 'Certificate of Fee Exemption"
shall be prepared for this project.
It is hereby found that this project could potentially impact wildlife, individually or
cumulatively and therefore fee in accordance with Section 711.4 (d) of the Fish and Game
Code shall be paid to the County Clerk.
j ,'\.; ( (( . Ie Ie i( ~ ) /, , t ',' J
Environmental Review Coordinator
l/ I ~
D:lle
(/_,
,,'pc NDCHECKLST
ct ~ 2?
Page 16
_19-
Attachment A
.
19.22.160
Floor Area Ratio.
Construction of dwellings or any remodeling or additions to existing dwellings shall have
a floor area ratio (FAR) which limits the maximum building area to 45% of the lot area for
single family dwellings on lots of 7.000 SQuare feet or ~eater: 50% of the lot area or 3.150
SQuare feet. whichever is less. for sin~le family dwellines on lots of less than 7.000 SQuare feet:
and 55 % of the lot area for duplexes. The floor area ratio caI"'ulation shall also include the
square footage of patios, garages and other accessory strUctures preseot on the lot, excent that
covered catios and corches un to a total combined area of 300 sauare feet or less are exemnt
from the FAR limit. For these purposes, an accessory strUcture is dermed as any strUcture
which rises 4 or more feet above finished grade. (Ord. 2144 fi2 (pan), 1986).
(I;OCIm'\fa;)
t /;2 7
_ ;1-
"
Attachment B
"
COUNCn. AGE!It'DA STATEMENT
Item
Meetin& Date 319193
ITEM TITLE: Repon: PCA-93-ol; Modification to Floor Area Ratio requirements for
, single-family residential zones
SLTB~IITTED BY: Director of Planning ~t
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4!5ths Vote: Yes_No...xJ
On January 12, 1993, Council considered a repon on various alternatives to the present Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) requirements and directed staff to return with a repon on an alternative which
would:
1) use a sliding scale with a minimum FAR of 0.50 for smaller lots; and
2) provide an exemption for open patio covers and porches.
RECO~[\U::'\"DA TIO~: That Council direct staff to return with an ordinance to revise the
floor area ratiolequirements in all R-l zones, based on a sliding scale with an FAR of 0,50 for
lots under 7,000 square feet (with a maximum square footage to ensure equit)' for larger lots)
and an exemption for open patio covers and porches of not more than 300 square feet.
"
BOARDSICmL\1ISSIOSS RECOMME!Il'DATIOS: On February 10, 1993, the Planning
Commission was asked for input on the earlier repon and the alternatives selected by Council
for further consideration, None of the Commission members expressed any concerns regarding
the alternatives outlined by the City Council.
DlSCUSSIO~:
The FAR modifications selected by Council for funher consideration appear workable to staff
with certain qualifications, The stated desire of Council is to provide smal.Ier lots of less than
7,000 square feet in the older, established ponions of the City with a greater opponunity to
expand their dwellings in . manner more consistent with that which is provided for in the newer
planned communities to the east.
'Slidinl1 Scale" FAR
The present FAR for all R' zoned areas and single-family developments within older plaMed
communities is 0,45. The FAR for newer planned communities such IS EastLake, Rancho del
Rey, and Sunbow varies, but is generally based on I sliding scale which allows. proportionately
, b~,,2 Y -:;0.
Pqe 2, Item
Medina Date 3/9/93
greater FAR on smaller lots, sucb as 0.45 for lots 7,000 sq. ft. or greater, 0.50 for lots between
6,000- 7 ,000 sq. ft., and 0.55 for lots between 5,000-6,000 sq. ft. The attached table presents
a comparison of FAR's for lots between 5,000-7,000 sq. ft.
The table shows that an increase in the FAR from 0.45 to 0.50 for lots under 7,000 sq. ft.
would provide an increase in allowable floor area of from 250 sq. ft. for 5,000 sq. ft. lots (from
2,250 to 2,500 sq. ft.) to 350 sq. ft. for 6,999 sq. ft. lots (from 3,150 to 3,500 sq. ft.). These
figures would appear to provide for a reasooable opportunity to expaod consistent with the size
of the lot and with homes available in the newer plaoned communities.
The table also reveals, however, that as lots approach 7,000 sq. ft., the application of a 0.50
FAR would allow more floor area than that which would be allowed on larger lots of over 7,000
sq. ft. subject to a 045 FAR. This inequity can be addressed by establishing, along with the
0.50 FAR, an upper limit of 3,150 sq. ft., which equates to a 0.45 FAR on a 7,000 sq. ft. lot.
It is recommended this limit be used in the R- I zone.
An FAR of 0.55 for lots between 5,000-6,000 sq. ft. was also considered. This would provide
an increase in allowable floor area of from 500 sq. ft. for 5,000 sq. ft. lots (from 2,250 to 2,750
sq. ft.) to 600 sq. ft. for 6,999 sq. ft. lots (from 2,699 to 3,299 sq. ft.). Although this further
increase in FAR for the smallest lots would be more consistent with that allowed in the newer
plaMed communities, we feel the results would be less predictable and likely less desirable in
existing. developed areas for the following reasons.
First, developments of less than 6,000 sq. ft. in plaMed communities are plaMed and developed'
as a total package, including the siting and interrelationship among dwellings, the floor plans and
architecture of the homes, and development standards which strictly control or even prohibit
additions. As a result, the scale and bulk of the dwellings and character of the neighborhood
is predetermined and known to the City, the developer and each prospective homeowner. In
contrast, there is no design control in existing, developed R-l areas. Additions of any SOI1 can
be added as long as they meet the bulk and setback ,standards.
Secondly, many neighborhoods in the Montgomery Specific Plan area have been rezoned to R-l-
5. Therefore, although the DOrmal expectation would be to have the smallest lots distributed
throughout an area (the R-l zone provides that 70% of the lots shall be 7,000 sq. ft. or greater,
20% between 6,000-7,000 sq. ft., and no more than 10% between 5,000-6,000 sq. ft.), these
areas in Montgomery would involve entire neighborhoods with the 0.55 FAR aIJowaoce and no
design control.
For these reasons, we are not recommending that the FAR be further increased for the lots
between 5,OOO-C,OOO sq. ft.
t--.2i
-~!-
Paae 3, Item
Meeting Date 3/9/93
patio Covers and ]lorches
The City Council also asked staff to evaluate a proposal to exempt open patio covers and
porches from the FAR requirements. The newer planned commW1lties provide an exemption
for open patio covers of Dot more than 300 sq. ft. For purposes of this exemption, an open
patio cover is defIDed as one that is open on at least two sides, with . lattice-type roof DO more
than SO % covered. This type of structure represents more of an open element rather than
building mass, and in staffs opinion could be exempted in all R-t areas without creating a
problem. If this exemption were broadened to include patio covers which are solid, there could
be a greater visual impact in some cases. However, an exemption which applied equall)' to all
patio covers would be less difficult to administer than one which distinguishes beTWeen a solid
roof and an open-Janice roof, and staff would not be opposed to such an exemption.
Finally. Council asked staff to consider whether or not covered porches should be exempt from
the FAR. Porches, which generall)' have a solid covering. are usuall)' modest in size,
constituting no more than SO square feet or so. We feel that it would be appropriate for them
to be included in the same exemption as patio covers, up to an overall maximum of 300 square
feet for both patio covers and porches.
.
FISCAL I.\IPACT: Not applicable.
(PCA9~.c: "l:~)
"
..
t';Jo
-.J-;L-
.
.
,
~
hn,,\farcomp..&
b--3/
_J-3-
.
~.
RECEIVED
MAR 1 6 1993
CITY OF CHULA VISi';
BUILDING ~ HOUSING DEPT.
ROUTING FORM
.
DATE:
arch 15, 1993
.1.
of \. \
Ken Larson, Building I Housing
John Li~pitt, Engineering fEIR orly)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks I Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department /Diosdado, Crime Prevention
Current Planning
Frank Herrera, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & ElR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
FRO/-
SU6JECT:
.
Maryann Mi ller
Environmental Section
CKKJ Application for Initial Study (15-93-31
r::J Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR-
o Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-
r::J Review of Environmental Review Record
lOP NIA )
IDP )
lOP )
IERR- )
IFA-618
IFS-
IFS-
FC-
The project cons~sts of:
Amend FAR to 50% for smaller lots and provide
e^emption fo~ patio covers and porches (see attached)
Location:
City Wide
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 3/22/93
Comments:
"
"I.. f . f u. I.
I V,- \. ~ \ \ ,,' ,: . .~ (
t/ Jd- UJ1! ~ /2:Y
;)4 -
Y5-00 I
ROUT! NG FORM
r"_ ~ ... =- ,::-:_,
. ";'.,'. ~...~_ ~ ',. -'~i:- _..~;~ L
IS
DATE: March$, 1993
r.B3 M:,R \6 PM 3: \8
....
FRa-{ ~
Ken Larson, Building I Housing
John Lippitt, Enq~neering (EIR o~ly)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (lS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks' Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department /Diosdado. Crime Prevention
Current Planning
Frank Herrera, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS I EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
.
10: ~:
SUBJECT:
Maryann Mi l1er
Environmental Section
[[E] Application for Initial Study (IS-93-31
E::] Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR-
o Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-
E::] Review of Environmental Review Record
lOP N/A )
lOP )
lOP ) .
IERR- )
IFA-618
IFB-
IFB-
FC-
.
The project consists of:
Amend FAR to 50% for smaller lots and provide
e~emption for patio covers and porches (see attached)
Location:
City Wide
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 3/22/93
.
Coments :
N(;) U>~ M CJ.../T":>
,.
.~~
t-3J
;~1
_ ;).S--
.
",
.
ROUTING FORM
DATE: March 15. 1993
~
(ref'"
./
~f.il~:,o :
SUBJECT:
[ill
D
D
D
....
I,' fl.;:; . - __.-
n.;...., J .' .
Ken Larson, Building I Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering fEIR 0~1y)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (15/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf. Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove. Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks I Recreation
Keith Hawkins. Police Department /Diosdado, Crime Prevention
Current Planning
Frank Herrera, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Lands~ape Architect
Bob leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S, District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, library (Final EIR)
Other
Maryann Miller
.
~
[nyiron~ntll S~~tien
/
Application for Initial Study {IS_93-31
Checkprint Draft EIR {20 days){EIR-
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-
Review of Environmental Review Record
.
IFA-6l8
IFB-
IFB-
FC-
lOP NI A
lOP
lOP
IERR-
)
)
)
)
The project cons.i sts of:
Amend FAR to 50% for smaller lots and provide
exemption fo~ patio covers and POrches (see attached)
Location:
City Wide
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 3/22/93
COrm1ents: /..Jotl"f'-
-.
"~ --3 L/
.
- ~/" -
Case No. ~ - ?I.2/
H. FIRE DEPARTMENT
1.
What is the distance to the nearest f;re statiOn} !Illi what is the
Fire Department's estimated reaction time? tJ A
2.
Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire
protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment
or personnel? IJ I A
3. Remarks ,vol...N:.
J.1h1!!3il ~
Firft Marshal
v
03/:2 3 /c13
Date
..
0'35
- )1} -
WPC 0413p/9459P
-12-
.
ROUTING FORM
DATE: March 15. 1993
",,"
TO:
Ken Larson. Building & Housing
John Lippitt. Engineering ~EIR orly)
Cliff Swanson. Engineering EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg. Engineering EIR only)
Roger Daoust. Engineering (ISI3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf. Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove. Fire Department
Marty Schmidt. Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins. Police Department IDiosdado. Crime Prevention
Current Planning
Frank Herrera. Advance Planning
Sob Sennett. City Lands~ape Architect
Sob Leiter. Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District. Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District. Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
.
rROM:
Maryann Miller
Environmental Section
SUBJECT :
[[E] Application for Initial Study (15-93-31
E::] Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR-
D Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-
E::] Review of Environmental Review Record
lOP N/A )
lOP )
lOP ) .
IERR. )
IrA-61S
IFS-
Irs-
FC-
The project consJsts of:
Amend FAR to 50% for smaller lots and provide
e(emption for patio covers and porches (see attached)
Location:
City Wide
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 3/22/93
COlmlents:
.
~~ ef
~c.. ~ r-D ~i"-\'\..I~.
. ~~J~
~)l-
Cue No. .::T.S- 9.$1-2/
H-l. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
1.
Is project subject to Parks & Recreation.T~shold requirements?
If not. please explain.
/
/
2. How any acres of parkl and are n,-cessary to serve the proposed
projec L
/
3. Are existi neighborhood an~ community parks near the project
adequate to se e the populati increase resulting from this project?
Neighborhood
Community Parks
dicatl~~s or other mitigation proposed
e to serve ~he population increase?
."" .
IS part
4.
If not, are parkland
of the project adequ
Neighborhood
Community B rks
,
S.
will
applicant ~~uired to:
".~
.......
6.
~
~~.~.
1 \b .ct,. .
Date
Parks and Recreation Director or Representative
&"37
_)-1-
WPC 0413p/94S9P
-13-
ROUTING FORM
.
DATE: March 15, 1993
.....
TO:
Ken Larson, Building I Housing
John lippitt, Engineering (EIR o~'y)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Ha' Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks I Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department /Diosdado, Crime Prevention
Current Planning
Frank Herrera, Advance ~lanning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
.
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Maryann Mi ller
Environmental Section
[IS] Application for Initial Study (15-93-31
E::] Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR-
E::] Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-
E::] Review of Environmental Review Record
lOP N/ A
IDP
IDP
IERR-
)
)
"
)
)
IFA_618
IFS-
IFS-
fC-
.
The project consists of:
Amend FAR to 50% for smaller lots and provide
e(emption fo\ patio covers and POrches (see attached)
Location:
City Wide
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 3/22/93
.
Comments:
~'7
6-n0
t--.:;[J"
b ~.
7~
\, 3"/
...-
-'
.
(
RO;';TING FORM
.
DATE: March 15, 1993
....
TO:
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt. Engineering (EIR o~'y)
Cliff Swanson. Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust. Engineering (15/3. EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf. Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove. Fire Department
Marty Schmidt. Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins. Police Department /Oiosdado, Crime Prevention
Current Planning
Frank Herrera. Advance Planning
Bob Sennett. City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
.
FROM: Maryann Miller Environmental Section
SUBJECT: m:J Application for Initial Study (IS_93-31 !FA-51 B lOP N/ A )
D Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR- IFB- lOP )
D Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- .
IFB- lOP )
D Review of Environmental Review Record FC- IERR- )
.
The project consists of:
Amend FAR to 50% for smaller lots and provide
exemption for patio c.overs and POrches (see attached)
Location:
City Wide
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 3/22/93
.
Coments :
,/1(' (C. 7" / ';;7~'~
74;1' 3-2093
c::
.'
'6~3?
~ 31 ~
CITY DATA
Cue No. .::Tc..- 9'-1- .</
F. PLANNING OEPARTMENT
1. Current Zonina on site: l':,-h.-wid...e..
North --...-,
South
East
West
Does the project conform to the current zoning? ~/A
2.
General Plan land use
designation on site: C:-h.! -w.'A.L
North --,
South
East
West
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? bJ/~
I
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent
to an area so designated? ~+w -~~
,
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~~ ~~'A .
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to pro ect or enhance
the scenic quality of the route.) ~,~
'.
3. Schools
,
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Students
Generated
From Proiect
School
Permanent Temporary Current
Caoacitv Caoacitv Enrollment
El ementary
Jr. High
Sr. High
4. Remarks:
r-j/A
or Representative
.3h ~='.1
, Date
-
WPC 0413p/9459P
. -8-
b /<-((;7
_ 3)-
Excemt from Draft Planning Commission Minutes of 5/12/93
ITEM 5:
PUBLIC HEARING: MODIFICATIONS TO THE FLOOR AREA RATIO
REQUIREMENTS IN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES - City
initiated
Principal Planner Griffin presented the staff report and recommended amendments to the
Municipal Code. Staff proposed to increase the floor area ratio to 50% or 3,150 sq. ft.,
whichever is less, for R-llots of less than 7,000 sq. ft. and also provide an exemption for patio
covers or porches with a total combined area of 300 sq. ft. or less.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing
to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Martin/Carson) 7-0 to find that this project would have no significant environments and
adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-93-31.
MSUC (Ray/Tuchscher) 7-0 to adopt Resolution PCA-93-02 recommending that the City Council
enact the attached draft City Council ordinance to amend the floor area ratio requirements as
modified with Exhibit A.
6-'(1
.- 38-
EXCERPT FROM DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINuTES OF 2/10/93
ITEM 2:
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO FLOOR AREA
RATIO REQUIREMENTS IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Principal Planner Griffm gave the background and the possible changes to the floor area ratio
standards for single-family zones. He noted the City had formerly regulated bulk by a lot
coverage standard which was 40 % in height restrictions, basically 2-112 stories or 35 feet; an
FAR of 0.45 was added several years ago. He gave some examples of the proposed FARs using
a sliding scale with a minimum floor area ratio of 0.50 for smaller lots.
Mr. Griffm stated that the City Council had asked the Planning Commission to give input on two
potential modifications: using the sliding scale for all single-family properties under 7,000 sq.
ft. and an exemption of patio covers and porches from the FAR calculation. He said staff was
supportive of the sliding scale and some type of exemption for open patio covers, which could
also cover porches. With input from the Commission as to $eir direction, staff would take a
report to Council, and if Council chose to proceed, staff would be returning to the Commission
and Council with a formal ordinance amendment to be reviewed and discussed at that time.
Chair Fuller questioned staff regarding the home which had been included in the staff report.
Mr. Griffin stated it would benefit the particular home that had triggered the analysis of the floor
area ratio.
Commissioner Carson asked when the lot is smaller -- 5,000 to 6,000 sq. ft. on a sliding scale -
__ why the amount was larger. If the lot was smaller, it should be reversed.
Assistant Planning Director Lee said that part of the analysis got into the planned communities
and it became fairly evident that even when establishing a smaller lot, it should be able to
accommodate a reasonably sized home. Mr. Lee explained staffs rationale using the sliding
scale.
Commissioner Carson asked if the sliding scale would allow a home such as the Raso or
Salganaek houses to be built. Mr. Lee answered that they would not be allowed, and informed
those in attendance about the homes to which Commissioner Carson referred.
Chair Fuller concurred with the recommendation.
Commissioner Tarantino asked what would happen if the developer decided to build up instead
of out. Mr. Griffm explained that the Code required a maximum of 40% lot coverage; there
could only be a certain amount of a lot that could be covered in a footprint. This would not
change and the setbacks from the property lines would also continue to apply.
Commissioner Martin asked about the porch or carport. Mr. Griffm said that originally they
had discussed, as one alternative, exempting patio covers which had been done in newer planned
b --Ljo2
-- 34- -
~
communities, and Council had asked staff to look at exempting porches which haa previously
been included in FAR calculations.
There were no other comments by the Commissioners regarding FAR.
~ -1)
_ 3.3
-" -~-.....-
Excerpt from City Council Minutes of 1/12/93
MSUC (NaderlFox) direct the City Attorney to communicate with the FTC, on behalf of the City, that the
City was looking at the matter to determine whether any facilities capable of serving Olula Vlsta and
affecting the City were involved. The representation bad been made to the City by Cox that there were no
facilities capable of serving Chula VISta involved, pending verificatioD of that representation the City did not
intend to take a position on the tranSaction but there could be follow-up communication after obtaining that
information. The City Attorney is directed and authorized, if he receives any information that would indicate
that competition in Olula VISta could be affected by the Jones/Cox tranSaction, to prompdy communicate
the Council's concerns to the FTC.
18. RESOLlTI10N 16962 RESONDING RESOLlTI10N 15591 WHIOi PROHIBITS ON-STREET
PARKING IN TIiE 400 BLOCK OF "I.' STREET - On 3/17/92, Council requested a six month evaluation report
regarding the effectiveness of the painted median island in place on "I.' Street, keeping the westerly end
open allowing left turn access. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
Councilman Fox stated the Executive Director of the Boys and Girls Club had expressed concern that
problems could be solved if the parking lot was reconfigured so ingress to the lot could be achieved on Fifth
Avenue. Their other concern was that if on.street parking was allowed on 'L' Street, vehicles turning right
would not have adequate view of the traffic.
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, responded that it had been discussed and the striping could easily
be reconfigured. The problem with entering on Fifth Avenue and exiting on "L" Street was with the buses
or parents dropping off children. The major objection was from the school district.
)LlTI10N 16962 oFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MOORE, reading of the text was waived.
Charles Schrieder, 440 "L" Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated he represented the property owners on the 400
block of 'L" Street and they basically supported the staff recommendation. They wanted to keep their
parking and were in favor of the reconfiguration of the youth center parking lot.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
19. REPORT FLOORAREARATIOREQUlREMENTSFORSlNGLE-FAMlLYRESIDEN11AL
ZONES _ Council requested that staff provide input as to whether the City's existing Floor Area Ratio system
is the best method to use regarding requirements for single.family zones, what other alternatives exist, and
whether different FAR requirements should be imposed in older parts of the City. Staff recommends that
Council direct staff to prepare an amendment to the Municipal Code which would modify the Floor Area
Ratio requirement for single-family zones to exclude open patio covers, and would provide for a 'sliding.
scale" FAR requirement in certain Planned Communities. (Director of Planning)
Councilman Fox stated his neighborhood, off the end of east 'J" Street, would be affected and questioned
whether he should abstain from participation.
City Attorney Boogaard questioned what percentage of the land area in the City or residential units would
be affected by the decision.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, responded that it was intended that the staff recommendation only apply
to older planned communities, less than 10% of the total zoned residential areas. Councilman Fox's area
,included. lthad been proposed as a generalized approach and staff would come back with an ordinance
.b specific boundaries.
t~L/Lj
3k
--
Minutes
January 12, 1993
page 11
City Attorney Boogaard stated Councilman Fox should not participate if he was one of a 10% factor.
Councilman Moore stated he could support the first parr of the staff recommendation but had a problem
with the sliding scale. He felt it was extremely arbitrary. There had only been nine requests in 6 1/2 years
and he did not feel it needed to be changed.
Councilman Rindone expressed concern that many property owners on the west side were unaware of the
ability to request a waiver and the process. He referred to page 19-2, second paragraph, which stated there
were only two other cities that utilized the FAR standards. He suggested that Council consider raising the
standard to 50% and look at not counting the open patios and open porches. He was not focusing on lots
above 7,000 sq. ft. The City needed to provide consistency and a standard to assist the older homes.
MS (Rindone;Nader) staff is to bring back a report analyzing the impact on increasing the FAR standard
from 45% to 50%, exempt open patio and open porches.
Councilwoman Horton questioned why not just consider the sliding scale FAR which was utilized in the
newer areas of Chula Vista.
Councilman Rindone stated he would be comfortable with that if the minimum standard was raised from
45% to 50%.
Mr. Leiter stated there was more design control in the newer planned communities. The City could find
situations where the higher percentage would result in some development that did not have the same quality
design as it would in a planned community.
Councilwoman Horton felt the change could generate interest in rehabilitating homes in the older
neighborhoods.
Mr. Leiter stated staff could review the recommendation and report back to Council.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Rindone;Nader) to include a sliding scale with 50%.
Harold D. West, 4050 Palm Drive, Bonita, CA, stated the 40% was originally for a footprint and was now
45% which included the second story, garage and overhang all added together. He felt it should be 60.65%
or a complete elimination of the FAR. He felt Council had a good chance to do away with unnecessary
regulations.
Joe Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, felt the restrictions on smaller homes was obstructing the
rights of the property owners. He also felt regulations were not being enforced equally.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (NaderlRindone) refer back to staff for input from the Planning Commission.
VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: approved ~1 with Fox abstaining.
Mr. Leiter stated staff could get back to the Planning Commission within the next thirty days and then back
to Council within two to three weeks after that.
Mayor Nader stated that staff did not need to go to the Planning Commission before the report could be
worked on. Concurrent recommendations from the Planning Commission and staff was acceptable.
· · · Council recessed at 8:36 pm.. and reconvened at 8:46 pm.. . · .
&ri~
311 '
"
Excerpt From City Council Minutes of 3/9/93
19. REPORT PCA.93.02: MODIFlCATIONTOFLOORAREARATIOREQUIREMFNI'SPOR
S1NGlJ! PAMlLY RESIDEm1AL ZONES. On 1/12/93, Council considered a report on Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
requirements and directed staff to return with a report on using a sliding scale with a minimum FAR of 0.50
for smaller lots which would provide an exemption for open patio covers and porches. Staff recommends
Council direct staff to return with an ordinance to establish a sliding scale with an FAR of 0.50 for lots
under 7,000 square feet and an exemption for open patio covers of not more than 300 square feet. (Director
of Planning)
CouncUman Pox stated he had abstained from participating on the item in the past and questioned whether
be needed to continue to abstain.
Robert Leiter. Director of Planning, informed Council that the current proposal affected all Rl :tOned
properties within the City. The previous item only affected one area which included Councilman Pox's
property.
City Anomey Boogaard stated it was a maner that did not distinguish Councilman Pox's property from
anyone else in the public. Therefore, he would be able to participate in the decision.
MSC (RindoneIPox) to accept the staff recommendation to return with an ordinance to eSltablish a sliding
scale. with an PAR of 0.50 for lots under 7,OCXJ SQUM'e feet and an eumption for open patio Ccm!n of not
,. ..... than 300 squ.are reeL
~ /II~
;;,:1,
/ /
Excerpt From City Council Minutes of 9/15/92
I
15. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ColUldlman Rindone:
. Councilman Rindone stated he had received a letter that he wanted to refer to staff for a report back
to Council. The subject was a concern about the FAR (floor area ratio) used by the Planning Department.
What he wanted was specific information on: 1) was it the best method, and if so, why; and 2) what were
the alternatives. He wanted staff to provide an analysis and an information summary.
Councilwoman Horton stated that she was not so concerned that the FAR was not reasonable. What she
felt was unreasonable was that in the older parts of the City there was a different FAR versus the areas with
the P-modifier.
Councilman Rindone stated he would include that in his referral.
ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT AT 7:45 p.m. to a Special City Council MeetiIlg on September 21, 1992 at 4:00 p.m. in the
Council Conference Room thence to the Regular City Council Meeting on September 22, 1992 at 6:00 p.m.
in the City Council Chambers.
A Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency convened at 7:46 P.M. and adjourned
at 8:28 P.M..
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AU1liELET, CMC, City Clerk
by:
'\ ~ ,-
, r' , -
, , I', j.
"'~, \S: , ,...~\CL/\ (i l"-... :
Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy (Gio/ Clerk
\
~-L/?
__ 3cl'
-
..... 27.'_
1111 HarlaIWII ..., MIdonI
CO! oa...". CIy III CIUI ~
271."_
CIlIM YIIl&. CA 11.,0
;;:-.~.ll.~:~- :,' -.,--r-r.-.....
_. ..".6,;
;,,:
..._ I:.r, 3 I ~..
i
t
_.~.~ .
-'.
"-.....-..
... -.........-
.. COI .;&._. fIInIcInI;.
. 1-*1 .. ID .. . ....... III JW'" nllllng ID JW .... ... ........ID .. III
"..-.1Ir lilt CIy ClIn:In lilt ,...... O-'-~.4l&.
......,,..,. 1llO'" CIly CauncI.-... """...... r. ,..... III *"-Iclp a.,...,1D
..n ... _ __.... fII CIly fl'.,...., la1I. ........ tIlaI . ... .. .... _ a
IllblIe ~ CIllNClIIr III ~ _ IIuIIIlIlQ fII a .... III:iIy IlDmI CIIl _ parIIctA- IlII .,
C/lIllI YIIlII!lII_ ~ b, -1IlllY IlarNI. AI allUl" ,....'" Oi$.UI....
CIevIeeCl a IMIhall ... 11\1)' III __ .....ICIM IIIIIl .. lIIl;nIl .. fII.. car CauncI1.
",. ,..,.fWlQ O"-b,.... III ., , _ Itlllllll:la FAIl(Aaor _1IaIIo). "I" WoOl..
.. 1d,'II IlII ",'uleCllO 1IlI_ ~ 1McIl. II Cajon. ~ CIly, ..,... CaurIy I'8ly an
.. '** ~~ cny ..... main Iaml fII DlIIllrd. IIIl DiIgo CIly .. ... I FAil. I
111. III 10%. CClronIdo _ I 1IIt III 75'" I1lII ftIIudilQ pIIlaI .., gngII. wlicII II ...."
.." ClUa VIIla'a1lr a ...IlI\WOID_.
. _ 1IlIl... IllIlIl _ 1lI_ It ..,.... _llIII III 1000 tQ. .. .., _. and IIao
IIr ccunling ... ~ 1Illr)'. --' paIlClI .., --' ..01>._ . 1~ -..ad fIIllDwwr
III' III ~ Of ~
Many _ IlOlI* IlIIng bull llIllay .. IluIlIO lilt _Imulft 1fIcMIIll. IIn .., can _ ., lilt
IamdrtclS 01 ~ 01 cIoIlIta. Mall)' 01 .... _ ___ .. ., tlt I uprlM wllIn lie)'
Ind CUI 1IlIl1hay can' _ NmIIaltgal lIdO _11UCll _ I ,..., bodo....n.
"'roo IIlgIn 01 20 _ DIllION I ,... . III -. _ fIIl25.ooo.00 .... .., 1111*10
cow... . III I..rall' ~ fII 13000.00 wtlIl I llUI ~ III _ III HOD,ooo.OO -. III
~ -" IlIIn; cltnleCl becala. fII... FAil ". CIly fII ClUa VIlla ItlDtlng___
t\lm at perrnIl.... III. .... IlllI ooIlC18C1. /Ill ....l8Il. IlllI ~.c.Ntlll. oily am~
I1lII netllecl (ft:IlI:llng building"" planning lltpI/lmtnl.......__.). M arn,..lvj_11l ....' '..,
11\1)' IlII" 10 ID all WOttoaTa unempIo,all ., lilt too........ .., ~ .....,
indulin...
'"* IIlIIlIt It "'pcr1Il'llD all _ _ fII ClUa VIIlIIlllI anIy tlt abwIOuI _-"'loICIf .,.,
IIMIIhlp r-. ... IllOtlIl'IlIa.lDO. buI ptItlapI _ men ~. lilt IlIIlIlIan fII
"",,"'''.'1 ItIl!1CIillIlI 1IlIl .. IlIIldng ... IleallN ClUa VIllI ... ...M.. ID ... .,.
_Ill'" pal.. ... J*lPIt .. ..., ~ III _ - - '"""lId.
..... . ',; I typclllIIcII plan fII allDml'" .... III IlldIll _ cny..... flllIlt
__L.~_ flllIlt FAIl ~ I1lIIIce flI"'_ rwd tIlaI., 1IlJ'" ~- "< . lIlUlI
.. bull III flI .. I1ICk IN. MIlly IlDmI ___ ..... paptlIr .......""'.. . rwd tIlaI ....
Io1IytlI ... ~.. can _ ... .. ., c::rua YIIIa .., ... ... wr ID ,. .._M>'"
~ III'" wr III W".~.. 1'_ III fII.-vIllI ..... cIIL
~." ,....,
~~~d/'4
D.W"
.oso ... DIM
IonIla. CA IlIll2
47l-IIOI
t/1/?/
.-' t/ /) .-'
.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
7
Meeting Date 6/15/93
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution /7/:11 - Approving Flexible Benefits Plan for
Assistant City Manager for 1992-93
City Manager
SUBMITTED BY:
BACKGROUND
When the flex plan amounts were adjusted for executive, middle management and
unrepresented emp loyees ear 1 i er th i s year, no adjus tment was made for one
employee, the Assistant City Manager. Based upon the market range for this
position, plus internal relationships, it is therefore recommended to increase
the flex plan for this position prior to the end of the fiscal year.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution increasing flex plan for Assistant City
Manager from $6,205 to $7,000 annually for 1992-93.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of increasing the Assistant City Manager's
flexible benefits plan is $795. Sufficient funds remain
in Administration's employee benefits account to cover
this increase.
JDG:mab
7~1 J '7-02-
RESOLUTION NO.
/7/3~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN
FOR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FOR 1992-93
WHEREAS, when the Flex Plan amounts were adjusted for
executive, middle management and unrepresented employees earlier
this year, no adjustment was made for the Assistant city Manager;
and
WHEREAS, based upon the market range for this position,
plus internal relationships, it is therefore recommended to
increase the Flex Plan for this position prior to the end of the
fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve increasing the Flex
Plan for the Assistant city Manager from $6,205 to $7,000 annually
for 1992-93.
John Goss, city Manager
, ~ '0'
Presented by
F:\home\attomey\flexplan.sid
7'3
June 14, 1993
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Councilman Jerry Rindone
John D. Goss, City Managery~
,
Response to Questions regarding the June IS, 1993 Agenda
Following are staff's responses to your comments/questions regarding items on the
above referenced Council agenda.
Item~- Flex Plan for Assistant City Manager
1. Please provide the date of the Council meeting when the referral of this
item was requested by Council.
The flex plan amount for the Assistant City Manager was originally discussed at
the January 12, 1993 Council meeting.
2. Please provide the minutes of the meeting when the Council referral was
made.
Attached are the minutes from the January 12, 1993 meeting.
Item 8 - Contract for Fireworks Display
1. The cost of the fireworks to the contractor is $16,500. Is only $14,000
funded by the City and $2,500 from KKLQ radio station?
The City is contracting with San Diego Fireworks for $16,500. The sponsoring
radio station is providing an additional $2,500 in fireworks. The net result
will be that the Chu1a Vista fireworks display will consist of $19,000 worth of
fireworks.
2. Why was this not broken down in the fiscal impact statement instead of
Attachment E, budget detail?
Staff has historically provided the Fourth of July budget detail as a separate
attachment. However, your point is well taken and the department will include
this information in the Fiscal Impact part of the staff report in the future.
3. What, if any, publicity coordination is planned with the fireworks held at
the marina and planned at EastLake?
fhere has been no publicity coordination, since it is staff's understanding that
EastLake prefers to target their fireworks promot iona 1 material to EastLake
residents only.
7/5"
,." r~
Item 9 - Beer and Wine Sales at 1498 Melrose
1. Who was the "no" vote for this direction?
The motion on the beer and alcohol sales was combined with that of the mini-
mart/car wash CUP use. Since Councilman Moore voted "no" on the mini-mart/car
wash use, his "no" vote is also reflected for the beer and ~ine sales. I am
attaching a copy of the minutes from the June 1 Council meeting when this item
was discussed.
Item 11 - Adoption of 1993-94 Budget
1. On Page 11-3, under MIS, staff is recommending a reclassification of an
Administrative Analyst II to Senior Management Analyst. Why?
Attached is the commentary from the proposed budget which discusses the reasons
for reclassification of this position.
2. The $4,006 listed under Personnel for correction of salary benefit level
for the Assistant Director is recommended for what purpose?
This was a computer input error which needs to be corrected.
3. On Page 11-4, why is the $889,600 for the Equipment Replacement Fund not
listed under General Fund expenditure adjustment. Please explain.
The Equipment Replacement Fund was established by resolution in 1985 to account
for vehicle replacement charges made against City departments (via account #5270,
Vehicle Replacement) to finance the eventual replacement of the vehicles assigned
to them. In order to make expenditures from this fund, Council must appropriate
the funds thereunder.
Item 13 - Solid Waste Participation Agreement
1. This is a difficult and complex subject. Staff listed on Page 4 of the
report five possible alternative dispos.al options. However, one which was
not listed (which I think needs serious consideration) is to establish a
South County JPA for solid waste landfill purposes for the four South Bay
cities (and/or Lemon Grove). Has staff explored this option? Please
provide staff's recommendation regarding this alternative.
At the staff level, there has been no interest expressed by the Cities of
National City, Imperial Beach, Coronado or Lemon Grove to pursue a South County
JPA for alternative options to the County system. All of these cities have
previously approved the Agreement, and at least one city has committed 100% of
its waste flow.
Conceptually, such a JPA could serve the same purpose in the South Bay as it has
in North County, if the desire is to seriously examine exiting (or possible
contracting with) the County system. Although it lS unclear how the idea would
be received by the other cities, it should be pursued as a possible consideration
during whatever timeframe is eventually determined to be available for
pursuing options.
,
"1)-0
Minutes
January 12, 1993
page 3
7. RESOLU110N 16950 REVISING 1liE EXECllIlVE SAU.RY BANDS POR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Administration) Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Mayor Nader stated he had not voted for management raises due to potential budgetary cuts and questioned
how the $7,000 flex plan figure had been determined. It had not been included in the original resolution
approved by Council last year.
City Manager Goss responded that it had not been Included and due to the letter of understanding he had
with the Assistant City Manager the figure was In concert with that. It was .omewhat higher than a
department head flex plan but was below the City Manager's.
Mayor Nader stated the Council had given the City Manager the direction and authority to provide the
compensation to the Assistant City Manager. He questioned whether Council could direct the raise to the
Assistant City Manager and, if they did so, it would have to be with a salary band adjustment which would
apply to any new assistant city manager In the future.
City Attorney Boogaard responded that Council created a legal structure to pay management classes and if
Council wished to modify the legal structure for payment they needed to provide that the Assistant City
Manager would be exempt from the system they created.
Councilman Rindone stated it was not a salary increase but a salary realignment. The Council chose not
to Increase the salary of the Assistant City Manager but to award it in a different form of compensation,
salary In lieu of other fringe benetits that had been in effect.
City Attorney Boogaard stated a salary band was a delegation of authority to the City Manager to fix salaries
for staff.
Councilman Rindone stated the action being requested was not Inconsistent with what had been done in
the past.
City Manager Goss informed Council that all executive managers had the same flex plan except for the City
Manager, City Attorney, and Assistant City Manager. That had been consistent practice with the assention
of the City Attorney and Assistant City Manager.
Councilman Rindone noted that only the Assistant City Manager was included in the E-5 band and
questioned whether it would create an inconsistency.
City Manager Goss stated it would not create an inconsistency because it was an existing siNation, 1-'. \.'Z.'
not sure there was a relationship to being in the executive band and the amount of the flex plan. Thos.
amounts, In terms of salary and flex plan, were negotiated when the Assistant City Manager was hired.
Councilman Rindone questioned what the justification was for a higher' flex plan for one employee over the
others in the same band.
City Manager Goss responded that the Assistant City Manager was already higher than all the others. The
economic terms under which he was hired included a higher flex plan that other executive managers. It was
his understanding with the Assistant City Manager that the elements of his salary and fringe bene tits would
be the same as the City Attorney.
-
Mayor Nader questioned whether that had been approved by the Council.
City Manager Goss responded that it was not. It was a written offer that had been accepted by the Assistant
City Manager when hll'ed. '
MS (RIndone/Horton) to adopt the staff recommendation for the adjustment In the ~ary band,in
conformance with p~ous Council action,and bave the City Man~ger come ba~ Wltl,. a ..,perote
recommendation and justification regarding the flu plan recommendanon for the AsSIStant City Manager.
Mayor Nader stated he would agree with the seperate report but would vote no due to the pay raise.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved +1 with Nader opposed.
7-7
...
t
June IS, 1993
TO:
Counc.i lmember
FROM:
John'D. Goss,
Jerry Rindone
. , J"-
Clty Manager /
L
SUBJECT:
Supplemental Response to Questions Regarding 6/15/93 Agenda
. I
In reviewing the responses to your questions regarding the June 15 meetPng, 1
felt a need to provide some supplemental information in order to respond more
completely to the questions. '
Item 7 - Flex Plan for Assistant Citv Manaoer I
In reviewing the very brief A-113 for Item 7, and then the minutes of the Council
meeting when the referral was made, it was obvious that the A-113 was not
complete. The request by the Council was a separate recommendated justification
regarding the flex plan amount for the Assistant City Manager.
Basically, the flex plan amount was a part of the overall economic package for
the Assistant City Manager, based on the market for this particular position.
While this position has a compensation package which is probably above the
average for like positions in similar sized cities, the real market for this
position was established at the time the position was filled. At that time, the
incumbent was being pursued by another jurisdiction which was able to offer a
salary which was several thousand dollars more than what would have been feasible
for the Assistant City Manager in Chula Vista. In order to make an offer that
was somewhat, but not totally, competitive with the other jurisdiction, an
automobile and a somewhat higher market basket amount were offered in exchange.
As a result of that, the offer was accepted and, in effect, the "market' for that
position was establ ished within that context. As a result of that and that
a lone, the sa 1 ary and subsequent auto allowance, wh ich are now in place, meet the
market for this position, as well as the commitment that was made when the
position was offered. The only thing that is remaining is adjusting the market
basket amount to the amount that is recommended.
One of the concerns with the market b sket amount is that it is the same as that
of the City Attorney and that, as a 'tter of philosophy it is inappropriate to
tie two positions together in this T~ner. Again, this was done in connection
with the "market" for this particular position and also to provide recognition
that the Assistant City Manager position was a "strong No.2" position, and had
higher status than the previous incumbent in the position. Now, as a matter of
philosophy, there may be understandable disagreement with such an arrangement.
On the other hand, even though it is recognized that the commitment that was made
when the position was offered is not the City Council's commitment, it was a
commitment that was made and accepted in good faith.' Therefore, it is
recommended that the market basket for this position be adjusted as proposed.
As an alternative, it is suggested that this market basket be approved with the
direction that the agreement be renegotiated, if the Council finds this
arrangement so onerous that it is unacceptable.
.~7~$
Item 11 - Adoption of 1993-94 Budaet
A question was raised as to why a reclassification was recommended for an
Administrative Analyst II to a Senior Management Analyst. The response was a
reference to the budget commentary on this subject, which was attached. The
commentary basically speaks to the funding of the reclassification, rather than
the reason for it. The rationale for the reclassification is based upon a
reclassification study conducted by the Personnel Department. In that study,
they evaluate the level of duties being performed by the incumbent in the
position, and they have concluded that the person is performing at the Senior
Management Analyst level, rather than at the Administrative Analyst II level.
As a matter of equity, therefore, the reclassification is recommended.
Regarding funding the increased cost of $4,434, this expense is totally pffset
by reducing the Professional Services account and also by the deletion of the car
allowance budgeted for the Special Projects Manager. In this way, the impact on
the General Fund by the reclassification will be zero. .
JOG:mab
cc: Mayor/City Council
?~
J - /~~
/ /
7--;
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
IternX
Meeting Date 6/15/93
ITEM TITLE:
I?I'/O
Resolution approving a contract for Fireworks Display, and entering into
Indemnification Agreements with Rohr Industries and the San Diego Unified Port
District.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Parks and RecreatioQc
REVIEWED BY: City ManagerJ'" ~ ~ (4/5ths Vote:_NoX)
The City is in the process of finalizing plans for the annual Fourth of July Fireworks display to be held
on the Chula Vista Bayfront. A contract with the vendor supplying and launching the fireworks has been
finalized, and the City has been asked to enter into Indemnification Agreements with Rohr Industries and
with the San Diego Unified Port District.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution to execute a contract with San Diego
Fireworks, Inc. for the 1993 fireworks display, and to enter into Indemnification Agreements with Rohr
Industries and the San Diego Unified Port District, and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreements.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/ A
DISCUSSION:
The Fourth of July Fireworks display will be held on the Bayfront on Sunday, July 4, 1993. The show
is scheduled to begin promptly at 9:00 PM and will last approximately 20-25 minutes. San Diego
Fireworks, Inc. was selected to provide the fireworks display again this year. A contract for their
services, which includes indemnitication language, is attached (Attachment "A"). San Diego Fireworks
was the sole respondent to a competitive Request for Proposal that was issued earlier in the spring. San
Diego Fireworks has provided the City with impressive shows for the Fourth of July event, as well as
the Symphony Pops finale, for a number of years.
The fireworks will be launched from a barge anchored in San Diego Bay west of the city's bayfront
development. The show will once again be accompanied by a radio simulcast on a local radio station
(KKLQ). KKLQ is providing approximately $2,500 worth of additional fireworks to augment the City's
purchase, and they will be providing a substantial amount of free pre-show publicity as well.
The Police Department, Engineering Department, and Transit Division are coordinating plans to relieve
the anticipated traftic congestion that normally occurs in the area on the evening of the event. A diagram
of the event area is attached to this report (Attachment "B "). Traftic control will be handled by the
Police Department according to a traftic plan designed by the Tramc Engineering Division. A centralized
command post will be established at the corner of "I" Street and Marina Parkway so that Police, Fire,
and other personnel involved with the event will know where contact can be made in the event of any
unforseen problems or emergencies.
The Transit Division will again be offering free shuttle bus service into and out of the area from all city
Trolley Stations. Shuttle busses will utilize special express traffic lanes that will be established
exclusively for shuttle bus use and emergency traftic.
fj'> J
The advertising for the event, utilizing transit bus ads, paid advertising, and multi-media press releases,
is being coordinated by the City's Public Information Coordinator.
Since the event will be taking place on Port District property, the San Diego Unified Port District has
been contacted concerning the event. The City is being asked to provide the Port with a Certificate of
Insurance naming the Port as additional insured. In addition, the Port's Activity Permit (Attachment "C")
contains an Indemnification Agreement. Rohr Industries has also been approached regarding the use of
their western parking lots for public parking. Rohr Industries has also requested a Certificate of
Insurance, and an Indemnification Agreement (Attachment "D"). The City's Risk Manager has reviewed
these requests, and recommends compliance. The City has entered into Indemnification Agreements with
both entities for a number of years as part of the planning process for Fourth of July events and the
Symphony Pops Concerts.
It should be noted that the Port District Activity permit gives the Port Authority right to a 24-hour
cancellation notice, which, if exercised, would terminate the fireworks display, and could result in the
loss of the contract fees. Such a cancellation is highly unlikely, although a serious emergency in the area
could result is such a cancellation.
A total of $27,510 has been budgeted for this event. A estimated breakdown of the event budget is
attached (Attachment "E").
FISCAL IMPACT: $27,510 has been budgeted in the Non-Departmental account for this event. No
additional allocation of funds is anticipated.
Contract with San Diego Fireworks, Inc. .,/
Diagram of Event Area V /
Activity Permit - SD Unified Port District
Indemnification Agreement - Rohr Industries V
Budget Detail NOT SCANNED
Attachments
nAil
"B"
lie 11
liD II
liE"
firework
~~~
.
,!"t _~!
~, "
RESOLUTION NO.
17/lfO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR FIREWORKS
DISPLAY FOR JULY 4, 1993 AND ENTERING INTO
INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AND ROHR INDUSTRIES AND THE SAN
DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT AGREEMENTS
The City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation staff is finalizing plans
for the annual Fourth of July Fireworks display to be held on the
Chula vista Bayfront; and
WHEREAS, the planning process for the fireworks event for
1992 is unusual due to two circumstances: reduced traffic access
and the accommodation of spectators at the Bayfront; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that Council adopt the
resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a contract with San
Diego Fireworks and to enter into an indemnification agreement with
Rohr Industries and with the San Diego Unified Port District for
the use of their parking facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve and authorize the Mayor
to execute an Agreement between with San Diego Fireworks, Inc. and
the City of Chula vista for a the annual Fourth of July Fireworks
display to be held on the Chula vista Bayfront on Sunday, July 4,
1993, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves and
authorizes the Mayor to execute an indemnification agreement with
Rohr Industries for the use of their parking facilities, and a
Tideland Activity Permit from the San Diego Unified Por District,
copies of which are on file in the office of the city C erk.
Jess Valenzuela, Director of
Parks and Recreation
Presented by
C:\rs\fireworks
8'~3 / g-~
IJ
FIREWORKS DISPLAY AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of June,
1993, by and between the City of Chula Vista, a California
Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called "City", and San
Diego Fireworks, Inc., a California Corporation, hereinafter
called "Contractor", is made with reference to the following
facts:
WIT NE SSE T H: .
WHEREAS, City desires to provide a fireworks display
for its residents on July 4, 1993, and Contractor desires to
furnish the fireworks display to said City;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO
AS FOLLOWS:
1. SCOPE OF WORK.
Contractor agrees to furnish to City, on July 4,
1992, in the San Diego Bay, on a barge off the Chula Vista
Marina in accordance with the terms and conditions herein-
after set forth, one (1) Fireworks Display as set forth in
Program "A", attached hereto as Exhibit "A", incorporated
herein and made a part hereof as though set forth in full,
including the services of one (1) licensed pyrotechnician to
take charge of and fire the Display with sufficient helpers.
1.1 City'S Duty to Provide Suitable Site.
City shall furnish and provide at their own expense a
suitable site and location. Suitability of any proposed
site is to be determined solely by Contractor. If City
proposes a site on water, City shall furnish and provide, at
their own expense, suitable floats or scows, including
provisions for towing and handling of same. The operations
of Contractor are considered complete when the crew and
equipment of Contractor depart the site.
2. Cancellation by Contractor. In the event Contractor
reasonably determines the weather conditions unfavorable on
the date set for the display, City shall pay Contractor ten
percent (10%) of the contract price as a restocking fee and
costs incurred by Contractor for technician fees, custom set
piece and logo design, permit and insurance.
-
3. Cancellation by City. Should City decide to cancel the
display, notice shall be given to Contractor no later than
july493.wp
June 9, 1993
1993 July 4th Display Contract
Page 1
8""'>
nine o'clock A.M. on the day of the display. C~ty shall pay
Contractor ten percent (10%) of the contract pr~ce as a
restocking fee and all costs incurred by Contractor
including, but not limited to, technician fees, custom set
piece and logo design, permit and insurance.
4. Postponement. In the event of cancellation by Contrac-
tor as provided in Paragraph 2 herein, or cancellation by
City as provided in paragraph 3 herein, City shall not be
liable and responsible to pay Contractor ten percent (10%)
of the contract price as a restocking fee and all costs
incurred by Contractor provided the parties agree to another
date for the display prior to 9:00 A.M. on the day of the
display. City shall be liable only for the expenses
incurred by Contractor due to the postponement if the
parties have agreed upon a postponement date, or the city
has tendered a reasonable postponement date.
5. ASSUMPTION OF RISK FOR WEATHER RUINING EXHIBITS.
City agrees to assume the risk of damage to the Exhibit
by weather or other causes beyond the control of Contractor,
which may affect or damage such portion of the exhibits as
must be placed in position and exposed a necessary time
before the scheduled commencement of the Display. By
assuming said risk, City agrees to pay for Contractor's cost
of said destroyed or ruined exhibits, unless the City is
otherwise obligated to pay the Contractor the compensation
required by this agreement.
6. DISPLAY PROTECTION.
City shall provide adequate police or security service
to prevent the public from entering the areas designated
solely by the Contractor for the firing of the display and
fallout. Any vehicles or vessels or personal property
within these areas shall be removed at the expense of City.
Any damage to personal property and injuries or death to
persons remaining within these areas shall be the sole
responsibility and liability of City. City shall indemnify,
defend and hold harmless Contractor against such claims as
provided in paragraph eight (8) herein. City shall also be
responsible and liable for any damage or theft of equipment
or materials of Contractor caused by the public.
7. INSURANCE.
Contractor, shall, throughout the duration of this
Agreement, maintain the following insurance coverage:
july493.wp
June 9, 1993
1993 July 4th Display Contract
Page 2
0' J,
7.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance including
Business ~utomobile liability insurance in the amount
of $1,000,000, combined single limit, wpich names the
City of Chula Vista as additional insured and is
primary to any insurance policy carried by the City.
7.2 Errors and omissions insurance in the amount of
$250,000.
7.3. statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and
Employer's Liability Insurance in the amount of
$1,000,000.
All policies shall be issued by a carrier that has a
Best's Rating of "A", Class "V", or better or shall meet
with the approval of the City's Risk Manager.
Contractor will provide, prior to commencement of the
services required under this Agreement, certificates of
insurance for the coverage required in this section, and,
for Commercial General Liability Insurance, a policy
endorsement for the city as additional insured; a policy
endorsement stating the Contractor's insurance is primary
and a policy endorsement stating that the limits of
insurance apply separately to each project away from
premises owned or rented by the Contractor. certificates of
insurance must also state that each policy may not be
canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to
the city.
The provisions of this section are intended to be of
benefit only to the City, and not for the advantage or
benefit of any third party. The City shall have the sole
right to insist upon or waive their performance without
liability to any third party.
8. HOLD HARMLESS.
8.1 city's Indemnity. city shall indemnify, defend
and hold Contractor harmless and the property of Contractor
from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, suits,
injuries and liabilities arising from the death or injury to
any person or from damage to or destruction of any property,
which arises out of, or is caused by an act, omission,
negligence or misconduct on the part of City or any of
City's electe~ officials, officers, agents, servants,
employees, contractors, guests, invitees or licensees. The
provisions of this section shall not apply to any claim or
july493.wp
June 9, 1993
1993 July 4th Display Contract
Page 3
8'" 'l
liability ar~s~ng by reason of the sole negligence, gross
negligence or willful misconduct of City.
8.2. Contractor's Indemnity. Contractor shall
indemnify, defend and hold harmless City and the property of
city from and against any and all claims, losses, damages,
suits, injuries and liabilities arising from the death or
injury to any person or from damage to or destruction of any
property, which arises out of or is caused by an act,
omission, negligence or misconduct on the part of Contractor
or any of Contractor's officers, agents, servants,
employees, contractors, guests, invitees or licensees. The
provisions of this section shall not apply to any claim or
liability arising by reason of the sole negligence, gross
negligence or willful misconduct of city.
9. COMPENSATION.
City agrees to pay Contractor the sum of Sixteen
Thousand Five Hundred ($16,500.00) Dollars according to the
following terms and conditions, due and payable as follows:
Fifty (50%) percent deposit upon execution of this agree-
ment, and the balance due ten (10) days after date of
Display, plus one (1%) percent service charge on accounts
over thirty (30) days past due.
10. ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS.
This contract shall be governed by the laws of the
State of California. Should any legal action be brought to
enforce or interpret the terms or provisions of this
agreement, any court of competent jurisdiction located in
the County of San Diego, California shall be proper venue
for an action. If any legal action is brought to enforce or
interpret the terms or provisions of this agreement, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's
fees and costs in addition to any other relief to which they
may be entitled.
11. PARTIES INDEPENDENCE.
It is further agreed that nothing in this Agreement
shall be construed as forming a partnership, the Parties
hereto being severally responsible for their own separate
debts and obligations, and neither Party shall be held
responsible for any agreements not stipulated in this
Agreement. -
12. NOTICE TO PARTIES.
july493.wp
June 9, 1993
1993 July 4th Display Contract
Page 4
y" r
/
Any Notice to Parties required under this Agreement to
be given to either party may be given by deposition in the
United States mail, postage prepaid, first class, a notice"
addressed to the following:
City:
City of Chula Vista
Attn: Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Contractor:
San Diego Fireworks, Inc.
P.o. Box 900186
San Diego, CA 92190
13. SUCCESSORS.
The terms, conditions and payments of this Agreement
shall be binding upon the Parties themselves and on their
heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns.
14. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
All terms of this Agreement are in writing and may only
be modified by written Agreement of the Parties hereto.
Both Parties acknowledge they have received a copy of said
written Agreement and agree to be bound by said terms of
written agreement only.
july493.wp
June 9, 1993
1993 July 4th Display Contract
Page 5
~~
..
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto, by and through
their duly authorized agents, have set their hands and seals
as of the day and year first above written.
City of Chula Vista,
A Municipal Corporation.
by:
its Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
San Diego Fireworks, Inc.,
a California Corporation
By
Ron Dixon, President
C:\ag\firework.93
.
july493.wp
June 9, 1993
1993 July 4th Display Contract
Page 6
?r'/ tl
SAN
DIEGO
BAY
o
Fireworks
Barge
~
.
PUBLIC
PARKING
~
~V?-
--..-
..~:!'- ~~
~~~-=
ellY OF .
CHULA VISTA
.. '!
"F" STREET
(One ~ay (out)
after the fireworks.
"G" STREET "G" ST
OJ
)>
~ ~
CHUlA
VISTA
PIER
MARINA
~\J'- V/SlA.
cI -:S:-
-;
OJ
o
:II
BOAT
I LAUNCH
WAY
o
L
f"
. -
I.' "H" STREET
1__- ~LLEY STATION
, : ~ ~
I "H"STREET
One way (out)
after the fireworks.
Northbound traffic
after the fireworks
for buses and
emergency vehicles
only.
"J" STREET
VIEW PARK
\
8"/ /
CD
;to
-<:
CD
o
C
r-
m
$
:n
o
I.
f.
I.". .
./"
"1
,-
I'
i
,
,
,
,
B
"F" STREET
"G" STREET
"I" STREET
"J" STREET
.
f
I
I
c
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
TIDELAND ACTIVITY PERMIT
PERMITTEE: City of Chula Vista
USE OR ACTIVITY: Fourth of July Fireworks Display
LOCATION FOR WHICH PERMIT ISSUED: Chula Vista Bayfront
THIS PERMIT FOR TIDELAND USE IS ISSUED SUBJECT TO THE FOllOWING
TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
1. Permittee shall comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations of
the District and other governmental entities.
2. Permittee shall keep the property and all equipment used in connection
with this permit in a clean, safe and sanitary manner and in good repair at all
times. All or any portion of the security deposit shall be available
unconditionally to the District for the purpose of cleaning or repairing
damages tei the property upon termination of this permit.
3. This permit may be cancelled by either party by the giving of twenty-four
(24) hours notice in writing to the other party. Such cancellation shall be
without liability of any nature.
4. This permit shall not be transferred or assigned.
5. Permittee shall defend, indemnity, and hold harmless District, its officers
and employees against all causes of action, for judicial relief of any kind, for
damage to property of any kind whatsoever, and to whomever belonging,
Including Permittee, or injury to or death of any person or persons, including
employees of Permittee, resulting directly or indirectly from activities in
connection with the issuance and performance of this permit or arising from
the use of the property, facilities or services of District, Its officers or
employees.
8'" / r:l.
6. Permittee shall maintain comprehensive public liability (covering
operations, products and completed operations) and blanket contractual
coverage insurance throughout the term of this permit. The policies shall, as
a minimum, provide the following forms of coverage:
$1 million combined single limit
(A) Personal Injury and Bodily Injury:
One Person $
One Occurrence $
(B) Property Damage $
Certificates of such insurance, in a form satisfactory to the District, shall be
filed with District's Community Relations Department. Insurance certificates
filed pursuant to this permit shall contain a non-cancellation-without-notice
clause and shall provide that copies of cancellation notices shall be sent to
the District.
7. The rights and privileges extended by this permit are non-exclusive.
8. Permittee shall not engage in any activity on property of the District other
than the activity for which this permit is expressly issued.
9. Permittee shall be subject to and comply with any special conditions
attached hereto.
10. Permittee shall comply with all requirements and directives of the Port
Director of District.
11. In the event of failure of Permittee to comply with any provision of this
permit, this permit may, at the discretion of the Port Director, be terminated
immediately.
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
Approved:
Permittee hereby accepts this permit and agrees to comply with all the terms and
conditions thereof.
Permittee's signature
Address: City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista. CA 91910
Telephone: 691-5041
(2)
P"i.3
CHECKLIST FOR THE USE OF TIDELAND PROPERTY
Date request received
in CR Dept.:
Please complete each item below.
1. Sponsoring individual or group:
City of Chula Vista
2. Address and telephone number of contact person:
John Gates, Senior Recreation Supervisor
Parks and Recreation Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave. 6~l- 5~'\
3. ~~1~Wbh5~nn~~9anned?
Fireworks display
4. Where exactly on the bayfront?
a) Spectators on the bayfront between 'F' and 'J' Streets
b) Fireworks barge anchored in Bay directly west of Chula Vista Bayfront area.
5. Day and date of event:
Sunday, July 4, 1993
6. Time: Start 8:00 A.M. Finish 10:00 P.M.
7. Will traffic be affected?
Yes, Chula Vista Police Department will be controllin9 traffic in the area
throughout the event.
8. How many persons expected to attend?
10 ,000 - 15,000
9. If large group, what security arrangements have been made?
Chula Vista Police Department will be providing security and crowd
control throughout the event
10. If commercial or catered event, do you have liability insurance coverage?
NjA
Please return this checklist (within 10 working days) or your request for an event on Port tidelands will be
canceled.
4/93
8'" / r
1993 Fireworks Budget Detail
Fireworks Contract
Rental of Tug and Barge
Rental of Traffic Control Equipment
Rental of Portable Toilets
Additional Trash Receptacles
Shuttle Bus 'Service
Police Services
Parks and Recreation Staff
Miscellaneous Expenses
TOTAL
~., A.5
t:.
$ 16,500
1,725
340
1,150
300
795
6,200
400
100
$ 27,510
:D
INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT - ROHR, INC.
The City of Chula Vista agrees to indemnify and hold harmless
Rohr, Inc., from any liability arising from the City's use of
Rohr, Inc.'s employee parking lot located at "8" Street and Marina
Parkway. Said property, which is owned/leased by Rohr, Inc. will
be used for public parking during a City sponsored Fourth of July
Fireworks display on Sunday, July 4, 1993.
The City of Chula Vista also agrees to defend Rohr, Inc. in any
litigation arising from this activity.
DATE
Tim Nader, Mayor
City of Chula Vista
r.-/~
June 14, 1993
TO: Councilman Jerry Rindone
FROM:
John D. Goss, City Manager)/-
.
Response to Questions regarding the June 15, 1993 Agenda
SUBJECT:
Following are staff's responses to your comments/questions regarding items on the
above referenced Council agenda.
Item 3 - Flex Plan for Assistant City Manager
1. Please provide the date of the Council meeting when the referral of this
item was requested by Council.
The flex plan amount for the Assistant City Manager was originally discussed at
the January 12, 1993 Council meeting.
2. Please provide the minutes of the meeting when the Council referral was
made.
Attached are the minutes from the January 12, 1993 meeting.
Item 8 - Contract for Fireworks Display
1. The cost of the fireworks to the contractor is $16,500. Is only $14,000
funded by the City and $2,500 from.KKLQ radio station?
The City is contracting with San Diego Fireworks for $16,500. The sponsoring
radio station is providing an additional $2,500 in fireworks. The net result
will be that the Chula Vista fireworks display will consist of $19,000 worth of
fireworks.
2. Why was this not broken down in the fiscal impact statement instead of
Attachment E, budget detail?
Staff has historically provided the Fourth of July budget detail as a separate
attachment. However, your point is well taken and the department will include
this information in the Fiscal Impact part of the staff report in the future.
3. What, if any, publicity coordination is planned with the fireworks held at
the marina and planned at EastLake?
rhere has been no publicity coordination, sirce it is staff's understanding that
EastLake prefers to target their fireworks promotional material to EastLake
residents only.
CO-,)7
-
-
Item 9 - Beer and Wine Sales at 1498 Melrose
1. Who was the "no" vote for this direction?
The motion on the beer and alcohol sales was combined with that of the m1n1-
mart/car wash CUP use. Since Councilman Moore voted "no" on the mini-mart/car
wash use, his "no" vote is also reflected for the beer and~wine sales. I am
attaching a copy of the minutes from the June 1 Council meeting when this item
was discussed.
Item 11 - Adoption of 1993-94 Budget
1. On Page 11-3, under MIS, staff is recommending a reclassification of an
Administrative Analyst 11 to Senior Management Analyst. Why?
Attached is the commentary from the proposed budget which discusses the reasons
for reclassification of this position.
2. The $4,006 listed under Personnel for correction of salary benefit level
for the Assistant Director is recommended for what purpose?
This was a computer input error which needs to be corrected.
3. On Page 11-4, why is the $889,600 for the Equipment Replacement Fund not
listed under General Fund expenditure adjustment. Please explain.
The Equipment Replacement Fund was established by resolution in 1985 to account
for vehicle replacement charges made against City departments (via account #5270,
Vehicle Replacement) to finance the eventual replacement of the vehicles assigned
to them. In order to make expenditures from this fund, Council must appropriate
the funds thereunder.
Item 13 - Solid Waste Participation Agreement
1. This is a difficult and complex subject. Staff listed on Page 4 of the
report five possible alternative dispos.al options. However, one which was
not listed (which I think needs serious consideration) is to establish a
South County JPA for solid waste landfill purposes for the four South Bay
cities (and/or Lemon Grove). Has staff explored this option? Please
provide staff's recommendation regarding this alternative.
At the staff level, there has been no interest expressed by the Cities of
National City, Imperial Beach, Coronado or Lemon Grove to pursue a South County
JPA for a lternat i ve opt ions to the County system. A 11 of these cities have
previously approved the Agreement, and at least one city has committed 100% of
its waste flow.
Conceptually, such a JPA could serve the same purpose in the South Bay as it has
in North County, if the desire is to seriously examine exiting (or possible
contracting with) the County system. Although it 1S unclear how the idea would
be received by the other cities, it should be pursued as a possible consideration
during whatever timeframe is eventually determined to be available for
pursuing options.
~
'G)V
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 9
Meeting Date 6/15/93
ITEM TITLE: Resolution / 7) '1 J Reversing the decision of the Zoning
Administrator and thereby denying the issuance of Conditional Use
Permit PCC-93-IO for beer and wine sales at 1498 Melrose Avenue
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning~?
REVIEWED BY: City ManagerJl1 ~~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No_XJ
On June I, 1993, the City Council held and closed the public hearing on Conditional Use
Permit PCC-93-1O, an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator approving a request
by Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. to sell beer and wine at a proposed mini-market at
1498 Melrose Avenue in the C-N zone. By a vote of 4-1, Council directed staff to prepare
candidate findings for denial of PCC-93-IO to be considered at the meeting of June 15, 1993.
The attached resolution would reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator and thereby
deny PCC-93-IO to sell beer and wine at 1498 Melrose Avenue. Attached hereto is the
previous staff report on this item.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution denying PCC-93-1O to sell beer
and wine at 1498 Melrose Avenue.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
WPC F:\home\planning\991.93
9-/ /Of-cL
RESOLUTION NO. I?) If /
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND THEREBY DENYING
THE ISSUANCE OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-
93-10 FOR BEER AND WINE SALES AT 1498 MELROSE
AVENUE
WHEREAS, Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. ("Texaco") has represented that they
are the owners of the real property commonly known as 1498 Melrose Avenue in the City of
Chula Vista ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, the Property is in a C-N Zone; and,
WHEREAS, Texaco has indicated a desire to improve the Property with a Texaco mini-
market, and in conjunction therewith engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site use
or consumption; and,
WHEREAS, Section 19.34.030 (H) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires that a
conditional use permit ("CUP") be granted to allow the use of the Property in the manner
desired; and,
WHEREAS, Texaco has applied to the City for a conditional use permit as required by
said Section 19.34.030 (H) which application was filed with the Planning Department of the City
of Chula Vista on September 15, 1992, by Texaco; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority vested in the Zoning Administrator by Section
19.14.030 (A) (6) to grant such a conditional use permit, the Zoning Administrator did set 3:00
p.m., October 1, 1992, in Conference Rooms 2 and 3, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth
Avenue, as the time and place for a hearing on said conditional use permit application, No.
PCC-93-1O, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its mailing to
property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior
to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely before the
Zoning Administrator and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, the Enviromnental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposal is
exempt from enviromnental review as a minor alteration in land use in accordance with Section
15305 Class 5 of the CEQA Guidelines and Class 5F of the City of Chula Vista Enviromnental
Review Procedures; and,
9,.3
Resolution No.
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator granted conditional use permit No. PCC-93-1O
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in his letter of January 7, 1993;
and,
WHEREAS, on January 14, 1993, within the time allowed by law for an appeal pursuant
to the provisions of Section 19. 14.030(A)(6), Councilman Robert P. Fox filed an appeal of the
Zoning Administrator's grant of permit; and,
WHEREAS, upon the filing of a timely appeal, the grant of the CUP is suspended, and
the jurisdiction to grant, modify, condition or deny the CUP is transferred to the authority
hearing the appeal; and,
WHEREAS, as required by Section 19.14.030 (A) (6), the City Clerk set the time and
place for a hearing on said appeal and notice of said hearing together with its purpose was given
by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property
owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 4:00 p.m.,
Tuesday, June 1, 1993, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council
and said hearing was thereafter closed, and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by a vote of 4-1, directed staff to prepare candidate
findings that would support a decision of denial of said CUP No. PCC-93-1O, and to return said
candidate findings for the Council's consideration at their meeting of June 15, 1993; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council took up the appeal of the granting of said CUP No.
PCC-93-1O again at their meeting of June 15, 1993, and as a result thereof, adopted this
resolution:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL hereby finds,
determines, orders and directs as follows:
Section 1. Section 19.14.080 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires the permit-
granting authority, in this case, the City Council, to make each of the following findings, and
with regard to such finding, the City Council finds as follows:
9rLj
Resolution No.
Page 3
a. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service
or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or
the community.
Finding No.1: The proposed use on the Property is not necessary to provide a service
or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or
community. Beer and wine and other alcoholic beverage products are presently available
at four existing facilities in the immediate area. This existing availability of alcoholic
beverage products is adequate to meet existing demand for the product.
Finding No.2: The proposed use on the Property is not desirable to provide a service
or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or
community. Evidence disclosed at the public hearing demonstrates that the neighborhood
suffers from a problem with minors and youth gangs loitering and drinking in the area
and in the cul-de-sac streets in the vicinity of the Property. It is common practice for
alcohol to be purchased for juveniles at two of the existing alcoholic beverage sales
facilities in the immediate area.
b. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working
in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or result in
an overconcentration of such facilities.
Finding No.3: Such use will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the
general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. The approval of this
facility in combination with the existing facilities will result in an over concentration of
alcoholic beverage sales facilities and is therefore likely to exacerbate the existing
problem with minors and youth gangs loitering and drinking in the immediate area,
thereby threatening the security and enjoyment of surrounding residents and business
persons.
Finding No.4: Such use will, under the circumstances of this case, result in an
overconcentration of such facilities. There are currently four existing commercial
establishments in the immediate vicinity of the Property that engage in a similar or
identical use.
c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified
in the code for such use.
9-5'
Resolution No.
Page 4
Finding No.5: Such use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the
code for such use.
d. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the
general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
Finding No.6: The granting of this CUP will adversely affect the general plan of the
City. The Housing Element of the General Plan calls for the protection of the quality -of-
life of existing settlements within the planning area. It is found that the approval of an
additional alcoholic beverage sales facility within this particular neighborhood would
threaten the quality-of-life for surrounding residents and business persons based on the
findings noted above.
Section 2. The City Council does hereby reverse the decision of the Zoning
Administrator and denies granting CUP No. PCC-93-1O for the sale of beer and wine at the
subject Property.
Presented by
MIDI
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning
Bruce Boogaard, City
WPC F:\home\planning\992-1.93
9,&
Minutes
June 1, 1993
Page 3
resolution. (Director of Public Works and Director of Parks and Recreation) Pulled from the Consent
Calendar.
7. REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENrATION OF THE
CAUFORNIA GNATCATCHER AS A TIiREATENED SPECJES - On 3/25/93, the California Gnatcatcher was
listed by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior as "threatened" under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Until
an interim conservation process is adopted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California
Department of Fish and Game in the next several months, no "take" (harm, harassment or disturbance) of
the species or occupied coastal sage scrub habitat is permitted unless the applicant obtains the necessary
Federal permits or approvals. The administrative procedures will provide consistent review of projects within
the City. Staff recommends Council accept the report. (Director of Planning)
City Manager Goss informed Council that staff requested the item be pulled from the agenda.
8. REPORT CHANGES TO CHULA VISTA TRANSIT (CVf) ROUTES 706AAND 712 -The
proposed changes to cvr Routes 706A and 712 would expand the service area of each route. Staff
recommends Council accept the report and approve the changes effective 7/1193. (Director of Public Works)
Councilmember Rindone stated he was concerned there was no way to use Chula Vista Transit on Fourth
Avenue going south. He was not sure that was something the City wanted to perpetuate for the long run.
MSUC (NaderlHorton) to approve the report and staff recommendations.
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
R 'PUBUC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLtJITONS AND ORDINANCES
~ CQ:UC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-91-24; APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
<<';~MMISSION APPROVAL OF REQUEST TO REDEVELOP SERVICE STATION AND ADD MINI-MARKET AND
"". B3J..'tCAR WASH AT 1498 MELROSE AVENUE . The proposal was approved by the Planning Commission in
,,,,,,~t.'r' January 1992 and consequently appealed by Council in response to concerns with traffic impacts and an
V over.concentration of alcohol sales facilities. Consideration of the appeal has been postponed to coincide
with reconsideration of the alcohol sales issue. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Planning) Continued from the meeting of 5/25/93.
RESOLtJITON 17133 AFFlRM1NG THE DECJSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
THEREBY APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-91-24 TO REDEVELOP A
SERVICE STATION AND ADD A MINI-MARKET AND CAR WASH AT 1498 MELROSE AVENUE
Mayor Nader stated Items 9 and 10 would be heard concurrently.
Steve Griffin, Senior Planner, gave a brief history of the project and reviewed the staff report. The Zoning
Administrator had placed the following conditions on the permit: 1) no video games; 2) an exterior lighting
plan; 3) no advertising of beer and wine; 4) strict limitation as to the areas devoted to alcohol sales; 5) the
payphone would not be capable of accepting incoming calls; 6) provision that would allow the phone or
promotional displays to be removed at the sole discretion of the Zoning Administrator, in consultation with
the Police Department if problems arose; and 7) review of the permit in one year by the Police Department
and Planning Department. The approval had been separated so Council could approve the mini-market
9-7
Minutes
June 1, 1993
Page 4
fJr~.~
. .',","
'Jj.", A
'c~")r-
without having to approve alcohol sales. Resolution 17133 would authorize the conditional use permit for
the mini-market and car wash.
Councilmember Horton questioned the percentage of reclaimed water used in the car wash.
Mr. Griffin stated the condition required that 80% of the water be reclaimed. He had been told that was
achievable but anything beyond that was not achievable by modem technology.
Councilmember Fox questioned what the impact would be if alcohol sales were allowed but floor displays
were not allowed. At the time he appealed the decision, his argument was that if character and image of
the neighborhood was considered there was an over concentration.
Mr. Griffin stated Council could choose to make that finding. The discussion regarding ten facilities
representing an over concentration was the State standard.
Councilmember Fox stated the staff report acknowledged there had been problems with runners and gangs
in the area and Texaco was sensitive to the concerns which was demonstrated in their design. He was not
convinced that design would alleviate the problem of adults purchasing alcohol for minors.
Councilmember Moore expressed concern regarding damage to the asphalt due to water from the car wash.
He did not see any corrective action in the report, i.e. concrete in the runways for exiting the carwash.
Mr. Griffin responded that particular provision was not required. The facility would use a blower system
for drying which was more effective in removing the water. Condition 2 obligated the applicant or any
successors to repair any water damage if it did occur.
Mayor Nader referred to Condition 7 and questioned whether the removal of the phone referred to any
criminal activity, not just loitering. He also questioned whether the discretion to remove the pay phone
could be given directly to the Police Department as they would be in the best position to ascertain the
problem.
Mr. Griffin stated Planning would not object to such an amendment to the condition.
Mayor Nader referred to Condition 9 and stated the language seemed construable as preventing the City
from imposing any significant restriction on alcohol sales as it would be a loss of revenue the permittee
would not be expected to cover in the normal operation of business.
City Attorney Boogaard stated the Planning Department was adding Condition 9 to all CUP's and it acted
independently of Condition 8 which allowed review in one year solely on the basis of alcohol beverage sales
and allowed right of review independent of Condition 9. After that review it allowed modifications or
revocation for violations of Condition 8.
Mayor Nader questioned whether it was the City Attorney's opinion that if Condition 8 was invoked there
could not be an argument made under Condition 9 that would lead to litigation or other difficulties.
City Attorney Boogaard recommended adding the words "not withstanding the provisions of Condition 9"
to Condition 8.
Mayor Nader questioned whether Council was required to make a finding that the proposed use was
necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which contributed to the well being of the
neighborhood or the community.
9-~
CO.o~
A Minutes
Uh June 1, 1993
4'f'A Page 5
~J::
~C
City Attorney Boogaard stated the Mayor was correct. OA
Mayor Nader questioned if that was the only basis staff had for finding the proposed use was necessary, 't'
that the sale of beer or wine was considered a desirable convenience for the surrounding areas.
Mr. Griffin responded that was the finding.
Councilmember Horton questioned what areas of the City had the 120% crime rate which was commonly
used to identify high crime areas.
Lieutenant Wilson responded it was a difficult question when using the formula used by Alcoholic Beverage
Control. There were ten reporting districts within the City and they took the overall projected crime per year
and inserted it into their formula at the 100% level. Reported crimes included auto theft, rape, murder,
robbery, aggravated assault, and larceny. If it was 120% or more it was considered excessive and a protest
could be made based on that. He did not have the information designating those areas at the meeting. The
ABC would take a protest if there was an aggravating police problem at the location.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
. Patrick Fiedler, 2322 West Third Street, Los Angeles, CA, Project Engineer, Fred Fiedler & Associates,
stated the overall design was state of the art. They had worked with staff over the past two years to develop
the landscaping treatment and driveway location. The orientation of the pump islands and building was
designed to make gasoline the main focus. Lighting was very important to them as their studies showed that
customers would come back to a well lit facility. The lack of video games and sidewalks around the building
were deliberate in an effort to reduce loitering. Texaco had a policy to use concrete for the entire site of
car washes. The use of reclaimed water reduced the water per wash to approximately five gallons versus
25 - 40 gallons of water used if a car was washed at home.
. Ralph Saltsman, 426 Culver Blvd., Play del Rey, CA, Attorney representing Texaco, stated he wanted
to address the issuance of a beer and wine conditional use permit. Texaco could live without floor displays
and would find that condition acceptable. With respect to the issue of over concentration, he referred to
the Municipal Code Section 19.14.030 which stated over concentration was the issue in which the Zoning
Administrator could make a determination upon issuance or denial of the CUP. That issue was the focal
point of the determination made by the City earlier and the staff report dwelled extensively on that issue
and its various ramifications. He then reviewed the definition of over concentration. He stated the impact
of the facility on traffic and traffic flow, as stated in the report, would not be a significant impact. It was
their experience that the facility was not a destination point but a location along the way. The police
department stated it was not a high crime area. Under Criteria 2 and part of Criteria 3 there was no over
concentration under Rule 61.3. The service station would be providing a new service to the area. Texaco
wanted to build the facility and he had been told it was a package deal in that each and every component,
i.e. car wash, food, gasoline, beer and wine sales, all formed the necessary formula to make the project
economically viable. He felt all the terms of the ordinance which could affirmatively be met by the staff
report and Council's findings had been met.
Mayor Nader stated the ordinance required that not only the Zoning Administrator and Council, in reviewing
the Zoning Administrator's decision, find that there was no over concentration but also that based on
substantial evidence that all facts required by Section 19.14.080 existed. He questioned whether that
referred to the findings that had to be made if the resolution were to be adopted.
City Attorney Boogaard responded Section 19.14.080 was the section that required the four findings on pages
10-8 and 10-9. The over concentration provision was not included.
9"'9
<>
~~
~O.b
r
Minutes
June 1, 1993
Page 6
. Dave Mattson, 9966 San Diego Mission Road, San Diego, CA, representing Texaco, gave a brief
history of the project. He stated Texaco realized the right to sell beer and wine was a privilege. They had
an ongoing training program in San Diego and their people were brought in every ninety days for training
on alcoholic beverage sales. Anyone purchasing an alcoholic beverage in their facility had to show an \D,
no matter what their age. The nearest car wash to the facility was the Shell Station at I-80S and Main
Street. There was a self-serve Texaco car wash on Third and Palomar.
Councilmember Fox questioned whether the prohibition of beer and wine sales would impact Texaco's
decision to develop the facility.
Mr. Mattson responded that investment funds were extremely limited within his company and the petroleum
industry and opportunities were very great. They would take the project that made the most economic
sense. Mr. Saltzman had indicated that Texaco would give up floor displays and he would recommend to
management they give up the abiliry to have floor displays. However, he felt it would be adequately covered
in the one year overview of the CUP if granted. If Texaco found it to be a problem it would be in their
interest not to have floor displays.
Councilmember Moore questioned the stacking distance on Orange going east at the light at Melrose.
Mr. Griffin stated it was a right in and right out only.
Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer, stated there would be a dedication on Orange and a partial widening on
Melrose.
Councilmember Rindone stated it was a difficult decision and questioned whether Texaco would proceed
if Council conditioned the CUP with a one year review.
Mr. Mattson responded that Texaco would probably proceed based on their ability to control that portion
of their business.
. Crystal Sanders, 1517 Melrose, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation.
She felt the facility would create higher traffic and lower property values. The area would also have
increased traffic due to the Olympic Training Center and the library. There was a large concentration of
children in the area and she expressed concern regarding their safety. The existing bus stops were also a
concern regarding accidents. She requested that Council review the crime rate in the area which was
extremely high.
. Faith E. Williams, 257 Sandstone Street, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition to the staff report and
stated she did not feel crime should be the only criteria and recommended that noise be considered. Since
the shopping center had been remodeled, noise had increased in the area 100%. She urged the Council to
reject the proposal.
. Veronica Eberle, 1505 Marble Way, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition of the staff report and
stated there was an elementary school two .blocks away and the children had to cross the street. She
expressed concern regarding the additional traffic that would be generated and noted the traffic counts in
the report had been taken before the Lucky's had moved into the area. There were already four facilities
selling alcohol which she felt was sufficient. She was not opposed to the mini-mart or car wash. She
presented Council with a petition signed by fifty residents and businesses in the area.
Mayor Nader questioned whether there was a trend in crime for the neighborhood.
9..../(J
~~ ~inutes
~~une 1, 1993
~ A. Page 7
~,.
~s. Eberle responded there wete more kids hanging out and drinking in the cul-de-sacs. Loitering ha~A
a large problem in the past and she felt it was again happening. #fttII ;
. Jonie Gypto, 362 Tourmaline Court, Chula Vista, CA, spoke against the staff report. She felt crime
had increased in the area and was against the sale of beer and wine.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Councilmember Horton felt the car wash and mini.mart were desirable but she was opposed to the sale of
alcohol. The staff report stated the existing facilities were hang-outs for youth and it was a common practice
for alcohol to be purchased for them at the two locations.
RESOLUl10N 17133 OFFERED BY COUNClLJl.1El\1BER HORTON, reading of the text was waived. Staff was
directed to return within two weeks with a resolution which set forth findings that would reasonably support
a decision to reject the CUP for PCC-93-10 for alcohol sales and continue the public hearing to 6/15/93.
Referral to staff was seconded by Councilmember Fox.
Councilmember Fox stated he would support the motion. He felt it was common practice for liquor to be
sold to minors in the area. He could not justify that the facility would enhance the neighborhood as he felt
there was an over concentration. He expressed concern over the amount of time the process had taken.
Councilmember ~oore stated the CUP must be for the overall good of the neighborhood and he did not feel
there was a demand for a mini-mart or sale of alcoholic beverages. He also felt there was a traffic problem
in the area.
~ayor Nader stated no member of the neighborhood or community had come forward in support of the
facility. He could not find evidence to support Finding 1. He would support the motion and commended
the residents on their involvement and participation in the Neighborhood Crime Watch program. He shared
Councilmember Fox's concern regarding the amount of time taken to process the request.
Councilmember Rindone stated the proposed project was beneficial to the community and neighborhood as
it was a significant upgrade in the appearance of the property and would provide new services to the
community. He did not feel anyone on the Council was advocating increasing the number of locations for
the sale of alcoholic beverages.
VOTE ON ~OTION: approved 4-1 with ~oore opposed.
MS [Rindone/Nader) to refer to staff for a report back in 30 - 45 days with recommendations on what could
be done to deal with concerns expressed at the public hearing for operators of premises that currently had
the right to dispense alcoholic beverages.
~ayor Nader questioned whether it was the intent of the motion that the Police Department be directed to
look at the problem in association with existing alcohol outlets exclusively or in any particular higher
priority over other problems they identified.
Councilmember Rindone stated Council had heard concerns regarding loitering, beer running, youth
congregating in parking lots, etc. and he wanted a staff referral to examine the situation and return with
recommendations if the concerns were validated.
~ayor Nader stated he could support the motion if staff looked at the referral in the context of the "big
picture".
Councilmember Rindone stated that was understood.
VOTE ON ~OTION: approved unanimously.
9~//
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT OF JUNE 1, 1993
PROVIDED FOR BACK-UP INFORMATION
9//3
~~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item j
Meeting Date 6/1/93
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit PCC-93-1O; Appeal of Zoning
Administrator approval of request to sell alcoholic beverages at proposed
mini-market at 1498 Melrose Avenue - Councilman Fox
Resolution AffIrming the decision of the Zoning
Administrator and thereby approving PCC-93-1O
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planni~g Jilt.
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.1U
This item has been continued from the meetings of May 4 and May 25,1993. In each instance
the mailing list has been renotified of the new hearing date well before the meeting.
On January 7, 1993, the Zoning Administrator, in consultation with the Police Department,
conditionally approved an application by Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. to sell beer and
wine at a proposed mini-market at 1498 Melrose A venue in the CoN zone. An appeal of the
Zoning Administrator's decision was filed by Councilman Fox on January 14, 1993.
The consideration of this appeal is contingent upon the approval of PCC-91-24, Texaco's
proposal for a mini-market and car wash at 1498 Melrose. PCC-91-24 is the preceding item
on the agenda.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposal is exempt from
environmental review as a minor alteration in land use in accordance with Section 15305 Class
5 of the CEQA Guidelines and Class SF of the City of Chula Vista Enviromnental Review
Procedures.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution affirming the decision of the
Zoning Administrator and thereby approving PCC-93-1O.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
In May of last year, Council postponed action on the Texaco mini-market and car wash
proposal in order to consider a local review and approval process for alcohol sales facilities
in CoN zones. On August 25, 1992 (Ordinance No. 2526), Council adopted a process which
requires a Zoning Administrator conditional use permit with a public hearing for all new
C;-/L(
10,... ,
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 6/1193
alcohol facilities in the CoN zone (see attached copy of CVMC Section 19.J4.030(A)(6)).
Note: On April 20, 1993, Council adopted an urgency interim ordinance which also applies
this process to the expansion or modification of alcohol sales in the CoN zone. Staff was
directed to return with a permanent amendment within 60 days.
In addition to the normal fmdings required for a CUP, in the case of alcohol sales facilities,
the Zoning Administrator, in consultation with the Police Department, is required to fmd that
the proposal will not result in an overconcentration of such facilities. An overconcentration
may be found to exist based on the following factors:
1. The number and location of existing facilities;
2. Compliance with State Alcohol Beverage Control overco~centration standards
in effect at the time of project consideration;
3. The impact of the proposed facility on crime; and
4. The impact of the proposed facility on traffic volume and traffic flow.
The process also calls for the City Council to be informed of the Zoning Administrator's
decision, and the Councilor other interested party can appeal the matter directly to the City
Council for public hearing.
DISCUSSION:
The following discussion is taken from the Zoning Administrator's approval letter of January
7, 1993:
Neighboring residents and business people, as well as the Neighborhood Watch Block Captain,
have voiced concerns that an additional sales outlet for beer and wine will exacerbate an
already existing problem with minors and youth gangs loitering and drinking in the area, and
will also have an adverse impact on traffic. The immediate area presently contains a grocery
store, a convenience market and a liquor store which sell alcohol for off-premise consumption,
and a bar which serves alcohol for on-premise consumption.
Crime Statistics
The Police Department reviewed crime statistics for the immediate area and for the police beat
and census tract in which the property is located; the census tract being the geographic area
of measurement used by ABC to determine if an overconcentrated condition exists. The beat
officer for the area was also interviewed, and comparative data was obtained for a Texaco
mini-market with beer and wine sales at 1291 Third Avenue.
9//~
( 0 .-'7/
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 6/1/93
The crime figures reveal that there were 70 crime occurrences, mostly petty thefts, within 1/10
mile radius of the site since January, 1992, which is fairly significant. The crime rate for the
police beat and census tract are 44% and 56% of the crime rate for the City as a whole, which
is well below the 120% rate commonly used to identify a high crime rate area. The recent
addition of a mini-market with beer and wine sales at the Texaco facility at 1291 Third Avenue
has not had an impact on the crime rate at that location. Beyond the statistics and comparative
data, however, the beat officer for the area confirms statements by the neighbors that the
existing liquor store and convenience market on Melrose A venue are hangouts for juveniles,
and that it is common practice for alcohol to be purchased for them at these two locations.
In reviewing Texaco's proposal with the Police Department, it was agreed that the Texaco
facility would likely be much less conducive to loitering and second pm;ty alcohol purchases
than the existing liquor store and convenience market because of the layout of the site. The
1,800 sq. ft. mini-market is proposed to be located on an "island" in the center of the site,
surrounded by gas service lanes, a car wash and circulation drives. There are no raised, paved
pedestrian areas adjacent to the market for juveniles to loiter or to waylay adult customers to
make alcohol purchases for them. The Police also noted that the "island" location maximizes
exposure and visibility for patrol purposes, and should discourage "beer runners" -- those who
grab beer and run from the store -- which were referred to by the operator of the neighboring
7/Eleven store.
The Police Department is also favorably impressed with Texaco's policies on alcohol sales,
which include an extensive and ongoing training and alcohol awareness program for employees
(see supplemental information submitted by Texaco). Employees are required to check the
identification of anyone purchasing alcohol regardless of their age, and signs are posted to this
effect at the register, on the coolers and on lapel pins worn by all store employees. No neon
or internally illuminated beer or wine advertising signs are allowed, and they do not offer
single can sales of beer. It was also noted by Texaco that they do not provide video games
on the premises, which discourages loitering by juveniles.
The Police Department concludes that although they may see additional calls for service from
this location, they do not believe it is likely that the facility will contribute to the problem of
juveniles loitering and drinking in the area and, therefore, they are not opposed to the issuance
of this permit. Nevertheless, they recommended that the situation should be monitored and
reviewed in order to ensure that the sales of beer and wine at this location is not contributing
to these or any other problems which would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. As
a result, the permit has been conditioned upon review following one year of operation to
determine if problems or crime have increased as a result of the facility. It was further agreed
that additional conditions which would further discourage loitering and/or beer runners would
also be appropriate (see Conditions section).
;--/6
ID~?>
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 6/1193
Traffic
With respect to potential traffic problems, the City Traffic Engineer reports that the addition
of a mini-market and car wash will increase traffic in and out of the site by approximately 68
vehicles per day, from 1,012 ADT presently to approximately 1,080 ADT with implementation
of the project. This small additional amount of traffic is not expected to have an adverse
impact on traffic in the area. Further, this type of development generally attracts a large
percentage of trips from traffic already using the adjacent streets. According to regional traffic
studies, the actual number of new trips added to the surrounding circulation system may
amount to only 50% of the additional 68 in-and-out trips expected as a result of the project.
Finally, the availability of beer and wine in the mini-market is not expected to increase
patronage significantly when considered separately from the mini-market..or the car wash, and
thus the trip generation for this proposal (beer and wine sales) will not be affected.
According to the City Traffic Engineer, the overall issue of traffic impacts should therefore be
considered in conjunction with Texaco's conditional use permit application to redevelop the
site with a mini-market and car wash, which is the preceding item on the agenda.
Concentration of Licenses
The State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control determines that an overconcentration of
alcohol sales facilities exists when the ratio of licenses to population for the census tract
exceeds the ratio for the county as a whole. The site at 1498 Melrose is within a census tract
wherein the optimum number of licenses is~ and the number of licenses already issued is
eight. Therefore, the issuance of a license to . exaco would not result in an overconcentration
of facilities according to the ABC standard.
One of the four factors which may be considered by the Zoning Administrator in determining
if an overconcentration of facilities exists is the number and location of existing facilities in
an area. This factor may consider the impact on the character or "image" of an area (which
may include the issue of loitering as discussed above) rather than from more measurable
consequences such as crime rates, traffic impacts or the quantitative standards used by the
ABC. In this instance, the sale of alcoholic beverages will be only one of many products
offered for sale by the Texaco mini-market, and the same is true of the grocery store and the
convenience market. Thus of the existing four and potentially five alcohol sales facilities in
the immediate area (including the bar), only two -- the liquor store and bar -- offer alcoholic
beverages as their primary product. Consequently, it is not believed that the approval of
Texaco's application will contribute to any real or perceived degradation of neighborhood
character resulting from an overconcentration of establishments primarily involved in the sale
of alcohol.
~~/7
I D -I.(
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 6/1/93
Based upon these factors, the Zoning Administrator approved the permit subject to the
following conditions.
CONDITIONS:
I. This permit shall not become valid or effective unless and until Conditional Use Permit
PCC-91-24 is approved to establish a mini-market on the property.
2. There shall be no video games associated with the operation.
3. A complete exterior lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Director of Planning prior to issuance of building permits. The plan shall be designed
so as to provide uniform lighting and avoid shadow areas adjacent to the facility, but
also avoid glare onto adjacent residential areas.
4. There shall be no advertising or promotional signs for beer and wine visible from the
exterior of the store.
5. Landscaped areas adjacent to the building shall contain plant materials which discourage
human contact.
6. Beer and wine shall only be displayed in cooler #'s 9, 10 and 11 and a maximum 25
sq. ft. floor display area as shown on the floor plan submitted with the application.
There shall be no other permanent or temporary promotional displays of alcoholic
beverages. If the floor display area should attract "beer runners", it shall be removed
at the sole discretion and direction of the Zoning Administrator in consultation with the
Police Department.
7. Any outside pay phone shall be incapable of receiving incoming calls. Should such a
pay phone attract loitering or otherwise be overused by juveniles, it shall be removed
at the sole discretion and direction of the Zoning Administrator in consultation with the
Police Department.
8. The conditional use permit shall be approved for a period of one year following the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy. At the end of that time, the permit shall be
reviewed to determine whether the sale of alcoholic beverages has exacerbated the
problems with minors loitering or drinking in the area or has led to an increase in the
number of reported crimes, in which case the permit shall be reconsidered for possible
inclusion of additional conditions or for revocation.
9. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified, or deleted conditions imposed
after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to
9-)~
)C_r-
Page 6, Item
Meeting Date 6/1193
health, safety or welfare which City shall impose after advance written notice to the
permittee and after the City has given to the permittee the right to be heard with regard
thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right or condition, may not
impose a substantial expense or deprive permittee of a substantial revenue source which
the permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to
economically recover.
10. This conditional use permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one
year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the
Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall cause this
permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation.
'.
FISCAL IMP ACT: Not applicable.
Attachments
Resolution
Locator
Project plans
Appeal form/statement
Zoning Administrator approval letter, January 7, 1993
Memo from Police Department, October 14, 1992
Notes from phone conversation with
Neighborhood Watch Block Captain, October 5, 1992
Minutes of Zoning Administrator hearing, October I, 1992
Written comments from public
Supplemental information submitted by Texaco
CVMC Section 19.14.030(A)(6)
Disclosure statement
WPC F:\homc\planning\8S0.93
c;J~/7
I O~"
.
..- -..
LOCATOR ..
. ~\..e OF ALGoHoLIC
.- s.e.V~Q~
-/ -
{ TJ)tN.~ ~taJ" . "''''1'". ]
. . 141& H~ ,,"'If.
N[]RT~O' ( ~- ."IS-\07o<O)
~ I' AliI I fi ill m m till
'ID'"' II
~ 1111" I I m!i IIti II
C911i~ !!!J I!~l~~~~
alii "i 1,.iI Ifh' J I
!! ~! 1!!i!I~!!!h~!llilll;i I !
g~il!!il'!II!ilill!ii!li!im "!
~el!illij!'iil:;II'I'!I!'I!!i!I! ~ !~
....llll!lliIC'Ci!llil.lilll ~ '.1
I ii, ~l !~!ii!~ii!!!'IUU','ill ili I ~
t i!!: dllmilllllilllilliiii' i U
-_.
I
s
I
)
(
I
s
I
/
I
H 9-;2/
~ 1111;.1 ;
, ' .' II !Ii' ' ,
I .Iql . '
1!S!i if "
II~ I l It ,: ms;l
I ! I, i I
1 ;, I
lmil
I - '-I Ill'
.. I .
1111 I I I ,II':"
" II!.II.!
I I Iln,l!
· II., .i11!I!l
II. I .;(,1/:1,
Ill" ~~:
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I.
Ii
I
~
-..-- - --
-
It~ ill, ~~~~"&~i,:~PJ:'!~,,I'J!:~~
I.. IiI 1;, ilf '" ;4'
" 'if j i.-
I J' Iii II/gl~1 !~d!ll
.1 if!. q q ~ i I'
I "I I I I If
II I II ,I ~'il E""~" E'il
I. '~. . . .
.. .
: .,.. .. .. .. ..
, Ii Ii ~ lill~~
ill I' !' I! II ~ J!
'I " ., "
I':: I , ; r Iii
I,: I
.-..A. _ _ ----.
- -
--
- -
~ 1-= ~ -= ... ~ 1 -- . ~ J-,r - T
,~I e EO ;>"Y.I~ e -l
· · fe. ~ ...
l t I .~ ~.~ ~I.' ~ FF. ~
l c& 1--/. \ ~ ~~. - ~ e
~ A I ^.tf ~~ 111 ~ -.
- · Il!JI IE II 0 I
L/~ ~I : l ~ ~ '- l
~ [~b II I IYv V /I~'II'~-~ :~: I
IT- ..1lI ~ -",-' n -: " .
II, ~ If < ~<
t-- CO> .~. 0
A..\. CO>
I II _ .!I~ -: ~t _ L
-
~.
! Ii I . I
I 1111' ! II
I ,II ;11 Ii I, III
R~" I,ll ~~,I;;~~MI,! h,lr
111'11,1, 'Wl! lili:.' 1~lll
I ~!h~di i~!!! ;!!!~mi !~!!!
i;ilil i;dl, WllIlh lid,
o ~ ~ ~
1 /;2,2
I
! II
II' UI
I IIi
~ % !
I ii i
Ie . . .
Irh ~i .;
ill !el:.
-d- qfi f
~ 1::1
Wll ,s I
I, 'I!J,111 Illffi'l
5 , I !1!!.!JtI, I ! I;" I;!
~, PU.f I "
I ~ l'LIlI, I II!
El '1!l!1!l!'1! ,f~
I.....
mj'!~li
"111
I. ~il~i
I I" jll!!11
: I : I I ":~11;1,
11111 ~a!1I1
-.
,., ~I'
"
CI
1
i<) ~I
FIL TI:R. - ~r
,.
, ,~ ... ,. / "
I [2]
/
g'~S" " "
CEILING CI CI
SYRUP " b
{8j _':f 'I [II
LINE-OUT ICE 0 ~
B ~ ,
,
" "
I"l
I
.'
I")
ELECTRICAL ~
CLOSET .1
-
STORAGE
ROOM
AM-2
10'-0"
CEILING
7'-3"
. 7'-3-
WALK-IN COOLER
#6
AM-e
D
11
3'-5"
[i]
7
8
3
e
I
-
-
.
o
./
"l
2" 2'-2"' 6"
7'-11 "
11'-1"
3'-2"
o
3'-0"
;..,
f
i<)
Ii .
-.:t.
,"
e
."
,
III
u
,
"
1").
"
IlO
1
b
I")
4"
5'-'0"
'1- )3
SALES ROOM
CHANGE
AREA
AM-3
II ==
II
I
...
f=
I
"
"
0\
."..-' -......
I \
/ REST ROOM \
AM-5
\ ~ /
\ '" CEIL~N~ 'Q
.w
,
,
.
l'
I -i
--r
"
[2]
... ."Q II
I REST ROOM', III
I AM-4 I I,
'8'-JL ,I
CEILING / I I
, I '
,
...
-
---rF -
~\~~~~.t ~l'~ Ill!1
/\\ .q1'1 Ii
II
~8
I.
I
I
, ~ Q:
III
III
"
I
S'-g" -
[i]~1 -
/0'
'-' .... ... n...
"
....- ~ ......,.. ....- -...,.. ---
-. ~
. v '-
.
~
'.
.
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
Date lleceived
Fie Paid
Receipt No.
Cue No:
Appeal Form
Appea' from the decision of: ~/Zoning CJ Planning [J 0ls1gn Review
~dministrator Commission Committee
APptllant:J..c&.l"f-i {?, ~x.. Phone ~'''I ~ 7~-:3:7b 1
Address: ;D80 MM;:;/N'- lX..~ ~R' C),u/ltl/,57"q, ('tIJ 9/7/0
J ...,
Request for: wb A.. - PU\ 'to c., -'1 g -/0
xamp e: zone c ange, varianc., .s gn rev .w, etc.
~A OPC OORC
+s
for the property located at: li9~
eouNci) LJ" II b~
../z. { ; kJ...'fJ.
- ~3
ate
. - - . - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To: Planning Department
Do Not Write In This Space
Date Appeal Filed:
Cue No:
Date of decision:
Receipt No:
The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the:
Planning Commission City Council on
4nn1ng C0Illl11551'On Secretary City Clerk
(This form to be filed 1n triplicate.)
Pl-60
. Rev. 12183
c; -)-7
- s--
U 1'- 14. 8 j
s.
6.
U4 ii t'Nl
*aUVftNl'A ~U!~~U ~ru
.t'Uj
.
mE CITY OF CHUU nST.4 PAR7l'DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Stntement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matt
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The folIowinS information must be disclosed:
1. Ust the names of .U peno", havlns a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor,
lubcontractor~ piaterial lupplier.
!J!E..~
2.
If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is' a corporation or partnership, list the nllmes of a~1
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares In the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
11Ib..v<
.
3.
If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or
trustor of ;,h~ trust.
IV';)A.I~
4.
Have you had more than S230 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boarc(sl Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_
No -A If yes, please indicate person(s):
Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
conll]l,Ctors who you have assigned to represent }'ou before the City in this matter.
t!3"x.. ,
Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed ~re than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No A If yes, state which
Councllmember(s):
PC'Slln is dc!inecl as: 'AIIY illdividlltll, firm, co.ptlnn~r,'lIip, jollll vtlll/'''', tlS,'oci(l/ioll, socitll club,frtlltr7lnl O/,,&tllI;Zflliun, corpor(l/ion,
~'WI., ,"/.fI, recti"tr, 1)'lIdiclII~, IIli.r tllld till)' ollltr e()/IIl/)', cll)' tllld eOllnll): eil)', /IIU1llelpaUly, dislriet or ollltr polilical slIbdil'isioll,
UI (III)' OIlier grUlIp or comb/l1m;OIl Dering tIS tll/nit,'
~ <~f j?~
Siglllllure llf contnl~tofPlj~ .
<:f?'~I'-I- ,~
Print or type /lame: of contructor/:lpplicant
IR....;"..: II .'<I\I(IJ
-(,,-
(NOTE: AIt;Jch a<ldilion~l pages as necessary)
D,I1e:: /- J 1-'13
-
9-)3
1.\,: I '.HllSCI,OSE,Tx.n
~~~
~~_:
----
"""--~~
- ~~--
CI1Y Of
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
January 7, 1993
Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc.
9966 San Diego Mission Road
San Diego, CA 92108
Attention: Dave Mattson
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit PCC-93-10; request to sell alcoholic beverages at
a proposed mini-market with 2asoline sales and car wash at 1498 Melrose
Avenue "
The Zoning Administrator has considered your request to sell alcoholic beverages (beer
and wine) at a proposed new mini-market with gasoline sales and car wash at 1498
Melrose Avenue in the CoN Neighborhood Commercial zone. A Zoning Administrator
public hearing was noticed and held on October 1, 1992, and written comments have
been received and considered from the Police Department, the City Traffic Engineer and
interested members of the public. Comments have also been solicited from the
Neighborhood Watch Block Captain for the area.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposal is exempt
from environmental review as a minor alteration in land use in accordance with Section
15305 Oass 5 of the CEQA Guidelines and Class 5F of the City of Chula Vista
Environmental Review Procedures.
The application has been considered under the provisions of Chapter 19.14.030(A)(6) of
the Chula Vista Municipal Code, which requires, in part, that the Zoning Administrator
find that the approval of the permit will not result in an overconcentration of alcohol
sales facilities. An overconcentration may be found to exist based on the following
factors:
1. The number and location of existing facilities;
2. Compliance with State Alcohol Beverage Control overconcentration
standards in effect at the time of project consideration;
3. The impact of the proposed facility on aime; and
4. The impact of the proposed facility on traffic volume and traffic
flow.
'1---~4.
']---
.--
276 FOURTH AVE,CHULA VISTA CALIFORNIA 9'9'011619,69'.5'0'
Conditional Use Permit PCC-93-10
Page 2
January 7, 1993
I>.iscussion
Neighboring residents and business people, as well as the Neighborhood Watch Block
Captain, have voiced concerns that an additional sales outlet for beer and wine will
exacerbate an already existing problem with minors and youth gangs loitering and
drinking in the area, and will also have an adverse impact on traffic. The immediate
area presently contains a grocery store, a convenience market and a liquor store which
sell alcohol for off-premise consumption, and a bar which serves alcohol for on-premise
consumption.
The Police Department reviewed crime statistics for the immediat~ area and for the
police beat and census tract in which the property is located; the census tract being the
geographic area of measurement used by ABC to determine if an overconcentrated
condition exists. The beat officer for the area was also interviewed, and comparative
data was obtained for a Texaco mini-market with beer and wine sales at 1291 Third
Avenue.
The crime figures reveal that there were 70 crime occurrences, mostly petty thefts, within
1/10 mile radius of the site since January, 1992, which is fairly significant. The crime
rate for the police beat and census tract are 44% and 56% of the crime rate for the City
as a whole, which is well below the 120% rate commonly used to identify a high crime
rate area. The recent addition of a mini-market with beer and wine sales at the Texaco
facility at 1291 Third Avenue has not had an impact on the crime rate at that location.
Beyond the statistics and comparative data, however, the beat officer for the area
confirms statements by the neighbors that the existing liquor store and convenience
market on Melrose' Avenue are hangouts for juveniles, and that it is common practice
for alcohol to be purchased for them at these two locations.
In reviewing Texaco's proposal with the Police Department, it was agreed that the
Texaco facility would likely be much less conducive to loitering and second party
alcohol purchases than the existing liquor store and convenience market because of the
layout of the site. The 1,800 sq. ft. mini-market is proposed to be located on an "island"
in the center of the site, surrounded by gas service lanes, a car wash and circulation
drives. There are no raised, paved pedestrian areas adjacent to the market for juveniles
to loiter or to waylay adult customers to make alcohol purchases for them. The Police
also noted that the "island" location maximizes exposure and visibility for patrol
purposes, and should discourage "beer runners" - those who grab beer and run from
the store - which were referred to by the operator of the neighboring 7/Eleven store.
The Police Department is also favorably impressed with Texaco's policies on alcohol
sales, which include an extensive and ongoing training and alcohol awareness program
9~;2 7
.--y-
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Conditional Use Permit PCC-93-10
Page 3
January 7, 1993
for employees. Employees are required to check theidentiiication of anyone purchasing
alcohol regardless of their age, and signs are posted to this effect at the register, on the
coolers and on lapel pins worn by all store employees. No neon or internally
illwninated beer or wine advertising signs are allowed, and they do not offer single can
sales of beer. It was also noted by Texaco that they do not provide video games on the
premises, which discourages loitering by juveniles.
The Police Department concludes that although they may see additional calls for service
from this location, they do not believe it is likely that the facility will contribute to the
problem of juveniles loitering and drinking in the area and, therefore, they are not
opposed to the issuance of this permit. Nevertheless, they recommended that the
situation should be monitored and reviewed in order to ensure that tl\e sales of beer and
wine at this location is not contributing to these or any other problems which would
have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. It was further agreed that additional
conditions which would further discourage loitering and/or beer runners would also be
appropriate (see Conditions section).
With respect to potential traffic problems, the Gty Traffic Engineer reports that the
addition of a mini-market and car wash will increase traffic in and out of the site by
approximately 150 vehicles per day, from 750 ADT presently to approximately 900 ADT
with implementation of the project. This small additional amount of traffic is not
expected to have an adverse impact on traffic in the area. Further, this type of
development generally attracts a large percentage of trips from traffic already using the
adjacent streets. According to regional traffic studies, the actual number of new trips
added to the surrounding circulation system may amount to only 50% of the additional
150 in-and-out trips expected as a result of the project. Finally, the availability of beer
and wine in the mini-market is not expected to increase patronage significantly when
considered separately from the mini-market or the car wash, and thus the trip generation
for the project will not be affected.
According to the City Traffic Engineer, the overall issue of traffic impacts should
therefore be considered in conjunction with Texaco's conditional use permit application
to redevelop the site with a mini-market and car wash, which is currently on appeal by
Council pending the resolution of the alcohol sales issue.
The State Department of Alroholic Beverage Control determines that an
overconcentration of alcohol sales facilities exists when the ratio of licenses to population
for the census tract exceeds the ratio for the county as a whole. The site at 1498 Melrose
is within a census tract wherein the optimum number of licenses is nine and the number
of licenses already issued is eight. Therefore, the issuance of a license to Texaco would
not result in an overconcentration of facilities according to the ABC standard.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
9 -,JY
1 /'
--
.
Conditional Use Permit PCC-93-10
Page 4
January 7, 1993
One of the four factors which may be considered by the Zoning Administrator in
determining if an overconcentration of facilities exists is the number and location of
existing facilities in an area. This factor may consider the impact on the character or
"image" of an area (which may include the issue of loitering as discussed above) rather
than from more measurable consequences such as aime rates, traffic impacts or the
quantitative standards used by the ABC. In this instance, the sale of alcoholic beverages
will be only one of many products offered for sale by the Texaco mini-market, and the
same is true of the grocery store and the convenience market. Thus of the existing four
and potentially five alcohol sales facilities in the immediate area (including the bar), only
two - the liquor store and bar - offer alcoholic beverages as their primary product.
Consequently, it is not believed that the approval of Texaco's application will contribute
to any real or perceived degradation of neighborhood character resulting from an
overconcentration of alcohol sales establishments.
Findinl!s
Based upon review of the project proposal, site plan and conditions in the vicinity, and
in consideration of the written comments, public testimony and other information
received on the application, the Zoning Administrator finds as follows:
1. fhat the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the
neighborhood or the community.
Beer and wine are products which are widely purchased by the public and which
are normally available in all grocery and convenience markets. The CoN zone is
specifically designed to provide convenience shopping for the surrounding
neighborhood areas. Absent a finding of overconcentration or other adverse
impact, the availability of beer and wine among the other products available at
the Texaco mini-market is considered a desirable convenience for those in the
surrounding areas who patronize the Texaco facility.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity
or result in an overconcentration of such facUities.
The location of the mini-market in the central portion of the site, surrounded by
circulation drives and with no exclusive pedestrian areas adjacent to the building
will discourage the loitering and second party alcohol purchases which have been
a concern in the area. The proposal as conditioned is not expected to have an
9/J9
.,../ () ---
"'!TV f"tI: ,.....1111 .. UleT.a
Conditional Use Permit PCC-93-10
Page 5
January 7, 1993
adverse impact on crime or traffic and will not result in an overconcentration of
alcohol sales facilities in terms of ABC standards or in terms of negatively
affecting the character of the area by a proliferation of businesses primarily
dealing with alcoholic beverages.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified :.n the code for such use.
The use shall be required to comply with all applicable codes, conditions and
regulations prior to occupancy and on a continuing basis thereafter. The permit
has been approved for an initial one year period in ord~r to provide for
monitoring and review and to ensure that the sale of beer and wine has not had
an unforeseen adverse impact on the area.
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the
general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The granting of the permit would not affect the General Plan or any other
adopted plan or policy.
Conditions
1. This permit shall not become valid or effective unless and until Conditional Use
Permit PCC-91-24 is approved to establish a mini-market on the property.
2. There shall be no video games associated with the operation.
3. A complete exterior lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval by
the Director of Planning prior to issuance of building permits. The plan shall be
designed so as to provide uniform lighting and avoid shadow areas adjacent to
the facilitj. but also avoid glare onto adjacent residential areas.
4. There shall be no advertising or promotional signs for beer and wine visible from
the exterior of the store.
5. Landscaped areas adjacent to the building shall contain plant materials which
discourage human contact.
6. Beer and wine shall only be displayed in cooler #'s 9, 10 and 11 and a maximum
25 sq. ft. floor display area as shown on the floor plan submitted with the
application. There shall be no other permanent or temporary promotionalh
9--- 3tl
~tI -----
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Conditional Use Permit PCC-93-10
Page 6
January 7,1993
displays of alcoholic beverages. If the floor display area should attract "beer
runners", it shall be removed at the sole discretion and direction of the Zoning
Administrator in consultation with the Police Department.
7. Any outside pay phone shall be incapable of receiving incoming calls. Should
such a pay phone attract loitering or otherwise be overused by juveniles, it shall
be removed at the sole discretion and direction of the Zoning Administrator in
consultation with the Police Department.
8. The conditional use permit shall be approved for a period of one year following
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. At the end of that time, the permit
shall be reviewed to determine whether the sale of alcoholic beverages has
exacerbated the problems with minors loitering or drinking in the area or has led
to an increase in the number of reported crimes, in which case the permit shall
be reconsidered for possible inclusion of additional conditions or for revocation.
9. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified, or deleted conditions
imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental
interest related to health, safety or welfare which City shall impose after advance
written notice to the permittee and after the City has given to the permittee the
right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the Oty, in exercising this
reserved right or condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive
permittee of a substantial revenue source which the permittee cannot, in the
normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover.
10. This conditibnal use permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized
within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section
19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any condition of
approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the Oty for additional
conditions or revocation.
You have the right to appeal this decision to the Oty Council. A completed appeal form
along with a fee of $175.00 must be received by this office within ten days of the date
of this letter. Forms are available from the Planning Department. In the absence of an
appeal by any party in interest, including the Oty Council, the decision of the Zoning
Administrator is final. '
9-3/
,;)- ..-
,/
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Conditional Use Permit PCC-93-10
Page 7
January 7, 1993
Four copies of a Notice of Exemption from environmental review have been filed with
the County Clerk. The Clerk will mail three to us and we will forward one to you.
teve Griffin, A.I.C.P.
Principal Planner
Acting Zoning Administrator
cc:
Bob Leiter, Director of Planning
Rick Emerson, Chief of Police
Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney
Dick Foster, Code Enforcement
Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
I
Attachment
Site and floor plan
WPC F:\hoIM\planning\4JO.92
..
9 -3J--
~ ...-
,....1
CITY OF CHUV. VISTA
.
.. ...
rNTERDEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
RECE!V::D
OCT 1 5 1992
DATE:
'1'0:
VrA:
FROM:
October 14, 1992
PLII'~.~:NG
Bob Leiter, Director of Plannfr~J/
Rick Emerson, Chief of POlic~
Merlin L. Wi~ Lieutenant, rnvestigation
Division
SUBJECT :
Police rnput on Conditional Use Permit for Alcohol
Sales at 1498 Melrose Avenue
The Chula vista Police Department is sensitive to the community
and their concerns involv1ng the sale of alcohol, proliferation
of licenses to dispense alcohol and the crime rate. rt is the
police department's position to protest the sale of'alcohol if it
adversely impacts the health, safety and welfare of a
neighborhood or aggravates an existing police problem.
The police department looked at this area very carefully as it
relates to crime, arrests and undue concentration of alcoholic
beverage licenses.
The crime rate on the census tract (13304) is 55.6%, which is
below the accepted level of 120%. The crime rate on the police
beat (27) is 43.6%, which is also below the accepted level of
120%.
Off sale beer and wine licenses allowed in the census tract are
four (4); total at present time is two (2).
Criminal activity was examined within a 0.1 mile radius of 1498
Melrose Avenue January 1 through September 21, 1992, and the
following statistics were compiled. There was a total of 70
crimes and 22 arrests within this location. The predominant
crime was Petty Theft, with a total of 27. The following crimes
make up the balance of the total.
7 Vandalism
5 Assaults
3 Vehicle Thefts
3 Grand Thefts
3 Robberies
3 Missing Juveniles
2 Assault W/Deadly weapon
2 Resisting Arrests
2 Burglaries
1 Obstruct/Resisting an Officer
1 Tampering with a Vehicle
1 Annoying/Molest Children
1 Theft of Personal Property
1 Throwing substance at a Vehicle
1 Domestic Violence
7 Courtesy Reports/Lost Articles
7~J}
/4: '
"
Conditional Use Permit for Alcohol Sales
Page 2
We also looked at the location itself, 1498 Melrose Avenue. We
found that in 1992 there have been five (5) crime incidents, none
of major significance.
1 Arrest
1 Detention
3 Field Interviews
Located across the street at 1475 Melrose Avenue is a 7/Eleven.
Comparative data as follows:
2 Burglaries
1 Robbery
2 Assaults
1 petty Theft
2 Arrests
"
Comparative data was analyzed for the Texaco gas station located
at 1291 Third Avenue. This location is similar, selling beer,
wine coolers, and is equipped with a car wash. Comparative data
as follows:
No activity at 1291 Third Avenue since December of 1991. During
1991 there were the six (6) crime related incidents, three (3)
arrests, and three (3) crime reports. As you can see by this
data, there was no impact with licensing of this location.
Information and feedback were solicited from beat officers on I
whether there would be any impact from alcohol sales at this
premises.
Officer Cervantes, who also shops in the neighborhood, responded
with his view and that of the Neighborhood Watch group:
* There are presently three (3) locations in close
proximity that sell alcohol.
* Two (2) of these locations, Bobar Liquor, 289 East
oran~e, and the 7/Eleven, 1475 Melrose, are hangouts
for Juveniles.
* Officer Cervantes has worked with the Neighborhood
Watch group and has given talks at Rohr Elementary
School. Comments from juveniles reveals that it is
common practice for alcohol to be purchased for them
at the above two (2) locations.
* Officer Cervantes and the Nei~hborhood Watch strongly
object to another location Wh1Ch sells alcoholic
beverages.
1-31
/r
I .!.
/
Conditional Use Permit for Alcohol Sales
Page 3
Texaco's policy on sale of alcohol provides a very extensive
ongoing training program and alcohol awareness program for their
employees. Employees are required to. check identification on
everyone who wants to purchase alcohol regardless of their age.
Texaco's policy prohibits video games on the premises, thus
eliminating loitering. Texaco does not offer singular sales of
alcoholic beverages. However, a customer can remove one can of
beer from a six pack and make the purchase.
From a police perspective, we IIlU see additional calls for
service from this location, but we believe that this would not
create an adverse impact on our service.
./
9 -' 3~
/It.. -
.
. ,,' t
CHULA VISTA POllCE DEPARTMENT
CRIME ANALYSIS UNIT
DATE: October 6, 1992 RFIl! 92-133
TO: M. Wi1so~cting Xnvestigative Captain
FROM: Barbara Brookover (jI
SUBJECT: Criminal Activity at 1475 Melrose Avenue
January 1 through September 21, 1992
Per your request, following are crime related incidents that
occurred at the address of 1475 Melrose Avenue for the time
period January 1 through September 21, 1992. During the study
period, there were thirteen (13) crimes, two (2) arrests and one
(1) field interview that took place at the specifie~ address.
CRIMES
Violation Number
459 PC Burglary 2
211 PC Robbery 1
243A PC Battery 2
488 PC Petty Theft 8
Total 13
ARRESTS
Violation Number
211 PC Robbery 1
487E PC Grand Theft 1
Total 2
FIELD XNTERVIEWS
Crime potential Number
12031 PC Weapon 1
Total 1
If you have an~ questions or need additional information, please
contact the Cr~me Analysis Unit.
9<5k
..-If]/
.
.
CRIKINAL ACTIVITY WITHIN A 0.1 KILE RADIUS OP 1498 MELROSE AVENUE
JANUARY 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 21, 1992
CRlXES
Offense Description Occurrences
488 PC Petty Theft 27
Miscellaneous/Courtesy Report,
Lost Articles 7
594B4 PC Vandalism 7
243A PC Battery 5
10851 VC Vehicle Theft 3
487.1 PC Grand Theft 3
211 PC Robbery 3
911000 ZZ Missing Juvenile 3
14 8 PC Resist Public Officer 2
245Al PC Assault w/deadly Weapon 2
459 PC Burglary 2
69 PC Obstruct/Resist Officer 1
10852 VC Vehicle Tampering 1
647.6 PC Annoy/Molest Children , 1
484A PC Theft:Personal Propert~ 1
23110A VC Throw Substance at Veh1cle 1
13730 PC Domestic Violence 1
TOTAL 70
ARRESTS
594B4 PC Vandalism 4
666 PC Petty Theft w/Prior 3
23l52A VC DUl 3
488 PC Petty Theft 2
484A PC Theft: Personal Property 2
211 PC Robbery 2
69 PC Obstruct/Resist Officer 1
487E PC Grand Theft: Dog 1
148 PC Resist Public Officer 1
242 PC Battery 1
459 PC Burglary 1
Detention 1
TOTAL 22
PIELD INTERVIEWS
415 PC Disturb the Peace 3
10851 VC Vehicle Theft 3
245A PC Assault w/Deadly Weapon 3
594 PC Vandalism 2
488 PC Petty Theft 1
314.1 PC Indecent Exposure 1
12031 PC Carry Loaded Firearm in Public 1
11364 HS Poss. Cont. Subst. Paraphernalia 1
Gangs 1
TOTAL 16
1-)7
........1 ~"
October 5, 1992
TO: Steve Griffin
FROM: Ann Pedder Pease
SUBJECT: Phone conversation with Neighborhood Watch Block Captain
re: PCC-93-10 - Sale of beer and wine at Texaco Station,
1498 Melrose Ave.
Lt. Merlin Wilson gave me the name and phone number of Veronica
Eberly (585-3451) and I spoke with her today. She impressed me as
knowledgeable and concerned, and had some very reasoned comments.
She expressed opposition to the proposed use, citing current
problems with gang members hanging out in the neighborhood'and the
fear that one more outlet for beer and wine would make the corner
that much more attractive. I suggested that a gas stationtmini-
mart didn't sound like the sort of place where prople would want to
"hang out". She strongly disagreed, describing a scenario where
gang members have plenty of room to "kick", within easy reach of
pay phones to respond to their beepers, with clear visibility to
watch for rival "gang-bangers" invading their turf, and, with the
granting of the CUP, a ready supply of new people to buy their beer
for them. She described these gang members with great
specificity: This particular corner is loosely considered the turf
of the FCW (Four Corners of the World) gang, (a racially and
ethnically mixed gang) most of whom are aged 14-16 and live in the
Playmore Condos on Otay Valley Rd. They typicaly ride bikes, like
gas stations because there's more room for their bikes, deal drugs
and commit petty theft. Not being primarily hispanic, unlike
their rivals, the Del Sols, they don't usually defend their turf,
but most of them do carry guns. She implied that, if the corner
becomes more attractive, from their perspective, it would be only
a matter of time before the Del Sols or another gang moved in, with
shootings and drive-bys not far behind.
She said she would drop off a letter to support her point of view,
and would mention the issue to other people who had not previously
contacted us. She suggested that, if we wanted more information
on gang activity in this area, there were several people we could
talk to. She gave me the names of Juan Cervantes with the Police
Department, Judge Rodriguez and Daniel Small, who runs an
intervention program and is about as informed as anyone on the
subject of gangs.
I am planning on stopping by to see Daniel Small on my own time,
and I will pass along any pertinent information I get on the above
subject.
9/3~
ICf /
MINUTES OF A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING
PCC-\13-10
October 1. 1992
3:00 p.m.
Conference Rooms 2 & 3
PROJECT:
PCC-93-10, Off-Site Alcohol Sales at 1498 Melrose
Avenue
STAFF PRESENT:
Senior Planner Steve Griffin
Lieutenant Merlin Wilson, Police Department
Planning Technician Ann Pedder Pease
Planning Technician Patty Nevins
proiect Introduction - PCC-93-10
Senior Planner Steve Griffin introduced himself and stated that he
would be acting as the Zoning Administrator. He advised those
present that this hearing was a result of a new process initiated
by the City Council in which a conditional use permit is required
for off-site alcohol sales operations located within the C-N
(Neighborhood Commercial) zone. He reviewed the findings necessary
for approval of the alcohol sales, stating that the issues must be
related to the alcohol sales and advising that Lt. Merlin Wilson of
the Police Department was also present to answer questions.
Mr. Griffin explained Texaco's overall proposal, which consists of
a remodel to the existing site at the northwest corner of Melrose
and Orange Avenue for the purpose of adding a carwash and mini-
mart; the mini-mart operations will include the sale of beer and
wine. It was noted that Texaco's proposal had originally been
heard by the City Council, but was currently on hold pending
hearings related to the alcohol sales. Mr. Griffin then presented
and explained the site and floor plan for the proposed operations.
ADDlicant Presentation
Dave Mattson of Texaco stated that the original 'conditional use
permit application for this proposal had been filed in 1990. He
reviewed the steps that Texaco had followed in applying for the
proposed expansion and operations, and stated that in response to
concerns about the alcohol sales, Texaco had very strict policies
related to this issue. Mr. Mattson stated that Texaco recognizes
the responsibility inherent in alcohol sales, and that Texaco
policies and practices relating to alcohol sales are much more
restrictive than the law requires, adding that Texaco had received
commendations for their alcohol-related policies. Mr. Mattson
stated that this mini-mart was for the convenience of customers who
c; /37
,
'f'i'
" -
ZA HEARING. PCC-93-10
-2-
OCTOBER 1. 1992
would likely purchase alcohol as a matter of convenience while
visiting the site for gas or a carwashi he did not feel that a
service station would De a likely destination tor customers leaving
their homes just for alcohol purchases. Mr. Mattson concluded that
alcohol sales at the proposed site would not be detrimental to the
neighborhood. and may in fact reduce traffic by allowing a combined
trip for gas and convenience items.
Deborah Bernhardt of Texaco explained the training program that
employees of Texaco undergo. She stated that along with other
training, 3-4 hours are devoted exclusively to alcohol sales, and
employees must pass a written exam in order to be placed in
positions involving alcohol sales. Additionally, such employees
must return for continuing alcohol awareness training every 90
days. Ms. Bernhardt pointed out that visual materials regarding
alcohol awareness are displayed in each of their stores, and that
every customer, regardless of age, must show identification to
purchase alcohol. LD. guides are also kept in each store to
verify out-of-state identification cards. Further, employees are
not permitted to sell either alcohol or gas to customers who appear
either to be intoxicated or to be purchasing alcohol for others
(e.g. to minors) .
Audience Discussion
Crystal Sanders of 1517 Melrose Avenue stated that she did not have
a problem with Texaco I s handling of alcohol sales; rather, she
objected to the siting of additional alcohol sales establishments
in this area, naming a number of establishments in the vicinity
that sell alcohol. She stated that minors loiter in the evening,
drinking, in the nearby residential area, and that they have caused
damage to private property.
Jack Meng of 1475 Melrose, owner of the 7-11 store across from the
Texaco facility, stated that he had a number of concerns. He also
objected to the addition of an alcohol sales business in the area,
stating that numerous facilities exist in the immediate
neighborhood as well as additional facilities within a one-mile
radius. He felt that this would simply provide one more place
where minors could potentially loiter and attempt to obtain
alcohol. Mr. Meng felt that traffic in the area would be
negatively impacted, stating that traffic was already a problem at
this intersection and adding that the sales of both alcohol and gas
at a corner property was problematic.
Mr. Meng stated that crime was a potential problem, indicating that
he had had problems with "beer runners" - that is, those who
grabbed beer and ran from the store. He stated that although this
was not considered a high crime area yet, he and others were
concerned about crime. Mr. Meng felt that corporate employees
5'~t/t}
~l '
-
ZA HEARING. PCC-93-10
-3-
OCTOBER 1. 1992
were less concerned with the neighborhood than franchise owners,
who generally have a personal interest in the neighborhood. He
added that an automobile service station/garage is needed on at
this site, but as a result of the items mentioned, felt that a
mini-mart offering alcohol would negatively affect the quality of
life of the residents in the area.
Ms. Sanders added that there are schools in the area, asking if the
ABC takes the proximity of schools into account in granting alcohol
licenses; Lt. Wilson of the Police Department stated that this was
not considered except in that such licenses may not be closer than
100 feet to any schools.
Acclicant Resconse
Mr. Mattson stated that corporate employees are no less interested
in the community than franchise owners, adding that many Texaco
stores have managers that have worked at their locations for many
years. Mr. Mattson further stated that although the issues has
arisen before, there is no link between gas and alcohol sales; he
pointed out that the majority of people who purchase alcohol must
get in their cars to get to the store, rendering the alcohol and
gas sales issue moot. Mr. Mattson also noted that this facility
would not promote loitering activities, adding that video games,
such as those found at the 7-11 store, would not be available at
this site, and that he would agree to a condition to this effect.
Police Decartment Recort of Crime statistics
Lt. Merlin Wilson of the Chula Vista Police Department presented
statistics compiled by the Police Department relating to crime in
this neighborhood. He explained that the statistics had been
compiled for a 1/10 mile radius around the subject site as well as
for the census tract and police beat. The figures revealed that
there were 70 crime occurrences, mostly petty theft, within 1/10
mile of the site since January of this year, which is fairly
significant. However, the crime rate for the census tract, 55.6%,
and the police beat, 43.6%, are significantly lower than the 120%
maximum permitted by the ABC. Lt. Wilson stated that although
petty theft was the largest percentage of crime noted in the last
reporting period for this area, it was not possible to ascertain
how many of the crimes in this category were related to alcohol.
Hearinq Conclusion
Mr. Griffin stated that a decision would be made on this
application within one or two weeks and that those present would be
~-v/
~ 1- ')-/
ZA HEARING. PCC-93-10
-4-
OCTOBER 1. 1992
notified of the decision. He explained the appeal process, noting
that either the applicant or others could file an appeal.
Ms. Sanders asked that current neighborhood watch efforts be
considered in evaluating crime impacts. She also stated that she
knew a number of residents of the condominiums behind the Lucky
store who were interested in this application but had not received
public notices. Mr. Griffin responded that if residents or others
outside of the mailing radius were known to be interested, the
Planning Department generally made an effort to include those
persons in the mailing of the notices, and that such an effort
would be made in future notices that might be mailed relating to
this case. He also stated that the neighborhood watch captain for
the area would be contacted for comment before a decision was
reached on the application.
,
Adiournment
The hearing was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
NtNiY\h
evins, Recorder
..- /-3 -"
Cj - '--/ ;2.,
.:2. Jit. .J~.L~..c:C~v -de;
t~ VA.4l:.i', CA., q i q (I
~" P.~1T;~ uV 0~c- q~H~1Jf~.._.;.
u....tU:.4. V ,u;:;~' u.... 9 i q 10 OCT" ,..
r I J. c 79....
r.1--'U_,- .JjJv ''\.. .( f 4. d..u..... 1 P:"I1.' 'I I. ,~(.
..A'~ o..\.e- ~!j-uL ~ .:<:::b/~, i,:.,\tj-L
~,c..r ~."/~'u_-o ~j {j~"~
..~ ..-6vf;<t'\..-~" .' ,".-;;:.
. V4--~~j ..L-\.~..., ...J.)(V\.~tJ ".,..; ri.::..t4)1<'(Ji~
..w,', d.t.iu cJ2-.,l ,~{J,_,~kAQ~lkc ;}hJ..&a.q..e/
~~/ (L ~IJ J Ct.- f!-'~~ I ri/ ~t-1!~--Ld.t0
/lS..~,- t.<.\..r..t:' LU...cL a / '1 - II ~J.iA~
. I -Ii H -i.4, cL,-t~'-, I~LVL- B~~~4, _ /~-:
~d\_. ~"-.&-.r-7 U q~f!-4 ' / ". z:b~
-r:[- ti... uJt J.'- n.... !U~ W '..-\..4', ',r:u....t...u_J..-
" r. /. ( Q - "i, ,.', ' . .....;:{J- - JUi ..I p-; J
)..'N.I:1LIL'=-, '" /~~. ,I.).-W-{. / ..l.J.../~ ~t
C.A-~i --<.1:.# J..l.--f...l..Le. AA,-Lt/tLCA...C> ~- ~;..;..{C
"-<-1!\.i./ 1.u....-a..l:..L4/ -t~/~ 6...fJ...~
ru u. /. I ' " -. () 0: fL =:+-. .
4-1/I2,-k.et..~~ C(~ at;:=~
N;-'vl ..it c.itzu~:J u~~~ ' , ~JJ::;- ~~,. .At..I-W_
cktA.h.Uj a.Nl ' I
~-lA- ~
L\.t. 't- L-Z.AJ ~~.
9--1/ ;J
_ ?-Lt-'
September 29, 1992
ZC'rl~ng Dir-ector-
City of Cj)L118 Vista
Chula Vi5ta~ Calif.
We~ the residents and business people around East
Street and M~lrose Ave., wish to challenge the applic~tion
conditional use permit submitted by Texaco Refining
Marketing, Inc. to renovate the gas/service station into a
mart/car wash facility located at 1498 Melrose Avenue in
Vist~. The reasons we h8ve are as follows:
1. Tr",.ffJ.c:
A). The traffic flow report was surveyed before Dec.
199(i, while the Northwest corner of Melrose Ave. and E. Orange
E,t. irite~5E'ction was renovated and additiorlal store spaces were
added 1rl June/July 1991. Thus the traffic flow report no longer
repreS2Gts the real traffic pattern. Even the traffic condition
et prEse~t may net be critic",l yet, however, it definitely is net
~Ic.c.'d c,:: roll.
1:). Dr- J_v'i'i9 t'C15tbcund on E. Or-ange St. fr-om ,..lz(;.: A\/e.
tn~re lS ril:) U-tL(rn allowed at the i~tersection. Irl order to allo~~
i.i-tll~-'r tel bE ITi~,dE' at the intEr5ect~c<n!l T~}:aco Inc. offers to
~lden ,he 5treets by giving up 6/9 feet on both MelrOSE Ava. and
F. (:i!-~~~~E: St. sidES. It may sGund like a geod or genero~(s id&a.
~jG~~2VEt'~ it will cause more difficulty for Rohr Elementary Schocl
~,tud~r;L~ cros5,ing the streets. B~sid~s!l we have alr-~ady seeri many
dr"i~'~1-5 ~Q~ng throLlgh thE parking lot of the shopping mall in
ord01 iG ~void tl'lE traffic ligtlt or the cars waiting at the
intF..'t~-=,E-ctic:.!l.
Orarlge
for- a
and
mini-
ChLl12,
C). Earlier this ye",r (about M",rch, 1992) City Tr",ffic
Ei'H~,.l..r't-r..'r-ir;(,;I De~'artment m~cje t-lelr'osE Ave. a three lanes street at
the Jr',tersection. Melrose AVE. is simply ~ very narrow street. It
was f'lCl desig~e(~ to be a ttlr-ee lane street in the first place.
l'tl~ tt'"Aif2C d~es not ease off jLlst because there are three lanes
no~~ in5~2~d of two lanes before. Actually, it created such
impOSSJll]e d~iticult 51tuatior, for some vehicles making a right
turn from E. Orange St. (westbound) at the intersection into
Melrose Ave. (northbound), th~t the delivery truck for Lucky's
superm~rket does not m",ke a turn at the intersection rather go
aound behind Little Cesear Pizza build1ng instead.
2. Quality of Life:
The type of business th~t Texaco intends to get into does
not br1ng any positive growth to our neighborhood. It does not
ir,cre".se job opportun1ty, nor tax revenue. Local residents and
Rohr Elementary School have formed a ~~ime watch program to
prevent crimes in this neighborhood. Some business people h",ve
been ~ctive to cooperate with C. V. Police Department reporting
~r.d rlrpventing ~rjY suspicious activities, communicating with
police officers, eng",ging in some other community involvement
works to improve our neighborhood. Presently, there are four
bLlslrless within 500 yard radius selling ~lcoholic beverage
already. There are at least another eight business within one
9~L/i 1
...-
) ,
-)..
-------- - --- - ---.-----. -'-_.._-_..._--..'.._-~-~-_.._------_.
mile ~~dius selling alcoholic beve~~ge. Do we ~e~lly need one
lTio~e business selling ~lcoholic beve~age in ou~ "eighbo~hood?
The study ~epo~t p~ovided by C. V. Police Dep~~tment
indicates th~t this is not a high c~ime ~ate a~ea yet. This can
actually be explained ~s:
A). People do not ~epo~t mino~ c~imes thus Police
Depa~tment simply does not have enough reco~ds.
B). Neighbo~hood watch g~oups and some active business
people take up the ~ole to p~even~ any unusual activities.
The~efore, just becuase we are not at a high crime rate a~ea
yet, are we sopposed to be "honored" and penalized by g~anting a
conditional use pe~mit to ~ gas station intends to sell alcoholic
beve~age ~nd g~soline at the same time?
We wish Texaco Inc. can shape up and set their policy
straight that in this neighbo~hood we do need a reputed g~5
st~tion p~oviding mechanical se~vices (Unocal 76 ac~oss the
st~eet on Mel~ose Ave. is a ve~y good example) and become
p~ospe~ous ~nd successful, ~~the~ than conve~ting the g~s/se~vice
stat~on into a mini-ma~t selling gasoline and g~oce~ies only. The
gps/~ervice station does not ~tt~~ct youth gang tq h~ng out, but
~ mini-ma~t definitely will.
We hope the Zon~ng Depa~tment ~nd the City Council c~n make
the obviouly wise ~nd p~ope~ dicision not to allow a conditional
LIse permit to Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. to renovate a
gasise~vice station into a ca~ wash/mini-ma~t. You~ conside~ation
will be a~p~eciated.
~. F~~ne
~~~
91'$7
;
,
~~i/5i
1473 Mel~ose Avenue
293 E. O~ange St~eet
1475 Mel~o5e Avenue
-rei, 4-~ 7~ 71/!D
RECEIVED
SEP 3 0 1992
. PLANNING
" ~b /'
I., ,.....
......
"-........ . t .
DC.,.. . <....,
J;. _,..
. Nt:.
f..J, "I".'c
..../.';.:...
.. ~.. '.
. . .'u
,...., XI'
/, !~d H-?U.~J
r
~S ~ S t.\. J..J...t.V1-"'t.-
"
6c/t 7. lctq I
.../ .) . .L
/ 7c: k0~.'Lt/r /"IY-:Jj C.(n/-&~ ~ ^
d U'Z'X ~~;G~::I ~ ..At..~
_i;/c.d f,.(J a>Z,11 .~~ ~~ ~
tLt.~,~~fih~ tCt
.:tAr.;. ! ~~)~~~ ~::&.d2
c~ ~/!u ~.cf (,~~ ~~
1'2~ a~ . ~ ~ ~--z-
.'72-?f ~'.M k.a<~<J." ~
~~~-f~ ~ 1-llg7;
~u-~,~ ~
<-t- ~ ~R ~ ;;t.~
p~~ ~~rn~
d hke. ~-v....e... .
v (), 1 .nA->.r>M h _ 0 ~
ef ti,,~~ ~ V i/-- ~;Z t:/...I
C!&'V~d~~
9~r?
_:;.0/
~~ .;t;I~ qt-~I/C~
&Y1 a-u- ~~ ,'1~- / ~ ;d;..d:
~ U~~ /,7. 0 U<.4
Vu."u, 6'V! ;;t/~, ~~ X .;- ~-K '
A~. ~ ~.J-~tP/~
~ /~.&~ 'I.e~ ~
o'"Y/ c::?-z.q:~~ ~~ a~(;:tJ-~ ~
~~ .
, ,
/l'4vf kA/~ ~( ~ ~
CJ-C<4 + ~ ~- 7t/~~~
, ,.' ~~ /W'-";1 k,l ~ '
af ~fk:t ~OJ~~
/q'({) ~~~tt~<<..."2~(1 ~
fi..e~ ~~.J.f ",.u.,,.-p~
~~~ - . a-
~~~ft~ .
~il' ~~4~g;(J
~~~.
'""~
/71(a~
9 --tj ?
Y'''
/;}-
.
"
.
f' -
(- ".
..... i.-. .
--, :
,j - ;'
EvZ/.'bt//'; -5/,/,{,'Y'-'"
/5/.2 .if~,?/tS~ /1,E""C/b
DC" ,
.' ,# ,.9:=!:"
?~/;" -,
- ',\,\"--
. , ~ \...
C/lt/;/;
I. .'"
I'tJN1
,
(/1
f/ /1/
7; tV~.w :1" H'y C"'tV~
.:z; Et:'L4dl'"'/)' ..5J:/M"Y"~ /f# ~/h~'7 r4j
LEdt;;e ro j?'o/e. /,tJd" 7 i/'b<./'l.-VN/ od ~-1e,
C/I;C a~?sl/ - "/,;:,,,, rt:-iK4/' ,0&1 pAl Me Ct7~~/1 (II"
b/U7C::: ///0"/ h',6/&;~. "
.L /9rf .~/;,:.':.r -5I/C# IJ/l.I b/4&'.J~/ft',..//
,,,,' <: u..! A,~7//6.e.Ac.:/ sEe;;/.: bEtAe/"~ ,ot- ~),zt A--a'7"?
. /?i.cf/?(i,€ .0/.-'/17'- C/C//- /,f;Cc ,n.AE t0j/A?E--/"~ IUt! tI-E
tt-v.~?r./:'.f. i"~ 81&'/11' ~";l~ "f,-./ oi/ELf a~-It~/
;?,.,~</...;;- 0/ /k'--~.,4(, .t5{l/67E 8t./.>.;./E.$JES u.l Pt./~
P"Y/i J ~'~c/ aJ~ M,I6 W".,/ _ 4/C'/(/(;7 '::.,t/l n~,:f"1f'
?~/'- ~/I?'/ /v'i-':f/&V24-t4 ";";'l'C/7 t'u cJ:l,,,.//.~t,L ;9?,,_
05; (d/lllt;.' tip!, /fb~ ~d i~(l$~t .5/Mbt.2 E//.r"/~
;:;'I;ic:b.
//M"J7"~('v
t'LiAdcu/ J&/~?("'/
C-f~~ P&/~-
c;~t/y
- ;;-: ~
D~R/99:z.
/
cLJQ ()~()~ ~ r\t:.C-'
Ke.: ;0~' r~/CCVv kJ~ ~!'v~!J
Ocr) c
.L,-: 1992
OULV~
)
{J, '
"'/1 '\",
. '\"'''G'
...
;d cr::a I~ ~:t ~70~
~ 4~-.tc.L, ~ J -io ~ ~~
J ~odA~ ~ ~~~
~, d ~ 1 Lo~~ J-'m~o;
~ (j;, . ;---z;- -
u)~ /, 1 -I~ c2 ~
cw~ &- ~ ~' U-.d
~~ ~..
. ~r::- ~ O"'v '--rM1 ~ ~~~!
;; ~~ ~ UAQ.. ~rt::7
~.t. cb,~~;;t ~.
/1.- ~ CAN "-'~. ~ u-o-JJv
~ A' ,
~~ W~
MzYU?f~~1f; do~
~ ~ vi .It ~ ~ A",-j;~ a
h A~, 0 !'--'d .
r r 'Pi'?' V~/aJ~ ~ ,3D'
626/~
~ 2J~C/t cr1111
,
,
Lj-5c/
\/
3
./
1 October 1992
City Zoning Administrator:
I would like to go on record as opposing any remodeling of the Texaco
Station located at 1498 Melrose Ave. There are several valid considerations for
not approving any change to this address:
1. Traffic Problems
2. Insufficient Access
3. Crime
4. Too many locations currently selling alcohol
5. Mini-market not needed.
Traffic Problems.
The Texaco station is located on the Northwest corner of Melrose Avenue
and Orange Avenue. The traffic at this intersection has greatly increased in the
last two years. This can be directly attributed to two recent occurrences: (1) the
opening of I-54 linking 1-805 and 1-5 and (2) the expansion of the Lucky Market.
There are only three on-ramps to 1-805 from this area; L Street, Orange
Avenue, and Main Street. Residents between Palomar Street and Talus Street will
usually travel Melrose to access I-80S rather than electing one of the other two on-
ramps.
The Lucky Market also attracts residents from outside the immediate
neighborhood. This market is always crowded and the parking lot is usually full.
The make-up of the immediate neighborhood also results in a significant
number of cars traveling this intersection. To the North of this intersection are
condominiums. To the West are a large number of apartments. The portion of
the neighborhood which is single resident homes has a high occurrence of cul-de-
sacs.
2.
1.
Insufficient Access.
Melrose Avenue is a ,two lane street, one lane of traffic in each direction
with a very short left turn lane (five cars maximum). Orange Avenue is does have
two lanes of traffic in each direction, but it has islands dividing traffic. The island
on west of Melrose Avenue extends beyond the property line of the Texaco
9/5)
~;'
~3
station. V-turns for traffic traveling East is prohibited.
To access the Texaco station traveling East on Orange, vehicles must turn
left onto Melrose Avenue and make a left-hand turn through those vehicles waiting
to turn onto Melrose (V-turns are prohibited and dangerous). Access going West
on Orange Avenue can be made by making a right-hand turn. Access from
Melrose going South would require a right-hand turn. Access from Melrose going
North would either require making a left-hand turn on Melrose through oncoming
travel or making a left-hand turn onto Orange and then making a right-hand turn
immediately.
Leaving the Texaco station is a major hazard. Because of the divided
highway, only those vehicles going West on Orange can exit from Orange A venue.
All other traffic would require exiting onto Melrose.
There are already vehicles exiting or entering the Texaco station breaking
the law. Either cars are making illegal V-turns onto Orange, ',making illegal D-
turns around the western end of the island, or entering the Texaco station by
driving on the wrong side of the street.
3. Crime.
We currently have problems with minor criminal acts.. In the last six years,
the brick fence in front of my property has been hit twice by cars, the last time
when a the driver tried to run-over a person in front of my property. My house
has been broken into twice and, at least two attempted break-ins. Graffiti has been
painted onto my fences and sidewalk. The tire on one of my cars slashed, the
back sliding glass door shot with a pellet gun, the battery on my car stolen, and
our locking mailbox destroyed.
We currently have problems in the neighborhood with people who don't
belong in the neighborhood hanging out in Slate Court late at night drinking.
Associated with this drinking is loud noise and vandalism.
I have every reason to believe that the remodeling of the Texaco station will
increase the current problems in the neighborhood.
4. Too many locations currently selling alcohol.
Presently at the intersection of Melrose and Orange, we have more than
enough places which sell alcoholic beverages. On the Northwest corner of
Melrose and Orange, surrounding the Texaco station, there is both a liquor store
and the Lucky Market which sell alcoholic beverages. On the Northeast comer
we have a 7-11 which sells beer and wine and a bar.
If you want to go West on Orange, there is another 7-11 and a mini-market
which sells alcoholic beverages.
9/52
':3 .-
/?
,
Considering the close proximity of the Rohr Elementary School, this would
appear to be an excessive number of sites.
Also at the City Council meeting when the third public hearing on this
expansion was once again postponed, the City Council stated that there were
already too many places, selling alcoholic beverages. At this meeting, I was led
to believe that this issue was dead, that the permit would be denied.
5. Mini-market not needed.
I have no idea why we need a mini-market at this intersection. If someone
wants to purchase alcoholic beverages, there are more than enough alternate
locations. If someone wants food items; we have the Lucky Market, the 7-11, and
the liquor store (which does stock milk, eggs, and a limited amount of food
products). If the object is to purchase fast food; there is a Little Caesar Pizza, a
full-service deli in the Lucky Market, a full-service bakery in the Lucky Market,
two Mexican restaurants, and hot dogs and hamburgers available at the 7-11. I am
also sure that some type of food may be purchased at the bar.
Base upon the above reasons, and common sense, the proposed expansion
should be denied. It makes no sense to increase traffic on an already
overburdened intersection, and logic dictates that unless Texaco expected
customers they would not spend money on remodeling. It also makes no sense,
in a recession era when many small businesses are failing and almost every corner
shopping center has vacancies, to build businesses which directly compete with
existing small businesses; common sense would dictate having businesses which
complement each other. It also makes no sense to take an area already having
problems with minors drinking and causing problems late at night and having
problems with gang invading the neighborhood, to allow a business which would
only intensify and increase existing problems.
CRYSTAL SANDERS
1517 Melrose Ave
Chula Vista, CA 91911-5912
95>
" B +-'
, --
r-\.:.:.i:....:..-.. '.. .
Dei i C ;ce:
, -. (
Cindy Thomas
252 Sandstone
Chula Vista, CA 91910
r-' f'
. _ It
- "\'''u\l;'
October II, 1992
Chula Vista Planning Commission
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
To Whom It May Concern:
I wish to offer my input regarding the planned Texaco/Mini-mart at the corner
of Melrose and East Orange. I am strongly opposed to its fruition due to the
fact that alcoholic beverages will be sold. In this neighborhood of a large
population of school-a~ed children, I feel it is extremely unnecessary to
allow, yet, another facility that offers such beverages to be tuilt.. Due to
the extreme gang-related problems that have recently arose in this neiohbor-
hood, I can't imagine any other level-headed adult disagreeino with me.
Si ncere l,y, 'L '----rI
~Pf~~ ' I~
Cyrlthia A. Thomas '
691-0606
~/5Y
-- 9.('
.
Oct. 7, 1992
i._'
"-,
..
"
Chula Vista Planning Commission
276 - 4th Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
OC17
J,?
lS~~
I'J,
"'''~\'''
"."
,.
Dear Sir:
I wish to offer my input regarding the planned Texaco Mini Mart
on the corner of Melrose and E. Orange.
Although such an enterprise is legal and would be eye-appealing,
it represents yet another establishment to sell liquor. This
would mean that there would be five stores on one corner which
would sell liquor.
Anyone who has been involved in the public in any way knows that
liquor and its easy access creates a higher probability of crime.
San Diego J. ~. stadium officials restrict the sale of liquor
after a certain time of any given game because they know that
liquor-intoxicated people create violence and crime. I fear
for my neighborhood.
Living just around the corner from the corner in question I have
seen f~rsthand the undesirable types hanging around the 7-11
store, the liquor store next to Lucky supermarket, and the bar
just down from the 7-11.
Because of their presence, I don't take my fa~ily to these stores
after dark. It's scary enough entering the 7-11 store during
the cay and seeing questionable yeung men, particularly, hanging
around the phones, perhaps there to make drug deals.
Gangs are entering our neighborhood fast enough without encourage-
ment from such planned establishments. Al'I-PM, 7-11 and other
such mini marts are meant for convenience. But they frequently
become hangouts for gangs. Some stores in Chula Vista have re-
moved pay phones due to said undesirable types hanging around
making drug deals, comm~ing crimes, etc.
If you are skeptical about these magnets for drunkenness, drugs,
crimes, grafitti, etc., I suggest you spend several nights
around them observing. Then ask yourself if you'd want to live
in that neighborhood and would be willing to take your family
to sU~Places expos:ng them to the above mentioned realities.
Hop).i ',~PYf};~0",/; ,,~ ---...,
, ; /.; .. A~'
'//J . /' ,
/ /(.:'7-/;:;'/ ~
vi~:en':-~rtiz'- U
Ylnoent I: Brenda ortiz
1137 MattiA".
Chulo Viota, CA .,8"
9--55
-,30'
w
l('l~ AI,~~ :;:,
~'., '..
TexE:::' Re~::l:~.~
81'lO M"'~,eH,~ if_::
~~:.: :~~;.~~r ~~I, ~t~~' Re.
i': ,;:' "'~."""" -
september 4, ~992
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
Attn: steve Griffin
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION/BEER & WINE
Texaco Project
1498 Melrose at Orange
Chula Vista, Ca.
Dear Mr. Griffin:
This correspondence and attachments are submitted as
supplemental information for the previously filed above
mentioned application.
The attached booklet is the study guide for Techniques of
Alcohol Management (TAM) training class which each Texaco
Food Mart employee must complete prior to working in one of
our foodmarts. In addition to the booklet, there are training
film and classroom instruction. After successful completion
of this course, each employee is required to execute the
enclosed Clerk's Affidavit, Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC)
Laws which we keep in each employees personnel file.
Our training classes are held locally in our facility at 9966
San Diego Mission Road, San Diego. The classes are typically
held twice a month. Our Training Instructor is Ms. Denise
Barnhart who has several years experience with convenience
store chains and is well informed regarding Techniques of
Alcohol Management. You, or any member of your staff, are
welcome to sit in on one of our classes.
In addition to abiding by the guidelines as outlined in the
"TRMI Alcohol Awareness Program", Texaco also abides by the
following:
1. ALL customers, no matter what age, must produce
valid identification with a photgraph.
2. No neon or internally illuminated beer or wine
advertising sign is allowed in our facilities.
3. No iced single merchandisers are permitted.
~-~t
I)"
,,3
6.,,1:'...., o'~ e 1rao"I~"'n ot QiJa,';;.'
I have enclosed a memo regarding recognition that one of our
stores in the City of Oceanside recently received from the
community based organization, Citizens Helping Oceanside Obtain
a Sober Environment (CHOOSE). This recognition was much
appreciated by Texaco as it demonstrated that our programs are
effective and appreciated by the community.
Should you have any questions regarding Texaco's policies
on alcoholic beverage transactions please do not hesitate to
contact me at 619-283-3514.
Sincerely,
JJ. /? mtt'(IU)~
D. P. Mattson
Senior Real Estate Agent
DPM/dc
Enclosures
~
9/57
3S---
;'
Effective Date: 01/31/90
Reolaces: N/A
Alcohol/Tobacco Manacement B.l.l
)
8.1. TRMI ALCOHOL AWARENESS PROGRAM
POLICY
Company premises will be in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws
governing the sale of alcoholic beverages. The violation of these laws by an
employee{s) will result in immediate termination of the employee{s) involved.
)
1. TRMI adopts the National Association of Convenience Stores "Techniques of
Alcohol Management" (TAM) Program for the training and education of its
employees. This program is intended to improve the knowledge,
confidence, and motivation of employees in discovering and legally
handling problems related to alcoholic beverage sales. You will be given
guidelines about the prevention of sales to minors, intoxicated persons,
and third parties. All store, field, and office personnel with
responsibil ity in the area of alcohol (sell ing, supervising, managing,
etc.) must participate in the TAM program. Visuals (ID buttons,
stickers, posters), audio visuals (training tapes), training meetings,
written materials, and/or other program components will be used in
presenting the TAM's material.
2. The Supervisor is responsible for presenting the TAM's Audio/Visual
Workbook to all Store Managers. Upon completion a signed copy of the
Employee's Agreement of Understanding Form and the Alcohol and Tobacco
Laws Final Test must be in the personnel file.
3. The Store Manager must train all cashiers, as a -condition of their
employment, utilizing the TAM course; The Manager must review the TAM
workbook with each employee, discuss state liquor regulations, and
administer the Alcohol and Tobacco Laws Final Test. When this has been
successfully completed, the Employee's Agreement of Understanding form
must be signed by both the Manager and employee and placed in the
employee's permanent personnel file.
...J
C;-_5r
1--
/7
Effective Date: 01/31/90
Reo1aces: N/A
Alcohol/Tobacco Manaaement 8.1.2
Verification of the completion of these forms will be done by the
Supervisor when he/she reviews each store's personnel fil es duri ng the
monthly mini-audit. The Supervisor will note this verification on the
audit form.
4. All Petroman employees must meet the state minimum age requirements to
sell alcoholic beverages.
5.
(.IL.L c"LJSiOyV'lE::KS
An) 'tlJt"I,,~, &Jl~eu, :I'\!l t6 lie unlltl 2i ~ur! If 8!e must produce valid
identification with a photograph.
6. Display TAM decals on all cooler doors where beer or wine is sold.
7. Wear TAM buttons while on duty.
8. Affix the counter/register decal near the register where it will be
visible to customers.
Other Guidelines:
1. Do not s~ll alcoholic beverages to anyone whose identification is
questionable.
2. Positive identification is required at the time of sale from all persons
of questionable age. Use TAM techniques to be sure that 10 is not
altered, forged, stolen, counterfeit, or expired. 8efore the sale, the
customer must produce one of the following forms of identification:
(1) Valid state-issued driver's license.
(2) Valid. state-issued personal I.D. card (in states where
app1 icab1e).
9~3/
,,/) .-
./
, )
., )
Effective Date:
Reo lace s:
01/31/90
N/A
Alcohol/Tobacco Manaaement 8.1 3
The following documents are n21 acceotable as proof of age or identity:
1. Birth certificate
2. Credit cards
3. Social Security card
4. Student 1.0. card
5. Temporary Driver's License ,
6. Travel Visa
7. Baptismal certificates
8. Expired documents
9. Otherwise valid documents that have been borrowed, stolen,
altered, forged, and/or counterfeited.
3. Do not sell alcoholic beverages to anyone who appears to be intoxicated.
4. Do not open an alcoholic beverage for anyone.
5. Ask anyone who is consuming an alcohol ic beverage on the property to
leave as this is a violation of the Company's license.
,
6. Do not sell alcoholic beverages to any customer who appears to be
purchasing the beverage either for someone underage or intoxicated.
7. Any Petroman employee cited for a beverage violation will be suspended.
8. Any Petroman employee found guilty of a beverage violation will be
..J termi nated.
9~;O
4-1 ~
/
Effective Date: 01/31/90
Reolaces: MIA
AlcohJ1/Tobacco Manaaement 8.1.4
9. Da not sell gasoline to anyone who is driving and appears to be
intoxicated.
In order to maintain good customer relations, always treat all customers
courteously.
IN SUll4ARYt YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO SELL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES TO AMY
CUSTC>>4ER WHO APPEARS TO BE UNDER THE LEGAl AGE REGARDLESS OF THEIR
IDENTIFICATION. THE CC>>4PAMY WILL NOT HONOR CC>>4PLAINTS RECEIVED BECAUSE AM
EMPLOYEE REFUSED TO SELL SC>>4EONE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. CC>>4PLAINANTS WILL BE
TOLD THAT THESE CC>>4PAMY POLICIES CANNOT BE VIOLATED BY AMY EMPLOYEE,
INCLUDING THE MANAGER AMD SUPERVISOR.
9-b/
, 4')-"'-
",
: .>
J
EMPLOYEE'S AGREEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING
Alcohol and Tobacco Products
Print Employee's Name
Store Location
I agree to the following rules and policies about the sale of alcoholic
beverages and/or tobacco products. I agree that as a seller of
alcohol/tobacco products, I am in compliance with the legal age requirements
for the purpose of selling these products. The legal Ige(s) for 1 seller of
these products for this locale are for the sale of alcohol. Ind
for the sale of tobacco.
1. I will not sell alcohol/tobacco products to Iny person under the legal
age. The legal ages for this store are:
. Beer
ID Age Requirement "
years
years
Wine
years
Distilled Liquor
years
Tobacco Products
years
If the person appears close to the minimum age, I will ask for
identification. I will not make the sale if there is any doubt as to the
person's age.
2. I will not sell alcoholic beverages to any individual during hours when
it is illegal. The legal hours for the sale of alcoholic beverages at
this store are as follows:
Monday-Friday
Saturday
Sunday
to
to
to
3. I will not sell alcoholic beverages to obviously intoxicated or otherwise
disorderly individuals.
4. I have been trained and am in agreement with all facets of the Alcohol
Awareness Program as outlined in the Alcohol/Tobacco Management Section
of this Manual, and I have satisfactorily completed the Alcohol and
Tobacco Laws Final Test. Either in conjunction with the above, or in
lieu of, I have completed any state and/or local requirements necessary
to allow me to sell alcohol and/or tobacco products, and where
applicable, have received the appropriate certification card.
Social Security'
Date
Employee's Signature
I-~ 02
3'
Lj
Date
Store Manager's Signature
This agreement will be maintained in your personnel file as part of your
permanent employee record.
./
AlCOHOL AND TOBACCO LAWS
FINAL TEST
""'
1. What time can you start selling the various alcoholic beverages on
Honday - Friday? Beer? Wine? Liquor?
2. What time on Saturday can you start selling?
Beer? Wine? Liquor?
3. On Sunday, what time can you start to sell?
Beer? Wine? Liquor?
4. How old must a customer be to legally buy the following:
Beer? Wine? Liquor? Tobacco?
are the acceptable forms of
to purchase alcohol/tobacco?
2.
identification
5.
If an 1.0. is requested, what
required of someone who wants
l.
6. What time must you stop selling beer on Sunday?
7. During the week, what time must you stop selling the following:
Beer? Wine? Liquor?
B. ,Is it legal for someone to drink beer in the store?
9. If you ask a customer to show you an 1.0. before selling him/her beer and
they cannot produce one but insist they are old enough, you should do
which of the following? .~
a. Sell the beer, but tell them to bring an 1.0. the next time.
b. Call the police.
c. In a courteous manner, tell them that you must see an 1.0.
before you can sell them beer.
10. What is the legal age for selling tobacco in your state?
9--&3
If '~
A ,/
C;uaaested Format (S.l.b.)
_cP~\ON OFCoJ>'~
~ ~~
- ~ ~
1
"
notNIQUES Of ALCOHOl MANAGEMENT
EMPLOVEE WORKBOOK
National Association of Convenience 'tores
Audio-Visual Training Center
Copyright' 11185 - National AssociatiOn 01 Convenience Stores
1-&1
{/
/V
TECHNIQUES OF ALCOHOL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
MR\27C:l
33
~~~~~
..A~?/
, .
~ TAM PRE-INSTRUCTION TEST
TAM
I. FILL IN THE ANSWERS BELOW:
1. LIST THE FIVE "CLASSIC" SIGNS OF INTOXICATION:
2. CIRCLE THE FORMS OF IDENTIFICATION THAT ARE VALID FOR PURCHASING ALCOHOL:
BIRTH CERTIFICATE SOCIAL SECURITY CARD
ALIEN VISA CREDIT CARD
CERTIFICATE OF BAPTISM STUDENT PHOTO 1.0.
3. LIST THREE PENALTIES THAT CAN AFFECT AN EMPLOYEE WHO FAILS TO OBSERVE ALCOHOL SALE
LAWS:
4. IN THIS STATE. LEGAL DRINKING AGE IS:
5. (CIRCLE THE RIGHT ANSWERS:) ALCOHOL IS:
A) A STIMULANT
B) A DEPRESSANT
C) A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
II. TRUE/FALSE (CIRCLE CORRECT ANSWER)
6. T F MY STORE HAS A RIGHT TO SELL ALCOHOL
7. T F A SECOND-PARTY SALE MEANS THE FIRST PARTY WAS FUN
8. T F A MILfTARY 10 CARD IS VALID TO BUY ALCOHOL
9. T F DONT ASK FOR 10 IF THE PERSON LOOKS 23
10. T F I SHOULD TRY TO STOP A THIEF WHO'S STEALING ALCOHOL.
4
//i~
fI"
"Lf
11. (CIRCLE THE BEST ANSWER:) IN STUDIES, UNDER-AGE YOUNG PEOPLE FIND IT EASIEST TO BUY AL-
COHOL IN A:
A. LIOUOR STORE
B. SUPERMARKET
C. DRUG STORE
D. CONVENIENCE STORE
E. DISCOUNT STORE
F. TAVERN
12. (CIRCLE CORRECT ANSWERS:) THE AGENCIES THAT ESTABLISH ALCOHOL,LAWS AND REGULATIONS
INCLUDE:
A. FEDERAL BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
B. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
C. STATE L10UOR CONTROL COMMISSIONS
D. STATE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
E. U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION
F. LOCAL (CITY, COUNTY, TOWN, VILLAGE) GOVERNMENT
G. NATIONAL LICENSED BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION
H. THE CONVENIENCE STORE COMPANY I WORK FOR
13. IF THE LAW SAYS NOT TO SELL ALCOHOL AFTER 10PM, BUT THERE'S A CHANCE FOR A BIG SALE AT
10:02, WHAT SHOULD I DO? (FILL-IN):
14. WHICH OF THESE ARE SIGNS OF A FALSE I.D.?
A. SPLIT LAMINATION D. ERASURE MARKS
B. LUMPS OR BUMPS E. TYPE NOT ALIGNED
C. FUZZY PHOTO F. DARK PHOTO
G. SEVERAL TYPE STYLES
H. FALSE SIGNATURE
I. PASTE-ON
5
9-~7
/ lfg/
The sale of beer and wine products represents a large part of our
total Food Hart sales and gross profit. To protect our privilege
to sell these products it is imperative that we take every step
possible to train our employees to handle these .ales properly.
In order to facilitate this it is mandatory that the following
actions be implemented immediately.
Company premises will be in compliance with all federal, state,
and local laws governing the sale of alcoholic beverages. The
violation of these laws by an employee(s) will result in
immediate termination of the employee (s) involved."
The Company adopts the National Association of Convenience Stores
"Techniques of Alcohol Management" (TAM) Program for the training
and education of its employees to vastly improve the knowledge,
confidence. and motivation of employees in discovering and
legally handling problems related to alcoholic beverage .ales and
to alleviate sales to minors, intoxicated persons. and third
parties. All store. fi~ld, and office personnel with any
responsibilities in the area of alcohol (selling. supervising.
managing, etc.) must participate in the TAM program through use
of visuals (ID buttons, stickers. poster), audio visuals
(training tapes. training meetings. written materials, and/or
other components of the Program.
*
THE TAMS PROGRAM - POLICIES
1. The Supervisor is responsible for presenting the TAM's
Audio/Visual Workbook to all Salary Managers. Upon
completion a signed copy of the Agreement of
Understanding Form (Example 11 must be in the manager'.
personnel file.
2. The Salary Hanager must train all cashiers. as a
condition of their employment. utilizing the TAM
course. The Hanager must review the TAM workbook with
each employee, discuss State Liquor legulations, and
administer the post test. When this has been
successfully
HR\27C:2
34 9~t?lS
/L{1/
com~leter:! the
signer:! by both
the em~loyee's
Agreement of Unr:!erstanr:!ing form must
the .anager anr:! employee anr:! placer:!
peraanent personnel file.
be
in
Supervisors will verify the completion of these forms
by reviewing each store's personnel files r:!uring the
monthly mini-aur:!it anr:! noting this on the aur:!it form.
3. TAM r:!ecals will be r:!is~layer:! on all cooler r:!oors where
beer and wine is solr:!. (See Merchanr:!isinq Section for
placement).
TAM buttons will be worn by all Petroman em~loyees
while on duty.
The Counter/register decal should be affixed to or near
the register, visible to the customer.
*
POLICY
All Petroman Employees must meet the minimum state age
requirements to sell alcohol beverages and when em~loyed
will require all customers, ap~earing to be under~ ~.rs. ~~.
of age. to ~roduce valir:! ~icturer:! identification. ~~\P
fl\\~ ~.
Other s~ecific ~olicies are: ~~~
1.
Do' not sell alcohol beverage
identification you question.
to
anyone whose
2. Do not acce~t printed ir:!entification cards that can be
purchased with a photograph.
positive ir:!entification is required at time of sale
from all ~ersons of questionable age. Customer must
pror:!uce for visual inspection before the sale one of
the following picture
HR\27C:3
35
9~/
"0/
~
""
identification
that 10 is not
expired) :
(check carefully using TAM techniques
altered, forged, stolen, counterfeit, or
1. State-issued valid driver's license.
2. State-issued valid personal I.D. card (in states
where applicable).
The following documents are not acceptable as proof of age
or identity: "
1. Birth certificates
2. Credit Cards
3. Social Security Cards
4. Student 1.0. Cards
S. Temporary Driver's Licenses
6. Travel VISA's
7. Baptismal certificate
8. Expired documents
9. Otherwise valid documents that have been borrowed.
stolen. altered. forged. and/or counterfeited.
3. Do not sell alcohol beverages to an intoxicated person.
4. Do not open an alcohol beverage for anyone.
HR\27C:4
3G
9--ltJ
~I /
/7
S. Ask anyone who i. consuming an alcohol beverage on our
property to leave a. this is . violation of our
license.
6.
Do not .ell alcohol beverages to any
appears to be purchasing the beverage
people or intoxicated people that are not
customer that
for underage
present.
7. Any Petroman employee cited for a beverage violation
will be suspended.
8. Any Petroman employee found guilty of a beverage
violation will be terminated.
All Customers not allowed to purchase shall be treated tactfully
in an effort to maintain a potential customer for other items of
sale.
IN SUMMARY. YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO SELL ALCOHOL BEVERAGES TO
ANY CUSTOMER THAT APPEARS TO BE UNDER THE LEGAL AGE. REGARDLESS
OF THE NUMBER AND TYPES OF IDENTIFICATION THE PURCHASER PRODUCES.
COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY THE COHPANY BECAUSE YOU REFUSED TO SELL
ALCOHOL BEVERAGES WILL NOT BE HONORED AND WILL BE TOLD THESE
POLICIES CANNOT BE VIOLATED BY ANY EMPLOYEE. INCLUDING YOUR
MANAGER AND SUPERVISOR.
HR\27C:S
37
~-7/
1~
/5
l
~"'~
~
TAM
-
TECHNIQUES OF ALCOHOL MANAGEMENT:
POST TEST
1-5. LIST FIVE VALID FORMS OF 10 LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE FOR ALCOHOL
PURCHA::;E:
6-10. LIST FIVE DOCUMENTS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR BUYING ALCOHOL.
11-15. LIST FIVE COMMON SIGNS THAT SIGNAL AN ALTERED ID.
"
16-18 LIST THREE TYPES OF FALSE 10 BESIDES ALTERED ONES.
19-21. THERE ARE THREE KEY WORDS TO TAM. FILL IN THE MEANING OF EACH
LETTER.
S: M' ~
I' A: T:
R k ~ ~
. .f
M' P:
22-24. OF THE THREE TAM KEY WORDS (SIR. MAAM, STOP):
22. WHICH HELPS SOLVE UNUSUAL OR CONFRONTATION PROBLEMS?
23. WHICH HELPS IDENTIFY THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM?
24. WHICH HELPS DEAL WITH MOST NORMAL PROBLEMS?
25-28. . LIST THREE SITUATIONS IN WHICH POLlCE SHOUlD BE CALLED.
.
29. IN THIS STATE: LEGAL AGE TO BUY ALCOHOL IS
-IF THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS (BEER VS LIQUOR, DIFFERENT AGES LE-
GAL AS THEY GROW TO 21, ETC.). LIST:
.
30. DAY, HOURS. OR 3.2 RESTRICTIONS ON ALCOHOL IN MY COMMUNITY
AND STATE ARE:
,-.-- cr
-/ - ? ;L
_ 5'j ~
,
J
31-32. WHICH TWO SIR STEPS HELP SHOW INTOXICATION?
end
33.34. (FILL IN) IN A SECOND-PARTY SALE, A PERSON WHO IS
AGE TRIES TO BUY ALCOHOL FOR A PERSON OR GROUP THAT IS
AGE, USUAllY IN EXCHANGE FOR MONEY.
35. (CIRCLE RIGHT ANSWER:) IT IS (LEGAL1LLEGAL) TO SELL ALCOHOL TO
AN INTOXICATED PERSON, AS LONG AS HE'S NOT DRIVING A CAR.
36 LAWS GOVERNING THE SALE OF ALCOHOL ARE ESTABLISHED BY:
A. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
B. STATE GOVERNMENT
C. LOCAL GOVERNMENT
D. ALL OF THE ABOVE, A-B-C. .
E. NONE OF THE ABOVE A-B-C.
37. THE BEST TIME TO OBSERVE ALl ALCOHOL SALE LAWS IS:
A. WHEN THE BOSS IS AROUND.
B. WHEN THE POLICE ARE AROUND.
C. WHEN YOUR STORE'S COMPANY INSPECTOR IS EXPECTED.
D. ALL THE TIME.
E. IT REAllY OOESN'T MATTER.
38. IN THE PAST, THE EASIEST PLACE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE TO BUY AL-
COHOL WAS WH"T TYPE OF STORE?
39-41. LIST THREE PROBLEMS YOU CAN HAVE IF YOU SEll ALCOHOL
ILLEG"LL Y.
42. .. COMPANY POLICY ON CHECKING 10'5 FOR AGE IS: .
43-45. IN "SIR", WHEN YOU "SIZE UP". YOU LOOK FOR SIGNS OF THREE
PROBLEMS:
.
A.
s. -- -- "'..,'- --- r_
C.
46. IN "INTERVIEWING" (SIR), WHAT TYPE OF QUESTION 00 YOU ASK?
1--7 }- ...
-.1 /'
/)
.
.
47. TELL WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO MOVE AWAY THE ALCOHOL. IN THE
MAAM STEP;
4B. WHY ASSERT THE LAW in the MAAM STEP?
49. A CUSTOMER TELLS YOU IT'S HIS RIGHT TO BUY ALCOHOL FROM YOU,
HE SAYS YOU CANNOT LEGALLY REFUSE. IS THIS TRUE OR FALSE?
EXPLAIN WHY:
50 THERE IS JUST ONE ACCEPT ABLE ACTION WHEN YOU ARE PRESENTED
WITH AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE AN ILLEGAL PURQHASE OF ALCOHOL:
THE SALE,
o
t:
.
&
7; 71/
n' /(;_______
- ~-----
."" .
TAM PROGRAM - TRAINING
Many convenience store employees do not know they can be fined,
jailed and fired for failing to obey beverage alcohol law. and
regulations. Hany do not know what these laws are: how to spot
offending consumers: or how to deal with tham legally and in your
company's best interest. Through TAM, you can do all these
things. You can instill the knowledge, confidence and motivation
to prevent illegal beverage alcohol problems in your stores and
protect your company, your employees, your customers and your
profi ts.
TeChniques of Alcohol Hanagement (TAM) uses the simply acronyms,
"SIR", "MAAM" , "STOP" to teach the law, to identify the problems
and to handle problems in beverage alcohol sales. All are simple
ideas in themselves and very easy to memorize, recall and apply.
The first two "SIR" and "HUM" are fr:endly greeting words, as
are the recommended control steps they represent. The last
greeting words, as are the recommended control steps they
represent. The last word "STOP" is a "warning" word used to
recall the steps to solve difficult or dangerous situations.
SIR teaches trainees how to discover prOblems by "Sizing up",
"Interviewing" and "Rating" customers or situations".
HAAH teaches them to handle problems revealed by "SIR": this is
done by "Moving alcohol away": "Attitude - firm, fair, friendly":
"Asserting the law": and "Moving on to other work".
STOP teaches employees, in cases where " HAAH " doesn't end the
problem, to "Stay in the store": "Temper control": "Observe
details"; and "Post details in a store log and call police, if
needed" .
The TAM's Employee Workbook contains everything except specific
laws for 'our state and community and your company policie..
HR\27C:6
38
9 --75
/"~/
/~
,
TAM'S IMPLOYEE WORXBOOX
The TAM's "Employee Workbook" stands alone. in that it ~ontains
all ~ourse information. But it needs the addition of notes on
laws; your poli~y; the pre and post test.; the visual in-store
control tools (signs. buttons, de~als, etc.); and your
instru~tions. The student adds these. from direction provided by
the trainers/facilitator.
The TAM's Employee Workbook component
tool. The student will be referred
fill in laws and notes; (2)
trainer/facilitator wants to highligh
review the TAM program in detail.
is the primary trainee
to the workbook to III
look at pages the
for ref~rence, and (3)
It is important for the trainee to be acquainted with the
entire workbook and notes in it for future reference.
The Workbook outlines all the material presented in the
Audio-Visual segment. and is designed to include all the
points made by the instructor. with notes on each problem
seenario.
The instructor must be thoroughly familiar with the TAMS
Employee Workbook in order to easily direct trainees to the
right pages for pre-test. note-taking. references. etc.
*
THE POoT-TEST
If trainee cannot pass the Post Test, they should not be
allowed to handle the sale of alcohol. Additional training
should be given until the trainee passes.
NOTE OF CAUTION: Employees not fluent in both spoken and
written English will have difficulty with this test. Yet.
if they handle alcohol sales, they must understand the laws
and TAM. Verbal instructions and testing
KR\27C:7
39
~~??
/51~
i
in their own language will help, but if they cannot converse
with customers they will have greet difficulty using TAM and
preventing illegal alcohol sales or other problems.
The final test answers should not be provided to trainees.
They must turn in completed test for grading and scoring.
You can use the test scores for compliance purposes, perhaps
requiring re-testing and retraining for those who fail.
· OBJECTIVES
The trainee needs to be
professionally:
able
to . do
these things
1.
Understand the laws and
consumers of beverage
local restrictions.
policy governing the sale to
alcohol, including state and
2. Describe in det.il the major legal problems customers
present regarding beverag alcohol purchases.
3. Identify these beverage alcohol problems and describe
hot to deal with them a. customers present them: under-
age, false 10, intoxication, second-party sale, after-
hours sale, on-premises consumption and theft.
4. Describe and act to handle both routine and unusual
problems created by these seven legal issues; and do
this in such a way as to protect Petroman, employee and
customers from danger, bad publicity, illegal actions,
legal jeopardy and damage.
5. Describe ways to .aintain safety, keep control of the
store, maintain a positive image and good customer
relations, while handling beverage alcohol problems.
tB.\27C:8
;-77
.@o
~/
/
;.
POLLOW UP
The real test of traininQ effectiveness is employee performance
on the job. Hake trainees aware of the need for total
performance on alcohol beverage problem -- handling. You will
provide the knowledge and motivation for this. The confidence
will come to trainees throuQh practice and experience on the job.
You need to reinforce this traininQ to ensure motivation and
application.
Part of the follow-up in this case should include pre-training
supervisors. managers and others. They are the ones who will
monitor the deQree of employee performance. " HanaQers and
Supervisors. in turn. will need to evaluate employee performance
fOllowing training. Their evaluation really beQins with results
in the store: did trainees learn? Are trainees using what they
learned? and how effectively?
Evaluation needs
needs improvement
actions.
to be objective. It needs to identify what
and the possible need for re-training or other
*
Evaluate post-test
employee.
results;
review
errors with
* Evaluate on-the-job performance.
* Schedule re-training (or other action) if needed.
*
ORDER MATERIAL
See Examples 2 and 3 for TAMS material to be ordered.
/q /
;-5
KR\27C:9
0/ '1
9/75
,
EMPLOYEE'S AGREEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING
I agree to the fOllowing rules and company policy about the sale
of alcohol beverages:
1. I will not sell alcohol beverages to any person under
the legal age. The legal ages for this store are:
Beer
Wine
Distilled Liquor
If the person appears to be close
will ask for identification. If
about the person's age. I will not
years old
years old
years old
to the minimum
there is any
make the sale.
age I
doubt
2. I will not sell alcohol beverages to any individual
during those hours when it is illegal to do so. The
legal hours of sale for this store are:
Monday""Friday
Saturday
Sunday
to
to
to
3.
I will not
adult for use
think this is
knowingly sell alcohol beverages to any
by individuals under the legal age. If I
happening I will not make the sale.
4. I will not sell alcohol beverages to obviously
intoxicated or otherwise disorderly individuals.
Employee's Signature
Date
Store Manager's Signature
Date
(This agreement will be maintained in your personnel file as part
of your permanen: employee record.)
I [I ...-
_L'?
MR\27C:10
42
~--')!
I
EMPLOYEE AWARENESS FORM
(Supplemental to Employee Handbook)
Name
Supervisor
(Employee)
Station
Date
In operating any business
follow to be successful.
form and a signed copy of
there are certain policies and procedures we all ~st
We have listed some of the more important of these on
which will be maintained in your personnel folder.
this
If you have a question concerning any of these policies, please ask the station
supervisor for an explanation before signing the statement.
--- READ CAREFULLY
The following are policies and should be followed at all times:
J.
"'hen there is
in a security
Repeated cash
demotion.
No free merchandise is to be requested or received from salesmen.
Merchandise purchased from a vendor is charged in on an invoice and not purchased
for cash unless authorized.
All sales of merchandise (including gasoline) will be paid for and rung up in
full on the cash register at the time of purchase. Either unintentionally or
intentionally failing to ring an order may be grounds for dismissal.
Credit will not be extended to any customer or employee.
The cash register drawers will be kept closed except when ringing up a sale,
making change or when taking the required register readings.
There will be no exchange of merchandise for saleable merchandise with vendors.
A credit slip for returned merchandise must be obtained.
Merchandise consumed on premises or taken home should be recorded on "employee
purchase log" by some other station personnel whenever possible.
~ Sales receipts will be placed in the customer's bag or given to the customer
at the completion of his/her purchase.
11. Employees are not allowed to have pets on the premises.
12. No alcoholic beverages or cigarettes will be transferred from one atation to
another without proper authorization.
No one is allowed to loiter on the premises.
Only authorized employees will be allowed to do any type of work in or around
the Itation.
IS. Unauthorized personnel will not be allowed inside the atation after cloling
hours.
16. No television sets, outside reading, or personal projects are allowed to be
in the booth.
17. Special care is to be taken, when closing at night, to see that all locks are
aecured and only security lights are left on.
18. Employees will be in uniform, properly dressed and ready for work at the acheduled
time.
a cash or inventory variation,
interview~
or inventory variations may
you may be asked to participate
2.
result in discharge, transfer, or
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
13.
14.
..--Ifl'
9"yl)
15
19.
20.
I
21.
22.
23.
~.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
The cash in the drawer or register is to
acnies are to be in the safe and nowhere
No one but the manager or supervisor may
at a unit.
Each written warning is to be signed by the employee.
Each employee must fulfill his assigned cleaning responsibilities.
All accidents will be reported to the manager and supervisor as soon as possible..
The wearing of a uniform when off duty is discouraged.
In the event of an armed robbery, no resistance is to be exercised.
Whenever a theft occurs (gas, money, grocery, etc.) the employee will contact
the police.
Every employee is responsible for the accurate recording of his/her own time
sheet after each work shift.
Failure to notify proper authority of an absence from work for 3 consecutive
days will be considered a voluntary resignation.
Company telephones are provided for company use.
never be acre than
else.
authorize a person
$75.00.
All other
to leave a vehicle
Violation of any of the following will result in dismissal:
30. False statements, misrepresentations or fraud in completing the company application
form or any other official record.
31. Consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages or illegal drugs while on
company property. (This includes the parking lot and rear of atation).
32. Embezzlement of or attempted embezzlement of company funds. (The company will
prosecute the offending person or persons to retain its losses).
33. Borrowing money from station funds. (This includes IOU's and personal checks
held for future deposit or redemption).
34. Criminal, dishonest, immoral or insubordinate conduct while on duty.
35. Profanity and/or abusive language by employees will absolutely not be tolerated.
in any dealings with the public or fellow employees.
36. Discourtesy to a customer.
37. Intentionally overcharging a customer.
38. Intentionally overpricing merchandise.
39. Possession of guns, firearms or other deadly weapons on any company property.
40. Returning to the station after normal closing hours, except in an emergency.
41. Leaving or clo$ing and locking the station after reporting to work for any
unauthorized reason, except at normal closing or shift change.
42. Selling alcoholic beverages to customers of illegal age and during illegal
hours.
43. Not following proper money drop procedures.
44. 1 fully understand that if I violate any of the foregoing company polcies and/or
procedures, 1 will be subject to immediate dismissal.
NOTE: Written rules cannot cover all conduct Which may be grounds for disciplinary
action. Improper conduct or work performance not specifically covered
by these rules or policies will be grounds for disciplinary action ranging
from written warning to discharge, depending on the facts of the particular
case and the employment history of the employee involved.
I have carefully read and fully understand the foregoing terma of employwent.
Signature of Employee
Signature of Supervisor
~~j
&p/
~
16
PROBLEMS LEADI:"G TO DISCHARGE FROM EMPLOYMENTITHISLlST IS NOT N(C[SS.R", .LL"eL'.'''..
I. Falsification of Application For Implo}mem or of other Company records,
2, Arriving late or absent from work.
;, Theft or other acts of dishonesr)' or carelessness which result in the loss of money, invenror)' or other Company
property.
4. Failure to follow money handling procedures such as not making money drops, leaving safes unlocked or nor
keeping designated areas secure. ,
,
5. Consumption of alcoholic beverages, controlled substances or other intoxicants on the premise as wen as
reponing to v..ork under the influence of same.
6. Insubordination.
7. Fighting. gambling or "horse play" on Company propeny, "
8. Abusive or discouneous treatment of customers including use of profane, obscene or abusive language or
gestures.
9, Failure to repon to work as scheduled v..;thout notification and approval of supervisor.
10. Bringing any type of v,'eapon or destructive df'\ice onto Company propeny.
I I. '\X'illful destruction or abuse of Company propeny.
12. Failure to check !D's where cigarenes and beer are offered for sale by the Company.
13. Violations of safery rules
1'1. Failure to carry out assigned duties
15. Failure to v,'ear designated uniform or other required Company identification.
16, Allowing the \iolation of any federal. state. or local lav,'s v,nich would apply to the operarions of the station or
sale of merchandise.
17. Ghing inte(\iev.'s or information regarding Company procedures, policies. or salaries to unauthorized agendes
or persons. (RfQLlRE PROPER IDEl\TIFlCATION IF ALTHORlZED)
NONTIliSTANDlNG THE ABOVE STATED SUPERVISOR GUIDELINES. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT
EIlliER THE COMPANY OR THE EMPLOYE MAY TERMINATE THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP
AT ANY TIME. FOR ANY REASON.
NO REPRESENTATIVE Of THE CO~tPANY HAS ANY AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO ANY
AGREEMENT FOR EMPLOYMENT FOR ANY SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME. OR ASSURE
ANY OTHER PERSONNEL ACTION. OR TO ASSURE ANY BENEFITS OR TERMS OF
EMPLOYMEl'T OR MAKE ANY AGREEMENT CONTRARY TO THE FOREGOING.
J ;3 ...
-- U'
9--?,2
21
\
DO empty all trash containers regularly.
DO be certain that all gasoline and other price signs are in place with proper numbc:rs.
DO turn on all outside lights and signs at dusk.
DO displayadvenising matetial.s furnished onuthotizcd by the CompanyONLY. All c!iny or outdated materials
shall be removed. NO HAl\l)MADE SIGNS.
Cerrain actions will discourage customers
from trading with you.
THE FOLLO\X1NG ARE THE "DONTS"
f
DO/I". allow' alcoholic oo-erages or other controUed substances to be consumed on Company propeny.
DOS. allow "horsepla~" or other disorde!'ly conduct.
DOl\'" brim! radios, lVs. games or reading materials on station propeny. (Your cash handling. customer se. .e,
and station operations wiU require your undhided attention.)
DOS. allow' prolonged \isiting or telephone conversations with friends or relati\'eS
DON. allow loafl!lg on station propeny.
DOS. allow' distribution of printed materials other than those prO\ided by the Company.
DON! allow' the posting of handbiUs, decals or other materials not prO\ided or properly authorized by the
Company.
DOS. park your car outside of the area designated as employe parking.
DOS. perform mechanical sc:nices on any vehicle on Company propeny.
DOllo.,. remain on station propel't). after completing your shift.
DON! BRING \X'EAPONS OF ^XY n'PE ON TO STATION PROPERlY.
I
.
J ---~3
{ptf/
-
7
,
I~
\1-
(
l':" _L.':",,-,
t.."'.....:.:
Tua:o US,!.
- .'~ ..
TEXACO INC.
EMPLOYEE'S AGREEMENT
OF UNDERSTANDING
I agree to the following rules and company policies about
the sale of alcoholic beverages:
1. I will not sell alcoholic beverages to any person under
the legal age. The legal age for the state of California
is 21 years.
I will ask for identification on all alcohol related
transactions. If there is any doubt about the persons age,
I will not make the sale.
2. I will not sell alcoholic beverages to any individual
between the hours of 2 am. and 6 am.
3. I will not knowingly sell alcoholic beverages to any adult
for the use by individuals under the legal age. If I think
this is happening I will not make the sale.
4. I will not sell alcoholic beverages to obviously intoxicated
or otherwise disorderly individuals.
s. After viewing the training film, I have a complete understanding
of Texaco Inc. policies toward the sale of alcoholic beverages.
Employee's Signature
Date
Store Manager's Signature
Date
Trainer Signature
Date
&,[,
9'?Y
.,
~,
~.~
\;jj)
PL
Attachment IT
'.
Clerk's Afiidavit
: Alcoholic Deyerage Control (AllC) Laws
Part 1: REVIEW OF L.\WS (clerk must read and understand these laws)
."
- ------
(1) Sales to UDdera~ Persons
,
You may not sell or gille any alcobolic beverage to any person under the age of 21
yean. You may DotpumU others to give alcoholic beverages to any underage person. Uyou
break this law, you may be arrested and cbarged ....ith a crime. If convicted, you may be
,fined a m.Yimum of $1,000 and/or ordered to do up to 32 hours of colIlIDuDity service.
(2) Undera~e Persons \\'ho Purr:nase Alcoholic BeVera2e5
A customer under the age of 21 years may not buy alcoholic beverages. A customer
1?reaking this law may be arrested and charged with a crime. If convicted, the customer may
be fined a maximum of S1,OOO and/or ordered to do up to 32 hours of colIlIDuDity service.
In addition, the underage customer may have their driver's license taken away or delayed
for one year.
-~
(3) Undera~e Persons \\'ho T,..... (n Purr:nnse Alcoholic Be\'era2e5
,..
-.--
r
,..
,
,
I
,J.
_ ~ A customer under the age of 21 years may not try to buy alcoholic beverages.. If a
customer breaks this law, they may be cited and charged with a crime. The customer may
_. be fined up to $250 and/or ordered to do up to 36 hours of community service. In addition,
the underage ''c1JStomer may have their driver's license taken away or delayed for one year.
(4) Checkin!! Jdentt'ncatlon (J.D.)
.... ..
. ~,~: - ""ICyou ask for and see, bona fide (legally acceptable) 1.0. before you sell an alcoholic
. _ be":Crage to ~ ~tomer, you can defend yourself against a charge of selling alcoholic ...~
beverages to an underage person. An to. is legally acceptable if it: ' .
- . - .
.:-~
. Is issued by a govemmental agetlcy (sueh as federal, state, county or city)
. Contains the /lame of the person
. Contains the date 0/ birth of the person
. Contains a de,scriptio/l of the person.
. Contains a photograph of the person
. Is currently valid (in other words, not expired)
SpedIicd by Siate of CallJ'ornia, ABC (10191)
_ ~h /
I--~~
,.. -
-.
-. -_.-.-: ~- ':' You or your 'customers may not drink alcoholic beverages ill your store or on adjactll.t .,
-property immediatelj ouJside your store. This includes before, during or after your shift. All'
.alcoholic beverages you sell must be in sealed, unopened bottles, packages or containers.
You may Dot sell aD alcoholic beverage to a penon If you know thatthey are going to re-sell
___~ _ .the alcoholic beverage to someone else. You may not sell more than S2 gallons of wine or
be~r to anyone customer at anyone time. If you break these laws, the ABC license at your
store may be taken away.
~
"'.,
,
--~
-.-
- ---
~-
I
i
!.
Examples of legally acceptable 1.D.'s are:. a driver's license, state.issued 1.D. card,
Federal military I.D. card, _ . . L ~ ~.... .) .. ~
6_ ..-
- .
Caution: The picture and physical description on the 1.D. must match the customer.
If the 1.0. is altered or mutilated, it is Dot acceptable. You must check II custDmu's J.D. eve'1
- tirM )'ou seU alcoholic bo'erages to thaJ custom.Er. .
Examples of unacceptable 1.D.'s are: temporaI)' driver's licenses, Don-photo d.river'~
licenses, birth certificates and school or work LD. cards.
(5) Roul'! of Sale.
You may only sell alcoholic beverages ,from 6 am. on one day until 2 am. on the
following day. If you break this law, you may be charged v.ith a ~rlme. If convicted, you
wy be fined up to Sl,DeD and/or sent to county jail for up to six months. Caution: Some
stores must SlOP selling alcoholic beverages earlier than 2:00 am. because of loc.alla1,l,. or
special conditions (restrictions) on tile ABC license. You must obey any special conditions,
if )'Our store's ABC license has them. Otherwise, the ABC license at your store may be
taken away.
-'
(6)
Sales to Ob\iouslv Tntnxic:lted Persons
-
You may not sell or give Dny alcoholic beverage to Dny person who looks or acts
ill/oricated (even if they are not driving). If you break this law, you may be arrested and
charged v.ilh a crime. If convicted, you mDY be rUled up to Sl,OOD and/or sent to county jail
. for up to six monlhs. If you sell or give nny alcoholic be\'erage to an underage, obviously
intoxicated person, you' may be sued by any person injured by the underage person.
(7) ABC License Prhilei!es
.... .
-
,~d!ied by StaLe of ealliol'llla. ABC (10m)
/&1' 2
9~Y?
------..
. "-
,
.
,
,
Part %: CLERK'S PRIOR VIOLATIONS (clerk must check. one)
I ha~', nro'el' been convicted of violating any law in the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act
(such as selling an alcoholic beverage to an underage or obviously intoxicated
- person).
I hay, bem convicted of violating a law (or laws) in tbe California Alcoholic Beverage
Control Act (such as selling an alcoholic beverage to an underage or obviously
intoxicated person). [If you checked this box, please explain in full what happened.
~ _ Use the space below or a separate sheet of paper, if necessaI)'.] .
. .
.
"r
I"!:,..
J~:..-
J.. ~ _ .
.--' -
-
-...
~. - ..
-~.
:.. ;: :.
--
- .
I"have read and understand this affidavit. I swear thilt all statements I have made
in this llffic!ilvit. are true. I sweor that I signed this affidavit, on the date stated, under
~"penaltyof perjury". I'understond thilt if I did not tell the truth in this affidavit, I may be
found guilty of the crime of lying.
~-
- --
--
..
--- ~- _.
....-
Signature of Cerk
Date
--- -_. ~. .-'.
_..~. ~:-. -- -~ ~
.
--~-
....;.,. .::::':'" Nam: of .Clerk (printed) ..
....-.:="1'.- --_.. -..r-...._ .~..
.- - .......;
. -- . .,
- - -..-
-- "
Home Address
Work Telephone
u
Home Telephone
Spedlied by SLate of California, ABC (10m)
/0q/
3
~-g7
'.....v-.'<.'..-
..........
'f:<'
,
,
AttachmenJ III
Part 4: ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF LICENSEE (employer must complete this section)
I have reviewed the attached "Clerk's Affidavit" with tbe person wbo signed it. I
will keep a signed copy of the "Clerk's Affidavit" at: (show address where "Clerks
Affidavit" will
be kept):
'€X~(I~
,
L\-~C') \
&'V\
hJ{)~ fY\4~
OJ, fJ-t L tJ 'yV) A
WLC10 I 0 --A
r3LiI P
0rd--\1 't
I understand if I do not have a signed "Clerk's Affidavit" for every person who sells
alcoholic beverages in my store, the ABC may discipline my license,
nature of Licensee (or Licensee's Agent)
~~
( -\S-9"),...-
Date
ABC License Number
c;-fftr
l/l '
....-
Specified b)' S.." of California, ABC (10/91)
DECAL-
Vlt\Ac..ib Drv
l OUllht D C,U l-Z5
I
I.D.
~
?~/{l
P I\, t t: { I~ /l... 137
AC< .$ltd.i r-IJJ; )/'rfl:>
__ '1\ "
." ~
L ,...
\'J~{
Texaco
CHOOSE CHOOSES TRISH PALAZZO
Citizens Helping Oceanside Obtain a Sober Envirornment has
picked our Food Mart Manager, Trish Palazzo, as their
contributor of the month. Trish and the store received
recognition at a luncheon on April 22, 1992 plus a nice
trophy. Word has it Trish and her crew IDed an off duty
police officer. No ID, No beer! Policeman went home to
get his 10. Choose now has an interest in the quality of
our TAM classes.
Congratulations to Trish and her Team at Oceanside.
.
. Hicks
WTH/dc
~-?/
,'7)/
.
CI)
1ft
o
Do
..
:s
Do
~
.
..
-,- ~. " ','..'.. .. - '.> "'. . ,,": "
~....... . ''"'::. '0;:....- ~_~"., J. .~,. ~ >Y;",,,,_ .~.~o;:, if'
~. ;j':'''"..i':-''''!.~Yt.~~=~~~":;' ~- ~,,'~:t!.~c-:.,'<~".~ ...,-;"",.,~.,
m:!;"",,~ "; "'""'.-. ~;~.~ .", . 'F -' "" ....-,.~. - ~!""'."'~'
-. ..~!,';..'C..,~""w..t~_.~~_., ,;..'" .. iii 'C:i''?! I'.oc ~l':'~'-'
~QJ.f:C'E.V') CD> .. ....""'~ . Vtj~"O ...._Io....,..,.:s .~ ~."
QJ ....,.'f'2~"'j0'10~G>:'C. 0 :~ \Q,) QJ Q) Q,);:i.~ .~. . .~.'S
.c:~""ic:~'~~ ~'~.'...&;i:, Cl;c~;;c: ~,.. '=, '~~. :;1!~'j>
g ,:>~~;;""o ~W.c:t.., ~,,~=c.: t:li.2~...'.~ .~C"\'.,.., ~':' " '!'.'l,,'~~'
o ~ '-" o.rQ ".~.U'l ' :3 U IV r.;:. - _-....~~ , ~~~--
"' ,."W\l.....~"'.....><~._.,..E,~!.E;!c:~ .""~' ,."",.""""",.~.",:~,,-<,,",-
_.. "4-'-'~ "-"'~'''>;o.~l- ...& '1""_" ....".~.,. -
~ta"'V'I0''O~c::..~~f''(I)~(L)~~~~...'-~O Os.j: E'e:"';,~':' .., -; -. u .~~~; .
'1j?'^r. ViJ. ...(;~F'.c""O"'" ''uh 1:;',-\ c:~ .0)'" ~ '" ?!I~ ~~
":''l~~~C:''''5!~~...!..:ft~o~g>'I,,'~~5 ".,:~~ '~'~~'~'.f ...
OJ.~U'''' ~~4>.--~' ~ .:;.-i''- <<I:~~'I:;J-=;..1.""'-~ :~.~~~-.:.
'V>'IJ'l;-"~'''''i~~E~E'-f:'',,(-~~'C ., ...~Jtl: lQ%~-;r' ''J!.:'' ~-'~~.
...~'f m~oi~~-6J~.Q:!n:s'"'''''' ....'C:'c.:, Q) O' - r.,p:;""$,~_ ,. -\~,;,
lll~~g::j01ce~~6.~;;.;t"" g-igICl'~~"1'1;!:'''' ' " ~i::.~;'1
Ci2t",""'~"''''''~''''~~~ G 'j"''''''' .'- " :fa..' .
O ~~;'" ';'4) O~U....... '~'Q); -=~.;o~' c:~~l:~... ~.. 'J?~. . ~<J:. ',f
,\,.I~~- E .c...ra . ~.w"!> .......'" .."tV......;... .I "~ l:-......~-oosir:.
C1,)i'-:S U -:.... A",.. 'J-"'_\....;.."lII::f I./') ....~, ~ "r' ,:'"=1;. ,,".;r
~ ~""'~""L~...< ~ .~ "".'C,d'" .. ""'~;;",,",,:' . ~ ';.:,i.It;;._.
O'c:-- .-'-....~<:ro""-j;'~o......~c"'-- ., 1:C''i'''~ ~-~~'~"":!~\''''';
-t-" fl.-t-tc:~o".E~~~ 'Q,)'n:! ~ > . -...it!""1I .'""" -~ ~
~ tt......:':~........~"o;u~o .~......s-~~.t.'. ~~-_...= ~ "- ...:.,~ .." -, \t'::~ l':
C "'-..f-"=,",,J:,u ~""?r:::.~v.( ~~ . ~.. -!j.:. .. ,'" '" ''':~-:.
,;,-'~~~"~~~.!"t<lil.'ij:JE~ c:...fgls:tt~'~~}ij&.:;, '::1J"~.~"
...,.,,,..,,,,...f,,,,~..>'C_ ~'"," ...... ,$;!'>'la- ....!.,.".. ,~.._., ~.__~ ,_.;;.' -
--!:W.. N",of,!:""" -'G.l~>~ "'~.._' W,:- l'Q ~\:)(5 Jr:.:Ji'..;.;.:......~ ~...~.:~;,;,:t/~ -". ~~.;;;(-
Cl,,,,,;c.Ol.c:~g,~"'~~";1:g l~h :>~"'E.!"",a:.~,:~.~.~, ~. ,W'::?':o.:-\:
.s-=-cr.t~tOa-:' ~, ~CV~C~--~.., - . Ut~ 1~~C:Z:~".1m' '.~. ... ..~ ',..~-~.
5~e>llE~~'i~ 5l~;S~~~~ ~51~~'~of~[l ;-mi,,~t;.::> '~:i""':W~~~:~'
~....,~..""~~... u,"'."..~.u I-W"'''''ti}-' ~~4""""'''''I: ,~,"ill"
.' "I!~::i=', ' '1i'''~~{f'':. '....11"'''''. .;'!'; ., '1'X:;<r.'"
. ","--,.g'%'-" -- ....,~~ C;', . ' '~"'f: ".-f_ .... ~. ?f'..
: .. h:lr~~~ . ,~..~ol:,~' fi;. 'r ;,?:f~~ '. <~~'i!.;:';
~~;P,;::~;ry.~..... ..-;.....~':...;:,~.::w::...~~ .'.- .....:{ ~:..-:' ,-:,. 11'.:::'.-:. :'",:
~w;.;""r:~.'C:i'1:.!~'''''Qi'-,..~''' ......-..- ..~~';""~.. ~ ~~,:..J -'" !.~"..>>....~5,-.... ...-.i..
e - . '0 - -
E,g~~~~
..... 0," C'l > ...,
ii~cVi.!!~
>(QnlQ.l"':'c
"'Olcu'C~n:s
... ... ::>
c.c:ofEe'-,
'Cue'" o~
"":>-lG~cic:
:Q'gv._",:SQ)
J:l...EZ'EeE
~o(L)""'Q.lOC
~""'E~E"fe
5'Cet;;E!::J>
E~ c.c: c.i1ij
E"'Clg~=6'C
o~:SCQ.lCC
...'C....,~-..
Q.l'C>.....Q)
ca'C....f"'J:~
iaEQ)C.~~C
IoU .cw....c::s
V)~bVJ'CSE
OCl 0'0:>
oo'Co"uE
5Q.~OB.E8
cu'C.cJa~OC'lE> ""
'Ceo e.....c U
'SRI:SwCI)'Cuoc
"'",eU"l4JQ.lCu~
~E.c:o",'C..~""
~ 0> c.c:.......... .
ct! .~VtQ)c-c::!l
::JClc::Uc:....Q)~'i6c:
EeE .-.5S~E.,
E-"'~"''''- E
O....~uQ,)Clnl....IUC
... -E"0lc:""0.c:0
n:I~lI'IecE.cc""'.!::
'Cv~~~4Jo.Q~~
Q)C= uV)c.....CQCL)
~Q.l5"' 1:),Qg~
;! g ~ Q)> e c b 1:) .Q~
- ntntoG)>4J
nt>O:i:iCUU'l1:)~."r;
~~t:~b~rQCU~~
Co cucu.s:::
U'loo.co......s:::......c,o
2: p.".....c:.... "oc
CnI= OQ)~cnJ
U.lO~O~uo.Qv;Q)
lSE c: "'-iii E j;-E'"
O-nl.,,>- _ nI
"e>-i:"'e-o'"
0805~~c.!ao
1
f-;;2.
.../]3 ..
'....
9~73
C\lMC ~etTIO~ 1C\. \4.o~(A)(")
<.
l'.l4.CDO '-, adw.;'" _.....~ ~ aabariud widlour ~ beariD,.
11Ie Zollln, Administrator is authoriud to cOlllider and to approve, disapprove or modify application.
011 elM foUowin, Nbjeca, and/or iISIIt the foUowinr requ.ired pamill without MUin, !he matter for a public
bearin,:
A. Conditional 11M permit: The Zonin, Administrator Ihall be empowered to inue conditional lISe
permits, U defined berein, In lhe fOIlowin, CIrcumsWlCtl:
1. Where lhe 11M to be permitted dou not Involve the conslNction of a _ builclin, or other ,
wbtwltial .lNct\lral improvtlDCllIl on lhe proput)' in question. ,
2. Where the lIM requirin, the pennjt would mue lIM of an ezistin, bWIc1in, and dou not involve
wbrtantial t'elIIodclinr lhereof.
3. Por .illll, U dtlined hc-ein, anci temporary tract bOllMs, U limitt;d herein.
4. 11Ie Zonin, Mr:ninistrator is authoriud to consider and to approve, dCllY, or modify applications
for condition&l lIM ptl'tIlill for camiva1s and circuses. 11Ie Zoninr ~",;.,btrator thall 1ft the
IIIItter for public bellin, In the manner provided berein.
5. ChW'dlts.
6. Ettablishmenu lhat Include lhe tale of alcoholic bwcra,e. for olf..ite lIM or conswnption,
loca~d in lhe C.N zone. The Zoning Administrator .haJJ hold a public hellin, in accordance
with Sections 19.14.060-19.14.090 upon livin, notice lhereof in accordance with Sections
19.12.07o.1~~~080~ A conditional 11M pel'tllit .hall not be rranted lIIlIess the Zoning
Administrato '-other issl.lin, aulhority finds in his or her tole discretion, and based on
.ubsWltial evidence In view of lhe anOre record, !hat all of lhe facu required by Section
19.14.080 ewt, and lhat approval of lhe ptl'tIlit will not result in an O\lVl:oncentration of such
facilities. Overconcentration may be found to ezist based on (1) lhe nwnber and location of
ezistin, facilities; (2) compliance with State Alcohol Bevera,e Control overconcentration
.tandards in effect at the time of project COlllide/"ltion; (3) lhe impact oflhe Proposed facility on
crime; and (4) the impact of the proposed facility on traffic volwne and traffic flow. The Police
Depanment or other appropriate City depanmenllmay provide evidence at the hellin,. A permit
to Operate may be mtricled by an)' reUOtllble conditiolll incJuclin, bul QOI1imiled to 1imitatiolll
on hOIll1 of operation.
11Ie City Council .haJJ be informed of lhe decision 011 each Nch permit by lhe City Ouk when
the decision is tiled in accordance with Section 19.14.090. The clecision of lhe Zonin,
Administralor l1li)' be appealed.
Such appeallhalJ be clirected to lhe City Council, rather lhan the Plannin, Commission, and must
be tiled within ten (10) days after lhe decision is tiled with the City Oerk, U provided in Section
. 19.14.100. U appealed within the time limit, Nid appeal.hall be considered in a public hellin,
conducted by lhe City Council, In lhe lime manner u olher appeals plll1U1ll1 to Sections
19.14.120 and 19.14.130, IMtpl!hat the Co\lZlcil mllll malte lhe lime written Mdin" required
of the Zonin, Administrator herein, ill order to pw\t lhe pamit.
,
1113
c;~J1
/
/1~"
(R 9192)
THE CIn ....'F ClfUL4 VISTA PARn'DISCLOSL'ltE STATEMENT
.
S!;1tement of disclosure of c.:TWin ownership interests, paymcnts, or c:.lmpaign contributions, on all m:llters
whid, will re'luir~ discn.tionary action on the part .)lthL' City Council. Planning COlllmission, and allotl.,.
"ffi,j;d h,'dics, The following information must he disdosed:
1. Lht the n:.lmes of all persons having a financial interest in the contract. i.e" mnlractur,
suhcontmctor, material supplier.
~YAr.n RFFTNTN~ & ~R~FTTNG. INC.
If :JnY person identified purstJantto (I) ahove is a corpl'r:lti,;" "r partnership, list the names of :.III
II1dividu:.lls owning Illore than 10<:;' of the shares in tllL' corporation or owning uny partnership
interest in the p:.lrtnership.
Nn ~~~nN n~~ MnRF THAN 10% OF SHARES
~, If :my person identified pursuant to (I) ahove is non-profit organization or a trust, list the nnrnes
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organizallnn or liS trustee or beneficiary or
trustor of the trust.
lJn,. A'D'DT TrAlU;"
4,
I-l:.l\'e \'Oll h;id more th:.m 5250 worth of business trans:.lcted with any member of the Cit\' SI
. --
Boards. Commissions, Committees :lnd COllncil within the past twelve months? Yes
\",, ~ If yes, pl,,:!se indicate person(s):
h.
Pkase identitY e:lch and every persnn. indlll~ing :Iny agents. employces, ronsuhants or independent
Cl'ntr:lctms who you ha\'e assigned tll n:rres~J1l you hefore the City in this mailer.
FRED FIEDLER & ASSOCIATES GARY ENGINEERING, INC.
2322 WEST THIRD STREET 4901 MORENA BLVD. SUITE 304
LOS ANGELES. CA 90057 (213) 381-7891 SAN DIEGO. CA 92117 (619) 483-0620
ATT'N. : MR. PATRICK FIEDLER ATT'N, : MR. ROBERT G. FAUDOA JR.
H:l\e you <Ind/ur your officers or agents, in the aggregute. contributed more thnn S l.On!) to a
Cllullt'ilrnember in the current or preceding election period'! Ycs _ No...!. If yes, statl' which
Councilll1emher(s):
PL'i" 'II j, ,kflOcJ.." 'All\' 1IIIIi";,hl'/!,fi/'lll, W-!"Ir/lh'rsl/il',jolllf "1'1111I/", m.wri,III01I. .oci'l! cllIl>, .I;ntc/7/a! n~nlliz"'ilJ/l, rorl''''''fiml,
l'~ho'l.'. Inl.\/. It'(f'ill'!'. .\;.'IIt.'Ji.:IlIl'. IllIs liJl(/ iIIry OIlier (OUIIIY. (ilY IlIul '-011I111')'. d~,~ ''''lIIicip(ili~,~ ,'i,trier or (lfllrr po/itj,:nl,fuh,!ni,ioll.
f'l' ,:ny Oi,';,', group or fomhllwrio" tl('lmg fl~t1I1/lil."
I \ UTi::; '\II01L'11 tu.hlili'll1:lI p~I~",.~ as nl'\'l"'m:)
.. . ;.\-1>:~n.o5!._;XTI
JY'/5
~:/
Sigllallln: of c<lntr:ll:tor/al'plicant
ROBERT G. FAUDOA JR. PROJECT MANAGER
GnRY ENGINEERING, INC. 4901 H>RENA BLVD. 1304
!',int Ilr typL' 11:1I11e of l"(":I';IL'I"r"a~pli(,:lIlt J~ ./
SAN DIEGO, CA 92117 (619) 483-0620 !It,,,,,-,,, I 'fl'~
1),,1.': March 14. 1991
..-
June 14, 1993
FROM:
Councilman Jerry Rindone
John D. Goss, City Manager)/-
.
TO:
SUBJECT:
Response to Questions regarding the June 15, 1993 Agenda
Following are staff's responses to your comments/questions regarding items on the
above referenced Council agenda.
Item 3 - Flex Plan for Assistant City Manager
1. Please provide the date of the Council meeting when the referral of this
item was requested by Council.
The flex plan amount for the Assistant City Manager was originally discussed at
the January 12, 1993 Council meeting.
2. Please provide the minutes of the meeting when the Council referral was
made.
Attached are the minutes from the January 12, 1993 meeting.
Item 8 - Contract for Fireworks Display
1. The cost of the fireworks to the contractor is $16,500. Is only $14,000
funded by the City and $2,500 from KKLQ radio station?
The City is contracting with San Diego Fireworks for $16,500. The sponsoring
radio station is providing an additional $2,500 in fireworks. The net result
will be that the Chula Vista fireworks display will consist of $19,000 worth of
fireworks.
2. Why was this not broken down in the fiscal impact statement instead of
Attachment E, budget detail?
Staff has historically provided the Fourth of July budget detail as a separate
attachment. However, your point is well taken and the department will include
this information in the Fiscal Impact part of the staff report in the future.
3. What, if any, publicity coordination is planned with the fireworks held at
the marina and planned at EastLake?
fhere has been no publicity coordination, since it is staff's understanding that
EastLake prefers to target their fireworks promotional material to EastLake
residents only.
7-7b
- ~.
Item 9 - Beer and Wine Sales at 1498 Melrose
1. Who was the "no" vote for this direction?
The motion on the beer and alcohol sales was combined with that of the m1nl-
mart/car wash CUP use. Since Councilman Moore voted "no" on the mini-mart/car
wash use, his "no" vote is also reflected for the beer and 'wine sales. I am
attaching a copy of the minutes from the June 1 Council meeting when this item
was discussed.
Item 11 - Adoption of 1993-94 Budget
1. On Page 11-3, under MIS, staff is recommending a reclassification of an
Administrative Analyst II to Senior Management Analyst. Why?
Attached is the commentary from the proposed budget which discusses the reasons
for reclassification of this position.
2. The $4,006 listed under Personnel for correction of salary benefit level
for the Assistant Director is recommended for what purpose?
This was a computer input error which needs to be corrected.
3. On Page 11-4, why is the $889,600 for the Equipment Replacement Fund not
listed under General Fund expenditure adjustment. Please explain.
The Equipment Replacement Fund was established by resolution in 1985 to account
for vehicle replacement charges made against City departments (via account #5270,
Vehicle Replacement) to finance the eventual replacement of the vehicles assigned
to them. In order to make expenditures from this fund, Council must appropriate
the funds thereunder.
Item 13 - Solid Waste Participation Agreement
1. This is a difficult and complex subject. Staff listed on Page 4 of the
report five possible alternative disposal options. However, one which was
not listed (which I think needs serious consideration) is to establish a
South County JPA for solid waste landfill purposes for the four South Bay
cities (and/or Lemon Grove). Has staff explored this option? Please
provide staff's recommendation regarding this alternative.
At the staff level, there has been no interest expressed by the Cities of
National City, Imperial Beach, Coronado or Lemon Grove to pursue a South County
JPA for alternative options to the County system. All of these cities have
previously approved the Agreement, and at least one city has,committed 100% of
its waste flow.
Conceptually, such a JPA could serve the same purpose in the South Bay as it has
in North County, if the desire is to seriously examine exiting (or possible
contracting with) the County system. Although it 1S unclear how the idea would
be received by the other cities, it should be pursued as a possible consideration
during whatever timeframe is eventually determined to be available for
pursuing options.
'1 ~ 57 ?
Minutes
June I, 1993
Page 7
PUBUC HEARINGS AND RElATED RESOLt.mONS AND ORDINANCES
9. PUBUC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-91-24; APPEAL OF TIiE PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVAL OF REQUESfTOREDEVELOP SERVICE STATION AND ADD MINI-MARKET AND
CAR WASH AT 1498 MELROSE AVENUE - The proposal was approved by the Planning Commission in
January 1992 and consequently appealed by Council in response to concerns with traffic impacts and an
over-concentration of alcohol sales facilities. Consideration of the appeal has been postponed to coincide
with reconsideration of the alcohol sales issue. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Planning) Continued from the meeting of 5/25/93.
RESOLt.mON 17133 AFFIRMING TIiE DECISION OF TIiE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
TIiEREBY APPROVING TIiE ISSUANCE OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-91-24 TO REDEVELOP A
SERVICE STATION AND ADD A MINI-MARKET AND CAR WASH AT 1498 ME.;.ROSE AVENIJE
Mayor Nader stated Items 9 and 10 would be heard concurrently.
? 3'/ <7-- C; Y
Minutes
June 1, 1993
Page 8
Steve Griffm, Senior Planner, gave a brief history of the project and reviewed the staff report. The Zoning
Administrator had placed the following conditions on the permit: 1) no video games; 2) an exterior lighring
plan; 3) no advertising of beer and wine; 4) strict limitation as to the areas devoted to alcohol sales; 5) the
payphone would not be capable of accepting incoming calls; 6) provision that would allow the phone or
promotional displays to be removed at the sole discretion of the Zoning Administrator, in consultation with
the Police Department if problems arose; and 7) review of the permit in one year by the Police Department
and Planning Department. The approval had been separated so Council could approve the mini-market
without having to approve alcohol sales. Resolution 17133 would authorize the conditional use permit for
the mini-market and car wash.
Councilmember Horton questioned the percentage of reclaimed water used in the car wash.
Mr. Griffm stated the condition required that 80% of the water be reclaimed. He had been told that was
achievable but anything beyond that was not achievable by modem technology.
Councilmember Fox questioned what the impact would be if alcohol sales were allowed but floor displays
were not allowed. At the time he appealed the decision, his argument was that if character and image of
the neighborhood was considered there was an over concentration.
Mr. Griffin stated Council could choose to make that finding. The discussion regarding ten facilities
representing an over concentration was the State standard.
Councilmember Fox stated the staff report acknowledged there had been problems with runners and gangs
in the area and Texaco was sensitive to the concerns which was demonstrated in their design. He was not
convinced that design would alleviate the problem of adults purchasing alcohol for minors.
Councilmember Moore expressed concern regarding damage to the asphalt due to water from the car wash.
He did not see any corrective action in the report, i.e. concrete in the runways for exiting the carwash.
Mr. Griffin responded that particular provision was not required. The facility would use a blower system
for drying which was more effective in removing the water. Condition 2 obligated the applicant or any
successors to repair any water damage if it did occur.
Mayor Nader referred to Condition 7 and questioned whether the removal of the phone referred to any
criminal activity, not just loitering. He also questioned whether the discretion to remove the pay phone
could be given directly to the Police Department as they would be in the best position to ascertain the
problem.
Mr. Griffin stated Planning would not object to such an amendment to the condition.
Mayor Nader referred to Condition 9 and stated the language seemed construable as preventing the City
from imposing any significant restriction on alcohol sales as it would be a loss of revenue the permittee
would not be expected to cover in the normal operation of business.
City Attorney Boogaard stated the Planning Department was adding Condition 9 to all CUP's and it acted
independently of Condition 8 which allowed review in one year solely on the basis of alcohol beverage sales
and allowed right of review independent of Condition 9. After that review it allowed modifications or
revocation for violations of Condition 8.
Mayor Nader questioned whether it was the City Attorney's opinion that if Condition 8 was invoked there
could not be an argument made under Condition 9 that would lead to litigation or other difficulties.
~
9~1(
Minutes
June I, 1993
Page 9
City Attorney Boogaard recommended adding the words "not withstanding the provisions of Condition 9"
to Condition 8.
Mayor Nader questioned whether Council was required to make a finding that the proposed use was
necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which contributed to the well being of the
neighborhood or the community.
City Attorney Boogaard stated the Mayor was correct.
Mayor Nader questioned if that was the only basis staff had for finding the proposed use was necessary, i.e.
that the sale of beer or wine was considered a desirable convenience for the surrounding areas.
Mr. GriftIn responded that was the fInding.
Councilmember Horton questioned what areas of the City had the 120% crime rate which was commonly.
used to identify high crime areas.
Lieutenant Wilson responded it was a difficult question when using the formula used by Alcoholic Beverage
Control. There were ten reporting districts within the City and they took the overall projected crime per year
and inserted it into their formula at the 100% level. Reported crimes included auto theft, rape, murder,
robbery, aggravated assault, and larceny. If it was 120% or more it was considered excessive and a protest
could be made based on that. He did not have the information designating those areas at the meeting. The
ABC would take a protest if there was an aggravating police problem at the location.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
. Patrick Fiedler, 2322 West Third Street, Los Angeles, CA, Project Engineer, Fred Fiedler & Associates,
stated the overall design was state of the art. They had worked with staff over the past two years to develop
the landscaping treatment and driveway location. The orientation of the pump islands and building was
designed to make gasoline the main focus. Lighting was very important to them as their studies showed that
customers would come back to a well lit facility. The lack of video games and sidewalks around the building
were deliberate in an effort to reduce loiteting. Texaco had a policy to use concrete for the entire site of
car washes. The use of reclaimed water reduced the water per wash to approximately five gallons versus
25 - 40 gallons of water used if a car was washed at home.
. Ralph Saltsman, 426 Culver Blvd., Play del Rey, CA, Attorney representing Texaco, stated he wanted
to address the issuance of a beer and wine conditional use permit. Texaco could live without floor displays
and would fInd that condition acceptable. With respect to the issue of over concentration, he referred to
the Municipal Code Section 19.14.030 which stated over concentration was the issue in which the Zoning
Administrator could make a determination upon issuance or denial of the CUP. That issue was the focal
point of the determination made by the City earlier and the staff report dwelled extensively on that issue
and its various ramifications. He then reviewed the definition of over concentration. He stated the impact
of the facility on traffic and traffic flow, as stated in the report, would not be a significant impact. It was
their experience that the facility was not a destination point but a location along the way. The police
department stated it Was not a high crime area. Under Criteria 2 and part of Criteria 3 there was no over
concentration under Rule 61.3. The service station would be providing a new service to the area. Texaco
wanted to build the facility and he had been told it was a package deal in that each and every component,
Le. car wash, food, gasoline, beer and wine sales, all formed the necessary formula to make the project
economically viable. He felt all the terms of the ordinance which could affirmatively be met by the staff
report and Council's findings had been met.
~q)
~ /
9--/c:JZJ
Minutes
June 1, 1993
Page 10
Mayor Nader stated the ordinance required that not only the Zoning Administrator and Council, in reviewing
the Zoning Administrator's decision, fInd that there was no over concentration but also that based on
substantial evidence that all facts required by Section 19.14.080 existed. He questioned whether that
referred to the fIndings that had to be made if the resolution were to be adopted.
City Attorney Boogaard responded Section 19.14.080 was the section that required the four fIndings on pages
10.8 and 10.9. The over concentration provision was not included.
. Dave Mattson, 9966 San Diego Mission Road, San Diego, CA, representing Texaco, gave a brief
histoty of the project. He stated Texaco realized the right to seU beer and wine was a privilege. They had
an ongoing training program in San Diego and their people were brought in every ninety days for training
on alcoholic beverage sales. Anyone purchasing an alcoholic beverage in their facility had to show an 10,
no matter what their age. The nearest car wash to the facility was the SheU Station at 1.805 and Main
Street. There was a self.serve Texaco car wash on Third and Palomar.
Councilmember Fox questioned whether the prohibition of beer and wine sales would impact Texaco's
decision to develop the facility.
Mr. Mattson responded that investment funds were extremely limited within his company and the petroleum
industry and opportunities were very great. They would take the project that made the most economic
sense. Mr. Saltzman had indicated that Texaco would give up floor displays and he would recommend to
management they give up the ability to have floor displays. However, he felt it would be adequately covered
in the one year overview of the CUP if granted. If Texaco found it to be a problem it would be in their
interest not to have floor displays.
Councilmember Moore questioned the stacking distance on Orange going east at the light at Melrose.
Mr. Griffin stated it was a right in and right out only.
Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer, stated there would be a dedication on Orange and a partial widening on
Melrose.
Councilmember Rindone stated it was a difficult decision and questioned whether Texaco would proceed
if Council conditioned the CUP with a one year review.
Mr. Mattson responded that Texaco would probably proceed based on their ability to control that portion
of their business.
. Crystal Sanders, 1517 Melrose, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation.
She felt the facility would create higher traffic and lower property values. The area would also have
increased traffic due to the Olympic Training Center and the library. There was a large concentration of
children in the area and she expressed concern regarding their safety. The existing bus stops were also a
concern regarding accidents. She requested that Council review the crime rate in the area which was
extremely high.
. Faith E. Williams, 257 Sandstone Street, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition to the staff report and
stated she did not feel crime should be the only criteria and recommended that noise be considered. Since
the shopping center had been remodeled, noise had increased in the area 100%. She urged the Council to
reject the proposal.
.~w
9 '/0 /
Minutes
June I, 1993
Page 11
. Veronica Eberle, 1505 Marble Way, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition of the staff report and
stated there was an elementary school two blocks away and the children had to cross the street. She
expressed concern regarding the additional traffic that would be generated and noted the traffic counts in
the report had been taken before the Lucky's had moved into the area. There were .a1ready four facilities
selling alcohol which she felt was sufficient. She was not opposed to the mini-mart or car wash. She
presented Council with a petition signed by fifty residents and businesses in the area.
Mayor Nader questioned whether there was a trend in crime for the neighborhood.
Ms. Eberle responded there were more kids hanging out and drinking in the cul-de-sacs. Loitering had been
a large problem in the past and she felt it was again happening.
. Jonie Gypto, 362 Tourmaline Court, Chula Vista, CA, spoke against the staff report. She felt crime
had increased in the area and was against the sale of beer and wine.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Councilmember Horton felt the car wash and mini-mart were desirable but she was opposed to the sale of
alcohol. The staff report stated the existing facilities were hang-outs for youth and it was a common practice
for alcohol to be purchased for them at the two locations.
RESOLtmON 17133 OFFERED BY COUNCJLMEMBER HORTON, reading of the ten was waived. Staffwas
directed to return within two weeks with a resolution which set forth findings that would reasonably support
a decision to reject the CUP for PCC-93-10 for alcohol sales and continue the public hearing to 6/15/93.
Referral to staff was seconded by Councilmember POL
Councilmember Fox stated he would support the motion. He felt it was common practice for liquor to be
sold to minors in the area. He could not justify that the facility would enhance the neighborhood as he felt
there was an over concentration. He expressed concern over the amount of time the process had taken.
Councilmember Moore stated the CUP must be for the overall good of the neighborhood and he did not feel
there was a demand for a mini-mart or sale of alcoholic beverages. He also felt there was a traffic problem
in the area.
Mayor Nader stated no member of the neighborhood or COmmunity had come forward in support of the
facility. He could not find evidence to support Finding 1. He would support the motion and commended
the residents on their involvement and participation in the Neighborhood Crime Watch program. He shared
Councilmember Fox's concern regarding the amount of time taken to process the request.
Councilmember Rindone stated the proposed project was beneficial to the community and neighborhood as
it was a significant upgrade in the appearance of the property and would provide new services to the
community. He did not feel anyone on the Council was advocating increasing the number of locations for
the sale of alcoholic beverages.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-1 with Moore opposed.
MS (Rindone/Nader) to refer to staff for a report back in 30 - 45 days with recommendations on what could
be done to deal with concerns expressed at the public hearing for operators of premises that currently had
the right to dispense alcoholic beverages. .
Mayor Nader questioned whether it was the intent of the motion that the Police Department be directed to
look at the problem in association with existing alcohol outlets exclusively or in any particular higher
priority over other problems they identified.
~~
;-/v;2
Minutes
June I, 1993
Page 12
Councilmember Rindone stated Council had heard concerns regarding loitering, beer running, youth
congregating in parking lots, etc. and he wanted a staff teferral to examine the situation and return with
recommendations if the concerns were validated.
Mayor Nader stated he could support the .motion if staff looked at the referral in the context of the 'big
picture".
Councilmember Rindone stated that was understood.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
~
9-/tJJ
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY:
Item / t?
Meeting Date 6/15/93
Resolution 17/ ~ ~ Approving an agreement with Rick
Engineering Company to prepare Topographic Maps along Interstate 805
north of Telegraph Canyon Road to south of Otay Valley Road.
Director of Public workp)j
City ManagerJC:t ~~-
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_ Nov
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
At the Council meeting of April 13, 1993, staff recommended that Rick Engineering Company
be awarded a contract to provide topographic mapping for Caltran's project study report on four
1-805 interchanges. Since Rick Engineering was not the lowest proposer, Council rejected staff's
recommendation and directed staff to negotiate and obtain an agreement from the lowest
qualified proposer, Airborne Systems, if they would cut their cost proposal to reflect a reduction
in the scope of work from the original proposal. Staff requested Airborne Systems to provide
the City with a new cost, however, they submitted a higher cost in response, indicated they had
underestimated the cost in their original proposal and that it was an error. Additionally,
Airborne Systems does not carry the errors and omissions insurance that the City requires and
for them to obtain it, they indicated there would be an additional cost to the City of
approximately one-half of the premium. Airborne's new price proposal for the revised scope
of work is $88,950 plus an additional $8,500 to cover the insurance premium. Staff also re-
negotiated with Rick Engineering who agreed to lower their proposal to $86,000. While this
has been to the Council twice before, staff believes that due to the changes as a result of the
recent negotiations, Council should revoke their previous action conditionally awarding the
contract to Airborne Systems and award it to Rick Engineering Company.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution revoking and repealing the prior
minute order resolution approving conditionally an agreement with Airborne Systems and
authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement with Rick Engineering for Topographical
services.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The 1992-93 Capital Improvement Program includes a design study for four (4) 1-805
interchanges, Telegraph Canyon Road, East Palomar Street, East Orange Avenue and Otay
Valley Road, and in order for Caltrans to do their required project study, the City needs to
furnish topographic mapping illustrating existing, land features, such as buildings, structures, and
elevations. In accordance with the CIP project scope of work, staff requested proposals from
qualified engineering firms. Staff received four (4) proposals. The proposals were screened and
evaluated, and a recommendation was made to the City Council that Rick Engineering Company
was the best candidate to provide topographic mapping information even though they did not
have the lowest proposal.
1(/'/
Page 2, Item / tJ
Meeting Date 6/15/93
When Council rejected staff's recommendation, they directed staff to obtain an agreement from
the lowest proposer, Airborne Systems, who had submitted an initial proposal of $86,750, or
$5,255 less than Rick Engineering's negotiated contract price, if they would lower their cost
based on a reduced scope of work. Staff requested Airborne Systems to provide the City with
a new cost propsal for the reduced scope, however, their new submittal was higher and they do
not carry the errors and omissions insurance that the City requires. Staff also re-negotiated with
Rick Engineering who agreed to lower their proposal to $86,000.
1. Proiect Obiectives
The objective of obtaining topographic maps is to determine what additional improvements will
be necessary along I-80S at Telegraph Canyon Road, East Orange Avenue, East Palomar Street,
and Otay Valley Road interchanges. The additional improvements are necessary to provide
sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated traffic growth from the eastern part of the City.
Caltrans is the lead agency to prepare the project study report which identifies the additional
improvements.
The topographic maps, which will have to be prepared in accordance with Caltrans Standard
Mapping Specifications for locally funded projects, May 1989, are a requirement of the State
in order to initiate the project study report which will identify the additional improvements to
handle any future traffic growth. Caltrans requires that the project area consist of a 20,500 foot
strip averaging 1,500 feet in width along Interstate 805. The mapping limit will include the
ramps and the first row of houses adjacent to both sides of the Interstate. The northerly project
limit is the centerline of East H Street. The southerly project limit is to the centerline of Palm
A venue. In addition to the Interstate strip, four transverse strips average 1,500 foot in width
and extending 1,300 feet both easterly and westerly along Telegraph Canyon Road, East Palomar
Street, East Orange Avenue, and Otay Valley Road. The consultant will provide topographic
mapping of the project at a scale of 1" equals 50 feet with 2 foot contour intervals.
Additionally, Topographic Mapping of the interchange structures at a scale of 1 " equals 20 feet
with 1 foot contour interval will be provided.
i ANNED
II. Analvsis of City Staff Versus Outside Consultant NOT SC
The end product of this contract requires the use of specialized equipment and sophisticated
electronic devices. As noted onfAttachment A, "Cost Comparison Worksheets - Contract
Consultants vs. in-house staff," it is shown that staff does not possess the capability nor the
expertise to produce such products. While some of the equipment could be rented, trained staff
on the use of these equipments is required. Some of the equipment required to perform these
services are shown on the following listing:
Topographic Mapping Equipment Listing
Aerial ground control surveying equipment
Specialized aerial survey vehicles
Aircraft
Aerial camera
Point transfer device
/IJ)..~
!. f"~
Page 3, Item / t?
Meeting Date 6/15/93
Aerotriangulations software
Stereoplotters
Graphic edit stations
Photo lab
Translations intergraph computers and plotters
III. Proiect Selection Process
The Engineering Division followed the City Municipal Code Section 2.56, Ordinance 2517, and
Council Policy 102-05 in the Consultant selection process. As required, a Request for Proposal
(RFP) was prepared by staff in accordance with the above mentioned Municipal Code,
ordinance, and policy. The Request for Proposal was sent to 12 professional firms specializing
in aerial photographic mapping and a notice was published in the Star News and the San Diego
Union. Attached is list of the 12 firms which received the Request for Proposal.
The {FP~~:~~fn~ded a description of the project limits and the deliverables to be
provided. Each firm was also asked to provide: 1) a statement of general qualifications; 2)
names and qualifications of all key personnel to be used on the project, including any sub-
consultants; 3) the location of the office where the work is to be performed; 4) adequate
documentation related to the firm's financial status and insurance; 5) experience in successfully
managing a project of similar scope and magnitude, ability to complete the project on schedule
and within budget, and 6) ability to work with agency input, review, and properly coordinate
into the overall project completion.
The RFP also indicated that the City will rank the proposals based on the following criteria.
Criteria are listed in descending order of importance, with Criterion 1 being the most important.
1. Past record or performance (Reference Evaluation).
2. Evaluation of personnel qualifications, including subconsultants if so indicated.
3. Capacity and resources to perform the work.
4. Proximity of office to San Diego County.
5. Fee proposal and pay schedule.
A copy of the City standard two-party agreement was also included in the RFP. The deadline
for responding to the Request for Proposal was October 23, 1992. Four firms formally
responded to the RFP. They are as follows:
Consultant Original
Cost
Airborne Systems, Inc. (Anabeim) $ 86,750.00
ERB Engineering, Inc. (Poway) 97,877.50
Hirsh and Company (San Diego) 80,680.00
Rick Engineering Co. (San Diego) $102,510.00
/d'.3
Page 4, Item I P
Meeting Date 6/15/93
IV. RFP Evaluation Process
The selection committee as appointed by the City Manager in accordance with the City
Municipal Code Section 2.56 consisted of the following three members:
Kenneth Goldkamp, Senior Civil Engineer
Zoubir Ouadah, Civil Engineer
Orval Nichols, Photogrammetry Manager, Caltrans District (11)
The committee members were provided with individual copies of each one of the four
responses. They met as a group to discuss and agree to the evaluation to be used during the
initial review. After reading the responses, each member was charged with rating the response
on:
. Past experience on similar projects with Caltrans.
. Evaluation of assigned personnel including subconsultants.
. Understanding of the scope of work.
. Ability of the consultant to complete the work on time.
. Consultant references.
. Cost.
Hirsh and Company and ERB Engineering, Inc. received a much lower rating than the
remaining two consultants because of: 1) lack of experience in similar projects with Caltrans
and 2) limited references. Hirsh and Company and ERB Engineering, Inc. proposals showed
no past experience in similar projects with Caltrans for both companies. From past experience,
Caltrans requirements are significantly different from other agencies. Caltrans plans are much
more detail oriented and shown in a very specific way. It was the selection committee feeling
that these two companies will not complete the work on time or within budget.
The remaining two firms (Rick Engineering and Airborne Systems) were subsequently invited
to an oral interview.
The selection committee interviewed Rick Engineering and Airborne Systems. Each firm had
45 minutes for the interview of which 5 minutes were for set-up and introduction, 20 minutes
for the presentation, 15 minutes for questions and answers, and 5 minutes for a closing
statement.
At the conclusion of the interview, the committee ranked Rick Engineering as a higher
qualified firm than Airborne Systems, Inc. The selection of Rick Engineering as most qualified
firm for the job was based on their presentation in the interview, the firm's personnel,
proximity to Chula Vista, and their past experience with similar projects for Caltrans. Rick
It'- r
Page 5, Item I ~
Meeting Date 6/15/93
Engineering has recently completed three projects for Caltrans: 2 interchanges along Route
74 in the City of Perris for the Riverside RCTC; Routes 86 and 111 in Imperial County. Rick
Engineering has also done Topographic Mapping for the City of Chula Vista on the 1-805 and
Bonita interchange. One project that Airborne Systems is currently completing is similar to
the City's proposed project is their work for Riverside RCTC along 1-215. A reference check
was made by the committee for both Rick Engineering and Airborne Systems. Rick
Engineering received a higher ranking for their past work with Caltrans. Specifically, Caltrans
headquarters in Sacramento gave an excellent rating for the topographic mapping recently
completed by Rick Engineering for Route 86 in the Imperial County area. Airborne Systems,
currently working on a similar project in the Los Angeles area, received a much lower rating
from Caltrans personnel in the Los Angeles district offices.
After the Selection Committee determined that Rick Engineering was the most qualified firm
for the job, staff became concerned about the proposed cost of $102,510 which was 15%
greater than the proposal submitted by the second candidate, Airborne Systems. After
reviewing the Scope of Work and obtaining a better understanding of the work to be performed
by Rick Engineering, staff was instrumental in obtaining an agreement from Rick Engineering
to perform the work for $92,005. The initial limits of the proposed work as required by
Caltrans was a stripe of 1,500 feet wide along I-80S. The 1,500 foot wide stripe included
around 10 rows of houses on each side of the freeway. Staff questioned the need for 10 rows
of houses and requested that Caltrans accept only one row of houses on each side of the
freeway, which they approved. Based on this change and other smaller negotiated items, Rick
Engineering reduced their fees from $102,510 to $92,005 or 11 %.
At the Council meeting of April 13, 1993, staff recommended Rick Engineering be retained
to perform the work based on their overall quality, experience with CaITrans and their
references. Initially, Rick Engineering was recommended even though their cost was higher
than the cost proposed by the second consultant, Airborne Systems. Council directed staff to
negotiate an agreement with the second consultant, Airborne Systems because of the
significantly lower cost. It was staff s understanding that by reducing the scope of work,
Airborne Systems should reduce the cost of services. When Airborne Systems was asked to
submit a cost for the new scope of work as directed by Council, Airborne Systems gave a cost
of $88,950, or $2,200 higher for a reduced scope of work than for their original proposal.
When staff questioned how the cost could go up when the scope of work was reduced,
Airborne Systems responded by saying the initial cost submitted to the City was a mistake and
they no longer would honor that price. Their new cost for the original scope of work is now
$91,750. In addition to the price increase in Airborne Systems' proposals, Airborne Systems
brought to our attention that they do not carry errors and omissions insurance and if required,
they want the cost of this insurance, $17,000, to be shared with the City. Thus, if the cost was
shared equally, the final contract costs could be $97,450 ($88,950 + $8,500). When staff
realized that Airborne Systems was not going to honor their initial proposal of $86,750, and
raised their cost for a reduced scope of work, not including the cost of the insurance, we
invited Rick Engineering to renegotiate their proposal. Rick Engineering has submitted a new
proposal of $86,000 to perform the proposed reduced scope of work. The cost of $86,000
from Rick Engineering is now lower than Airborne Systems by $2,950. Additionally, Rick
/~-f
Page 6, Item / tJ
Meeting Date 6/15/93
Engineering carries the required errors and omissions insurance where Airborne Systems does
not. Rick Engineering is also a local San Diego firm, has done acceptable work in Chula
Vista, and is familiar with the City's engineering procedures.
THE AGREEMENT
The proposed agreement (attached) with Rick Engineering, Inc. uses the City's standard two-
party agreement. Under this contract, Rick Engineering agrees to perform the Scope of Work
as outlined in Exhibit A for a fixed cost of $86,000. This section details what is required of
the firm. This section is extremely precise in order to insure that all of the City and Caltrans
requirements are included in the base fee. The detailed scope of work was carefully reviewed
by the City and Caltrans staff. Finally, the Engineering staff has worked closely with the City
Attorney's office to formulate the proposed agreement.
The final negotiated fee of $86,000 is lower than the quoted price in the firm's RFP response.
Payment will be in phased fixed fees at 35%,68%, 89% and 100% completion. This payment
schedule reflects an appropriate retention of funds over the value of work completed.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the 1992-93 Capital Improvement Program
accounts No. TF147: I-80S Project Study Report ($64,500) and STM304: I-80S/Telegraph
Cany10n Road Interchange Improvements Phase II ($21,500). This interchange is part of the
Topographic Mapping for I-80S corridor.
File: HX-022
WPC F:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\topomaps.l
061093
It) -t
RESOLUTION NO.
I' I 'I~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH RICK
ENGINEERING COMPANY TO PREPARE TOPOGRAPHIC
MAPS ALONG INTERSTATE 805 NORTH OF TELEGRAPH
CANYON ROAD TO SOUTH OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD, AND
AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
WHEREAS, the 1992-93 Capital Improvement Program includes
a design study for four (4) 1-805 interchanges, Telegraph Canyon
Road, East Palomar street, East Orange Avenue and Otay Valley Road;
and
WHEREAS, to determine what additional improvements will
be necessary at these interchanges to provide sufficient capacity
to accommodate anticipated traffic growth from continuing land
developments in the eastern part of the City, CalTrans requires
that a project study report be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the project study report will be performed by
Caltrans since the interchanges are within the jurisdiction of the
State, and Caltrans will produce a project study report describing
preferred future improvement needs and costs at the subject
interchanges; and
WHEREAS, to perform the study,
topographic mapping illustrating existing land
buildings, structures, and elevations; and
Caltrans requires
features, such as
WHEREAS, in accordance with the CIP project scope of
work, staff requested proposals from qualified engineering firms.
Staff received four (4) proposals. The proposals were carefully
screened by a consultant selection committee consisting of a
representative from CalTrans and city engineering staff. The
Committee determined that Rick Engineering company was the best
candidate to provide topographic mapping information even though
they were not the lowest bidder.
WHEREAS, at the Council meeting of April 13, 1993, staff
recommended that Rick Engineering be engaged to perform the work
for a cost-not-exceed $92,005 based on reduced scope of work; and
WHEREAS, Council rejected staff's recommendation and
directed staff to obtain an agreement from the low bidder, Airborne
systems, who had submitted an initial bid of $86,750; and
WHEREAS, in summary, if the city were to contract with
Airborne systems for topographic mapping along 1-805 corridor, the
cost of the agreement would be $88,950 and Airborne Systems does
1
IP-7
not carry the errors and omissions insurance that the city
requires; and
WHEREAS, staff re-negotiated with Rick Engineering who
agreed to lower their proposal to $86,000 and since Rick
Engineering is now the lowest bidder, staff recommends that they be
retained for a cost not-to-exceed $86,000 which amount is $6,005
less than their previous submittal of $92,005.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby revoke and repeal the prior
minute resolution approving conditionally an agreement with
Airborne.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City council does hereby
approve an Agreement with Rick Engineering Company for Topographic
Maps along the 1-805 Corridor in the city of Chula Vista, a copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
BE
Chula vista
Agreement.
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Presented by
~to
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Bruce M.
Attorney
ity
F:\home\attomey\topomaps.l
2
I~~~
FIRMS WHO RECEIVED TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
SB&O
Zenith Aerial, Inc.
Project Design Consultant
ERB Engineering, Inc.
Photo-Geodetic Corp.
Hirsch & Company
Burkett & Wong
N asland Engineering
Rick Engineering Company
Airborne Systems, Inc.
CAD Pros.
Pictorial Sciences, Inc.
SB:F:\ENGlNEERlAGENDA \TOPOMAP.RFP
060993
3615 Kearny Villa Rd. Ste 201
2720 Loker Ave West Ste P
701 B Street Ste 800
13260 Poway Rd
7840 Convoy Ct.
4420 Ranier Avenue Ste 100
3434 Fourth Avenue
4740 Ruffner Street
5620 Friars Rd.
1891 Betmor Lane
15375 Barranca Pkwy Ste B- 211
1097 West Baseline
/~--, //tJ -/6
San Diego
Carlsbad
San Diego
Poway
San Diego
San Diego
San Diego
San Diego
San Diego
Anaheim
Irvine
San Bernadino
QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE
From April 13, 1993 meeting
Item 30 - Agreement with Rick Engineering
1. When the City issued the RFP, one of the ranking criteria was
"Fee proposal and pay schedule." Why is this the least
important?
While the criteria listed on page 3-30 are listed in order of
decreasing importance, the ranking of Fee proposal and pay
schedule does not mean it is unimportant to staff. However,
SB419, which was adopted and went into effect on January 1,
1990, (and codified as Government Code Section 4526) states as
follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, selection by
a state or local agency head for professional services of
private architectural, engineering, land surveying, or
construction project management firms shall be on the
basis of demonstrated competence and on the professional
qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance
of the services required. In order to implement
thismethod of selection, . . .local agency heads contracting
for private architectural, professional engineering, land
surveying, and construction project management services
may adopt by ordinance, procedures that assure that these
services are engaged on the basis of demonstrated
competence and qualifications for the types of services
to be performed and at fair and reasonable prices to the
public agencies....
In dealing with the consulting industry (architectural and
engineering), many of the consultants have taken the position
that we can not even ask price as a basis of selection, but
must first go on the qualifications only, then negotiate a
price only with the top proposer. In a booklet titled
"Qualifications Based Selection" prepared by the Architects
and Engineers Conference Committee of California, they layout
a process they recommend as being in conformannce with state
law. This process is very detailed in setting up a request
for qualifications (RFQ) that does not include any price
requests. Only after the agency has determined the top rated
firm, solely on qualifications, do they suggest that a price
be negotiated.
Staff disagrees, and has interpreted the law to mean that we
can use price as a factor, but that competence must first be
established. If several firms are qualified to do the work,
we have more leeway in looking at price. By asking for price,
we get a better feeling for what the projects should cost.
For that reason, we include the request for price in the
proposal, include it as the last item on the evaluation list,
rate for competency, then consider price on those considered
equally competent.
It) 'I ()
2. On page 30-4 (last sentence), the report states that Airborn
Systems received a much lower rating than Rick Engineering by
Caltrans. However, was the rating acceptable and did Caltrans
proceed with the particular project referred to?
The project was for Topographic Mapping for 1-60 between 1-91
and 1-215 in Riverside County and was a project of the
Riverside County Transportation Commission. The arrangement
with Caltrans was similar to ours on this project, that is,
The Riverside CTC paid for it, but had to follow Caltrans'
standards and get approval. Caltrans has indicated that the
final project was done acceptably, but that it was a much more
difficult process to get the consultant to perform the way
they wanted them to perform. Caltrans personnel indicated
that Airborn Systems tended to want to question all of the
requirements and/or changes in procedure that Caltrans had,
and that Airborn wanted to do it their way because "they were
the experts". Rick Engineering took the position that if that
is the requirements, we'll do it. The resulting process on
the Airborn project took longer than Caltrans believed it
should because of the questioning of needs and difficulty in
communication.
In discussing this with Airborn, our staff was told that this
was a new procedure for Caltrans and that their requirements
were changed several times. They spent quite a bit of time
trying to convince Caltrans to do the aerial mapping in a 3-D
system, which was a newer process. Airborn indicated they
spent an extra $150,000 out of their pocket on that project.
Caltrans now has a requirement for a 3-D system, which is part
of this bid. Caltrans indicated that they believed any
changes were not major and should not affect either the price
or timing.
3. What project was Airborn Systems working on in the Los Angeles
area that served as the basis for Caltrans to provide a low
rating?
See the answer to item number 2, above.
4. The report indicates (Page 30-5) that "If given the
opportunity to give a new price based on the reduced width, it
is likely that Airborn would have reduced their price." Are
we certain? Was Airborn even given an opportunity to submit
a secondary bid as Rick Engineering was offered?
We are not certain that Airborn Systems would have lowered
their price. Because of the interview ranking and references,
staff did not believe it was desireab1e to use a firm that
//)-1/
appeared to be more interested in doing it "their way" than
one that appeared to want to get the project done. Therefore,
we did not ask Airborn for a price on the revised scope of
work.
5. According to the report, the Engineering staff has worked
closely with the City Attorney's Office to prepare the
proposed agreement. What role did the City Attorney's office
play in formulating the agreement wi th Rick Engineering?
Please explain.
The City Attorney's office prepared the basic two-party
agreement, Engineering provided the scope of work and other
details such as timing and payment. When Rick Engineering had
questions, or wanted something different in the agreement,
they had phone conversations with the City Attorney to work
out the final agreement.
A:RIND4-13
/tJ../~
Minutes
April 13, 1993
Page IS
,
,{
. John Willett, 97 Montebello Street, Chula Vista, CA, representing the Parks and Recreation
Commission. stated the purpose for the workshop would be to review the goals. guidelines, and expectations
of both the Council and the Commission.
Councilman Moore questioned whether the quarterly tour could be dedicated to the Parks and Recreation
Commission.
Mr. Willett concurred with Councilman Moore's recommendation.
MS (Rindone,/Moore) the next Council tour would be a joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation
Commission; with items of common interest placed on the agenda.
Councilman Moore stated the next tour was scheduled for Saturday, June 5, 1993 at 8:00 a.m.
VOTE ON MOnON: approved unanimously.
ArnON ITEMS
~
30. RESOLlTl10N 17074 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT Wl11i RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY TO
PREPARE TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS ALONG INTERSTATE 805 NORTIi OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD TO
SOlTni OF OTAY VAU.E'f ROAD - The 1992-93 Capital Improvement Program includes a design study for
four I-80S interchanges: Telegraph Canyon Road; East Palomar Street; East Orange Avenue; and OtayValley
Road. The purpose of the project study report, which is required by Caltrans, is to determine what
additional improvements will be necessary at the interchanges to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate
anticipated traffic growth from continuing land developments in the eastern part of the City. The design
study will be performed by Caltrans since the interchanges are within the jurisdiction of the State. Caltrans
will produce a project study report describing preferred future improvement needs and costs at the subject
interchanges. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
Mayor Nader stated he was concerned that the fum was not the low bidder and questioned whether any
lower bidders were qualified to do the work.
Clifford Swanson, City EngineerlDeputy Public Works Director, stated staffs initial screening of the four,
two could not do the job satisfactorily and they interviewed the other two. Staff felt the product of the two
would probably be acceptable, but based on references and interviews, felt they would have trouble getting
what they wanted or the process would be lengthened or extensive change orders would result with one of
the firms. Therefore, staff felt it unwise to go with the lower priced firm.
Councilwoman Horton questioned whether Airborne was doing similar work for Caltrans and, therefore, had
the experience and background.
Mr. Swanson responded that was correct. Staff had been informed by the Riverside County Transportation
Commission and Caltrans that Airborne spent more time trying to convince everyone that Caltrans specs
were wrong or the project should be done another way than they did in trying to get the end product done.
They did finally do it according to specifications.
Councilman Rindone questioned why Airborne was not given an opportunity to submit a secondary bid with
some of the work deleted from the proposal.
Mr. Swanson responded that Airborne had already been ruled out on the basis of their references.
(
Assistant City Manager Morris stated that staff regularly interviewed people that were qualified or met the
minimum qualifications to work for the City. Often after completing a series of interviews the individuals
were ranked and background checks performed. Once the check was completed for Airborne Systems, staff
found the experience had by other agencies of that firm did not meet the requirements set forth by staff.
/1/)-1.3
Minutes
April 13, 1993
Page 16
Caltrans also had specific experience on the issue and did not find them acceptable which staff also gave
weight to.
Mt. Swanson stated the end product was acceptable but trying to get that end product was very trying and
frustrating.
Councilman Rindone agreed there were companies that were easier to work with and he felt that was a valid
point but there was a significant difference in the price.
Mayor Nader felt the ability to get the job done at a reasonable cost was one of the qualifications to be
considered. The original bid specs and contract should protect the City from abuse. Council may need to
look at the general policy issue of how to protect the City from abuse. Change orders and cost overruns
should be very exceptional.
Councilman Rindone stated he concurred with some of staffs concern but not with their recommendation.
The responsibility to be sure to find only those bidders that were qualifiable was essential and price was a
factor. The discussion of project objectives indicated the bid was for topographic maps prepared in
accordance with Caltrans standards and requirements of the State. The exact project that Airborne was
compared to was similar and Caltrans had determined the work done was acceptable. Because of that fact
and it was a 15% lower bid he supported Airborne.
MS (Rindonell'ox) to award the contract to Airborne Systems.
Councilman Moore stated the bid covered the project at a different length and/or width needed and the
contract would have to be renegotiated. He questioned whether the caveat could be included in the motion
that Airborne would be willing to accept a reduction due to a reduction in the task.
Councilmembers Rindone and POI agreed to include CounciIman Moore's recommendation in the motion.
Councilmember Horton stated she would vote for the motion but had a problem with Airborne Systems
being from Anaheim and questioned whether there entire work force would be from Anaheim.
Mt. Swanson responded that most of the work was done from the aerial photographs with very little work
being done in the City. The bulk of the work would be done in their laboratories in Anaheim.
Mayor Nader stated he appreciated Councilmember Horton's comments and had supported the concept that
a local fIrm should have some degree of preference. The difference in the bids was a huge percentage of
the product and assuming that difference held up after the amendment was implemented, the difference
could be put into economic development efforts. He would support the motion but was concerned that
Caltrans requirements were above and beyond what the City felt was required for the project. The other
concern was the recommendation that Council be invited to sit in on bidding procedures. He felt the
members invited should rotate in order to avoid a violation of the Brown Act. He wanted it understood that
he would not support any additional monies, change orders, or cost overruns for work that should have been
foreseen to be within that which was necessary to complete the project and expected that to be
communicated to the contractor. He also expected staff to write bid specs and contracts that implemented
that, and if staff did so the concerns that were raised would not be concerns because the low bidder would
understand they would not increase their profIt margin through change orders for work that was within the
scope required to carry out the contract.
Councilmember Horton stated she did not object but felt there were times that change orders were
necessary. Council did want staff to tighten up the loopholes, but Council also needed to remain open
minded.
Mayor Nader stated he stressed 'unforeseeable'. If it was an Act of God that required something no one
could foresee it would be different.
I~ ,/'/
.
.
Minutes
April 13, 1993
Page 17
(
Councilman Rindone also preferred local companies but because they were local they should not feel they
would get the contract and bid higher. The local companies needed to be competitive.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved nnan;mously.
31. RESOLtmON 17075 APPROVING DESIGN CONCEPT FOR TIiE IMPROVEMEI'IT OP ORANGE
AVENUE AND POURTIi AVENUE ALONG TIiE FRONTAGE OP TIiE SOUTIi UBRARY - Staff is in the process
of preparing constrUction plans, specifications and cost estimates for street improvements along the frontage
of the south library. The constrUction plans will include landscaped medians, bus stops, curb, gutters, and
sidewalks. Concept plans are hereby presented for approval prior to the preparation of final constrUction
plans. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
Mr. Swanson, City EngineerlDeputy Public Works Director, stated the City would be picking up any curb
and gutter that might be missing. The pull-off ramp would work very well if moved to the north to the drive
way so they would be closer to the entrance to the Library.
RESOLtmON 17075, OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN POx, reading of the ten was waived.
Mayor Nader asked staff if the Safety Commission's recommendations to prevent left turns onto westbound
Orange out of the driveway entrance to the library, were included in the Resolution before the Council.
Mr. Swanson responded it was.
((
Mayor Nader stated he had some qualms about the cost, however, if those qualms were not shared by
anyone else on the Council, he did not want to hold up the project. There was an option presented that was
about $14,000 less than the staff recommendation. It would be a little less .pretty," but he did not know
how much. He had some concern about irrigated landscaping. He thought the City's policy was that native
and drought tolerant landscaping would be used.
Mr. Swanson stated the other option was to have a painted median which would be approximately $43,000
savings. The landscaped area was fairly minor, it would only consist of one or two small planter areas in
the bigger median. The water use would not be extensive. The large portion of the median would be done
in stamped concrete.
Councilman Moore asked if there would be sufficient water and yet not cause deterioration to the asphalt.
Mr. Swanson responded that they had tried to design some standards to prevent that from happening.
Councilman Moore stated a lot of the elementary schools would be taking children to the library. However,
there were some sidewalks missing in that general area. He brought this up because he felt that in the C1P
budget request, the City should include sidewalks which were missing from the local elementary schools.
Mayor Nader stated that since it was unanimously approved by the Library Board, Safety Commission, and
staff, he would reluctantly vote for the project.
RESOLtmON 17075 PASSED AND APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
****.
Mayor Nader adjourned the Council meeting to the Redevelopment Agency meeting. (Time was 10:27 p.m.).
There were a number of people present to address Item No. 7 on the Agency's agenda. He had been
approached earlier in the evening requesting a two week continuance by both proponents and opponents
of the item.
~
Assistant City Manager Morris stated the item had been revised and everyone was in agreement to a one
week postponement.
/tJ"'/.>
,.:,.~,......,.
Agreement between
City of Chuta Vista
and
Rick Engineering Company
for Topographic Maps along the 1-805 Corridor
in the City of Chuta Vista
This agreement ("Agreement"), dated for the purposes of reference
only, and effective as of the date last executed unless another date is otherwise specified in
Exhibit A, Paragraph 1 is between the City-related entity as is indicated on Exhibit A,
paragraph 2, as such ("City"), whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 3, and
the entity indicated on the attached Exhibit A, paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business form
is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 5, and whose place of business and telephone numbers are
set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 6 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following
facts:
RECIIALS.
WHEREAS, the City is desirous to prepare topographic maps along the I-80S corridor
within the City of Chula Vista; and,
WHEREAS, the City desires to retain a consultant engineer to prepare said topographic
maps and coordinate all activities and meetings with the California Department of
Transportation; and,
WHEREAS, Consultants warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed
in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of consultant
to City within the timeframes herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions
of this agreement; and,
(End of Recitals. Next Page starts Obligatory Provisions.)
WPC F:\home\engineer\591.93
It' -/?
Page 1
OBLIGATORY PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby
mutually agree as follows:
1. Consultant's Duties
A. General Duties
Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A,
Paragraph 7, entitled "General Duties"; and,
B. Scope of Work and Schedule
In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant shall also
perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled" Scope of Work and
Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the time frames
set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are identified in
Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence of
this agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the Scope of
Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defined Services". Failure to complete
the Defined Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate
to terminate this Agreement.
C. Reductions in Scope of Work
City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the
Defined Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so,
City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a
corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction.
D. Additional Services
In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require
Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Defined Services
("Additional Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services
offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates
set forth in the "Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph I I (C), unless a separate fixed fee is
otherwise agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as
billed.
E. Standard of Care
Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement, whether Defined Services
or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions
and in similar locations.
WPC F:\home\engineer\591.93
/tJ ../ r
Page 2
F. Insurance
Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed by it in
connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by
the following insurance coverages, in the following categories, and to the limits specified,
policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class
V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City:
Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance
coverage in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 9.
Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance
coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit applied
separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names
City and Applicant as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the
City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City
and Applicant in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability
Coverage").
Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9,
unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy.
G. Proof of Insurance Coverage.
(I) Certificates of Insurance.
Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the
commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of
Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled
without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured.
(2) Policy Endorsements Required.
In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and
Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance
Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City demonstrating same, which
shall be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager.
H. Performance Bond.
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 9, indicates the need for Consultant to provide
a Performance Bond, which indication shall be made by checking the parenthetical space
adjacent to the term, "Performance Bond", then Consultant shall provide to the City a
performance bond by a surety and in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in an amount
indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Performance Bond", in said Paragraph 9, Exhibit
A.
WPC F:\home\engineer\591.93
/1/,/9
Page 3
I. Business License
Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply
with Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
2. Duties of the City
A. Consultation and Cooperation
City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of
the Defined Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance
to achieve the objectives of this agreement. The City shall permit access to its office facilities,
files and records by Consultant throughout the term of the agreement. In addition thereto, City
agrees to provide the information, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph
10, and with the further understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond 30
days after authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the
Consultant's performance of this agreement.
B. Compensation
Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City
periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, but in no event more frequently than
monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, City shall compensate
Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms and conditions set
forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11 adjacent to the governing compensation relationship indicated
by a "checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, and shall compensate Consultant for
out of pocket expenses as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 12.
All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the
propriety of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable
thereunder is proper, and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on
Exhibit A, Paragraph 18 (C) to be charged upon making such payment.
3. Administration of Contract
Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit
A, Paragraph 13, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to
represent them in the routine administration of this agreement.
4. Term.
This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory
provisions hereof.
5. Liquidated Damages
The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided In
Exhibit A, Paragraph 14.
WPC F:\JlOme\engineer\591.93
/~,.,<p
Page 4
It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of this
Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in
performance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to
compensate for delay.
Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified in this
Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess
of the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment or Deliverable, the
consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld from monies due, the sum of Liquidated
Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14 ("Liquidated Damages Rate").
Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control, other than delays caused
by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator, or designee,
prior to the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when granted, will be based
upon the effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of
work unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work.
6. Financial Interests of Consultant
A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer.
If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant
is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest
and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required
Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 15
of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney.
B. Decline to Participate.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not
make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence
a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a
financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement.
C. Search to Determine Economic Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants
and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's
economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political
Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's
knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this
agreement.
D. Promise Not tv Acquire Conflicting Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further
warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest
.
WPC F:\home\engineer\591.93
ItJ -.2 /
Page 5
during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited
by the Fair Political Practices Act.
E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further
warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if
Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of
interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated
thereunder.
F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests.
Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate
family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently
have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject
matter of the Defined Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior
boundaries of any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services,
("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 15.
Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment,
remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or
Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement.
Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of
this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter.
Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited
Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this
Agreement, except with the written permission of City.
Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or
for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this
Agreement, except with the written permission of City.
7. Hold Harmless
Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed
officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense
(including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of the negligent acts, errors, and
omissions of the Consultant, or any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others in connection
with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising
from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees.
Consultant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and
liability incurred by the City, its officer:>, agents, or employees in defending against such
claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Consultant at its own expense
shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City,
its officers, agents, or employees. Consultants' indemnification of City shall not be limited by
any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant.
/P-.2:L
Page 6
WPC F:\home\engineer\591.93
8. Termination of Agreement for Cause
If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner
Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the
covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate
this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the
effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that
event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and
other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the property of
the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any
work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date
of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages
caused City by Consultant's breach.
9. Errors and Omissions
In the event that the City Administrator determines that the Consultants' negligence,
errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense
to City greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors, omissions,
Consultant shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the City. Nothing
herein is intended to limit City's rights under other provisions of this agreement.
10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City
City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific
written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at
least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished
and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the
City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated by City as
provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable
compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to
the effective date of such termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims
for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein.
II. Assignability
The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any
interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by
assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City, which City may not
unreasonably deny. City hereby consents to the assignment of the portions of the Defined
Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17 to the subconsultants identified thereat as
"Permitted Subconsultants".
12. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material
All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures;
systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole
and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part
WPC F:\home\engineer\591.93
/p":2J
Page 7
under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant
in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City
shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the
provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in
whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or
properties produced under this Agreement.
13. Independent Contractor
City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an
independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services
required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's
work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are,
for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to
be an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefit.s to which City
employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's
compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits.
14. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures
No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City
unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the
City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated
by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City
in the implementation of same.
Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the
purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement.
15. Attorney's Fees
Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the
prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable costs incurred in the defense of the
claim, including costs and attorney's fees.
16. Statement of Costs
In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the
preparation of a report or document in performing the Defined Services, Consultant shall
include, or cause the inclusion of, in said repbrt or document, a statement of the numbers and
cost in dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report
or document.
17. Miscellaneous
A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City
WPC F:\home\engineer\591.93
/tJ....;.'1
Page 8
Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consultant shall have no authority to
act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever.
B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman
If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals
is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker
or salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor their principals
are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons.
C. Notices
All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this
Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall
be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the
United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return
receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the
designated parties.
D. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated
herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the
subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended,
modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party
against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought.
E. Capacity of Parties
Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that
it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement,
and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this
Agreement.
F. Governing LawN enue
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought
only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if
applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement,
and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista.
[End of page. Next page is signature page.]
WPC F:\home\engineer\591.93
/ti-:;.>'
Page 9
Signature Page
to
Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Rick Engineering
for Topographic Maps along the 1-805 Corridor
in the City of Chula Vista
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement thereby
indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete
consent to its terms:
Dated:
City of Chula Vista
by:
Tim Nader, Mayor
Attest:
Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney
Dated:
Rick Engineering
BY~//~~ S2"'"J
Exhibit List to Agreement
( ) Exhibit A.
( ) Exhibit B.
WPC F:\home\engineer\591.93
/tJ.....< ~
Page 10
Exhibit A
to
Agreement between
City of Chula Vista
and
Rick Engineering Company
1. Effective Date of Agreement: June 15, 1993
2. City-Related Entity:
(x) City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California
( ) Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of the
State of California
( ) Industrial Development Authority of the City of Chula Vista, a
()
Other:
, a [insert business form]
("City")
3. Place of Business for City:
City of Chula Vista,
276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910
4. Consultant:
Rick Engineering Company
5. Business Form of Consultant:
( ) Sole Proprietorship
( ) Partnership
(x) Corporation
6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant:
Rick Engineering Company
5620 Friars Road
San Diego, CA 92110-2596
Voice Phone: (619) 291-0707
Fax Phone: (619) 291-4165
WPC F:\home\engineer\592.93
/t1J....) 7
Page 1
7. General Duties:
Consultant is to prepare topographic maps along I-80S Corridor north of Telegraph
Canyon Road to south of Otay Valley Road.
8. Scope of Work and Schedule:
A. Detailed Scope of Work:
Proiect Limits
The project area consists of a 20,500 foot strip averaging 1,500 feet in width
along'Interstate 805. The mapping limits are designed to include the ramps and
the first row of houses adjacent to both the Interstate and the mapped cross
streets. The southern Project Area limit is the centerline of the Palm Avenue.
The northern Project Area limit is the East H Street overcrosslng. In addition
to the Interstate strip, four transverse strips averaging 1,500 feet in width and
extending 1,300 feet both easterly and westerly along these streets: Otay Valley
Road, Orange Avenue, East Palomar Street and Telegraph Canyon Road. The
mapping limits and Project Area limits are shown graphically on the enclosed
1 "=500 feet scale reference map filed with the City. Rick Engineering will
provide control to accommodate capability to furnish future supplemental
mapping (at I "=50' scale) up to 1,500 feet wide along the seven flight lines
shown.
Aerial Control Surveving
Consultant to make sure that control placement will conform to CalTrans
specifications. Because of the four additional strips, the field effort, thus cost
has increased. Approximately 44 horizontal/vertical and 52 vertical only points
will be required to control the photography. The reference map shows the
approximate location of these control plans. The points along the Interstate will
be set in the shoulder. CalTrans will establish the primary control framework
in NAD83 horizontal and NA VD88 vertical datums. These points will be
included in the Rick Engineering survey and subsequent adjustment. All control
will be symbolized and labeled on a set of contract prints per CaITrans
requirements. Topo check profiles will be run every third model.
Aerial Photographv for Mapping and Photo Mvlars
Aerial photography for topographic mapping will be provided at a scale of
1 "=250 feet. Seven strips containing a total of 28 models will be required to
cover the approximately 20,500 feet along Interstate 805. Additionally, four
cross flown strips containing a total of 12 models will be required to cover
1,300 feet east and 1,300 feet west along each of these streets: Otay Valley
Road, Orange Avenue, East Palomar Street, and Telegraph Canyon Road. The
flight line layout, mapping limits and control locations are shown on the
enclosed reference map.
WPC F:\home\engineer\592.93
J IJ.. ..2. g"
Page 2
In addition to the mapping photography, four high altitude spot photos will be
taken as shown on the reference map. The three smaller crossed circles are
centers for black and white photos taken at a scale of I "= I ,200 feet. 40" by 30"
screened photo mylars at a scale of 1 "=200 feet will be produced for each of the
areas shown by the rectangles on the reference map filed with the City. A
single color photo will be taken at a scale of I "=3,300 feet for 1"=1,000 feet
scale color photo enlargements. Five 20" by 24" mounted prints will be
produced.
Aerial photography will follow the guidelines specified by CalTrans. Aerial
negatives will be appropriately labeled. A photo index, conforming to CalTrans
specifications, will be produced. A total of six sets of 44 contact prints will be
produced. Three sets will be produced for CalTrans. One of these CalTrans
sets will be used for control labelling. An additional two sets will be produced
for the City of Chula Vista and Rick Engineering (one set each). A sixth set
will be trimmed and used for the photo index.
Glass diaposities, as required for CalTrans, will be produced and used for
aerotriangulation and stereo compilation.
Aerotriangulation
The estimated 47 diapositives will be appropriately pugged and measured in one
of our two Zeiss fully analytical stereoplotters. These plate measurements will
be combined with the ground control provided and a simultaneous bundle
adjustment will be performed. Any control and/or plate measurement
discrepancies will be resolved. The aerotriangulation report showing results that
meet CalTrans specifications will be delivered.
Tooograohic Maooing
Mapping will be digitally compiled at a scale of 1"=50 feet with a two-foot
contour interval within the area bounded by the dashed line on the enclosed
reference map. Additionally, four 1,000 feet by 500 feet areas at the
interchanges shown on the reference map will be mapped at a scale of 1"=20
feet with a one foot contour interval. Topography will be verified by field
profiles run every third model. The 3D topography data will be delivered as
single sheets in both Intergraph design files (.dgn) and AutoCAD drawing files
(.dwg). In addition to the digital files, ink-on-mylars plots will be submitted.
Initially, two sets will go to CalTrans headquarters and District 11 for review.
Once accepted, one final set will be produced. Preliminary design files,
delivered as the work progresses, will be available soon after stereo compilation
commences. Preliminary files such as these have been delivered on previous
projects and were found to greatly facilitate the design/study effort.
WPC F:\home\engineer\592.93
/tJ~.2. ~
Page 3
B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services:
(x) Same as Effective Date of Agreement
( ) Other:
C. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables: Based upon receipt of
Notice to Proceed on April I, 1993
Deliverable No. I: August 13, 1993
Deliverable No.2: September 30, 1993
Deliverable No.3: November 26, 1993
Deliverable No.4: January 29, 1994 dependent on CalTrans review time
D. Date for completion of all Consultant services:
April 1, 1994
9. Insurance Requirements:
( ) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance
(x) Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000.
(x) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000.
( ) Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (included III Commercial
General Liability coverage).
(x) Errors and Omissions Insurance: $250,000 (not included in Commercial General
Liability coverage).
( ) Performance Bond, $
10. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant:
None.
II. Compensation:
A. (x) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For performance of all of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City
shall pay a single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones or for the
Deliverables set forth below:
WPC F:\home\engineer\592.93
/~-30
Page 4
Single Fixed Fee Amount: $86,000, payable as follows:
Milestone or Event or Deliverable Amount of Percent
Fixed Fee
- 35% will be paid after aerial control $30,800 (35%)
survey, aerial photography and photo
products have been completed.
- 68% will be paid after $27,600 (68%)
aerotriangulation and stereo
compilation have been completed.
- 89% will be paid after CalTrans has $18,400 (89%)
given preliminary approval on the
plan during review process.
- 100% will be paid after Final Map $9,200 (100%)
approval by CalTrans and the final
delivery has been made to CalTrans.
B. () Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For the performance of each phase or portion of the Defined Services by Consultant
as are separately identified below, City shall pay the fixed fee associated with each phase of
Services, in the amounts and at the times or milestones or Deliverables set forth. Consultant
shall not commence Services under any Phase, and shall not be entitled to the compensation
for a Phase, unless City shall have issued a notice to proceed to Consultant as to said Phase.
Phase Fee for Said Phase
1.
2
3.
C. ( ) Hourly Rate Arrangement
For performance of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall
pay Consultant for the productive hours of time spent by Consultant in the performance of said
Services, at the rates or amounts set forth in the Rate Schedule hereinbelow according to the
following terms and conditions:
(1) () Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement
WPC F:\homc\engineerI592.93
//)"'.:1/
Page 5
Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials
in excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant agrees that
Consultant will perform all of the Defined Services herein required of
Consultant for $ including all Materials, and other "reimburseables"
("Maximum Compensation").
(2) ( ) Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and Materials
Arrangement
At such time as Consultant shall have incurred time and materials equal
to ("Authorization Limit"), Consultant shall not be entitled to
any additional compensation without further authorization issued in writing and
approved by the City. Nothing herein shall preclude Consultant from
providing additional Services at Consultant's own cost and expense.
I RATE SCHEDULE I
Category of Employee or Name Hourly Rate
Consultant
SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE SEE ATTACHED
( ) Hourly rates may increase by 6% for services rendered after
, 19_, if delay in providing services is caused by City.
12. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement
For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in the performance of
services herein required, City shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth below:
(X) None, the compensation includes all costs.
Cost or Rate
() Reports, not to exceed
() Copies, not to exceed
() Travel, not to exceed
() Printing, not to exceed
() Postage, not to exceed
() Delivery, not to exceed
() Long Distance Telephone Charges, not to exceed
() Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs:
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
WPC F:\home\engineer\592.93
/~- .3.2.
Page 6
13. Contract Administrators:
City: City of Chula Vista
Zoubir Ouadah
Civil Engineer
Consultant: Rick Engineering Company
Robert 1. Leger
Associate Principal
14. Liquidated Damages Rate: $0 per day.
15. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of
Interest Code:
(x) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer.
( ) FPPC Filer
( ) Category No.1. Investments and sources of income.
( ) Category No.2. Interests in real property.
( ) Category No.3. Investments, interest in real property and sources of
income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the
department.
( ) Category No.4. Investments in business entities and sources of income
which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or
sale of real property.
( ) Category No.5. Investments in business entities and sources of income
of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the
City of Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services,
supplies, materials, machinery or equipment.
( ) Category No.6. Investments in business entities and sources of income
of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the
designated employee's department to provide services, supplies,
materials, machinery or equipment.
( ) Category No.7. Business positions.
( ) List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radial
miles of Project Property, if any:
WPC F:\home\engineer\592.93
It/'JJ
Page 7
16. ( ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman
17. Permitted Subconsultants: No
18 Bill Processing:
A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time:
[ ] Monthly
[ ] Quarterly
[ x] Other: After reaching each milestone.
B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing:
[ ] First of the month
[ ] 15th day of each month
[ ] End of the month
[ x] Other: 15th day after each milestone
C.
City's Account Number:
621-621O-TF 147
62l-6210-STM304
Amount
Amount
Total
$64,500.00
$21.500.00
$86,000.00
WPC F:\home\engineer\592.93
//1-JY
Page 8
~ ruCK ENGINEERING COMPANY
Q~~
Office Personnel
Expert Witness
Principal Consultant (Special Projects)
Principal
Associate/Manager
Principal Project Engineer/Man:lger
Associate Project Engineer/Manager
Assistant Project Engineer/Manager
Principal Survey Analyst"
Associate Survey Analyst"
Assistant Survey An:llyst"
GPS Analyst
Mlpping Coordinator
Systems Man:lger
Cad System Operator
Cad System (High Speed Color Work Stalion Only)
Principal Engineering DesignerlPlanning Designer
Associate Engineering Designer/l'lanning Designer
Assistant Engineering DesignerlPlanning Designer
Principal Water Resources Designer
Associate Water Resources Designer
Assistant Water Resources Designer
Phologrammemsl
Assistant Photogrammemst
PhOIO Lah Technician
Principal Computer Graphics Editor
Assistant Computer Graphics Editor
Principal Engineering Drafter
Associate Engineering Drafter
Assistant Engineering Drafter
Principal Project Planner
Associate Project Planner
Assistant Project Planner
Principal Planning Delineator
Associate Planning Delineator
Assistant Planning Delineator
$250.00
125.00
95.00
90.00
87.50
80.00
72.50
82.50
77.50
67.50
67.50
47.50
82.50
67.50
52.50
62.50
57.50
52.50
62.50
57.50
52.50
72.50
57.50
47.50
57.50
52.50
54.50
50.00
44.50
87.50
75.00
62.50
54.50
49.50
44.50
Hourly Rates
Administrative Personnel
Associate Project Administrator
Assistant Project Administrator
Adminitrative Assistant
Secretary (special assignment)
$ 47.00
30.00
38.00
25.00
Field Personnel
Field Supervisor
One-man Survey Party
Two.man Survey Party
Three-man Survey Party
$ 75.00
62.50
125.00
180.00
Prevailing Wage
One-man Survey Party
Two.man Survey Party
Three-man Survey Party
Four-man Survey Party
$70.00
140.00
205.00
270.00
"Above rates include electronic data gathering equipment.
Global Positioning System Survey
Pre.planning
GPS Crew
Post -processing
$ 75.00
62.50/man/hour
75.00
"Includes cost of computer time
Unless otherwise agreed upon, we shall charge, at cost. for
blueprinting and reproduction desired by the client or public
agencies, deliveries, transportation, expenses and telephone
calls.
A ten (10) percent fee for administration, coordination and
handling will be added to all subcontracted services.
Rates current througb August 27, 1993
February 27. 1993
/~ -- .35"
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item J I
Meeting Date~
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing
Consideration
of the City
Budget for FY
of the adoption
of Chula Vista
1993-94
Resolution
Adopting the final budget of
the City of Chula Vista for the
fiscal year beginning July 1,
1993 and ending June 30, 1994
SUBMITTED BY: Budget Manage~
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~
(4/Sths Vote: Yes__NoXX)
The City Council has held two work sessions to consider and discuss
the proposed FY 1993-94 budget. This public hearing is designed to
receive additional citizen input and to adopt the proposed FY 1993-
94 budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council accept public testimony and adopt the proposed budget
as amended during the review sessions and as may be further amended
as a result of the public hearing.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed Fiscal Year 1993-94 Budget includes the Manager's
recommended spending level, as well as adjustments proposed by
Council during the budget workshops. Still to be determined is the
State's budget and resulting impact on local government. Staff is
preparing a contingency plan including additional department cuts
and some increases in revenue at several different levels to be
presented when the final information is known.
The City Manager's recommended General Fund budget was $54,816,710.
During the Council budget workshops the following actions were
taken:
Department Budqets Tentatively Approved:
City Attorney
Police
Fire
II" I
Page 2 ,Item
Meeting Date 6/15/93
/I
Library
Parks and Recreation
Community Development
Building and Housing
Public works
Nature Center (BCT)
Council
Clerk
Administration
Boards and Commissions
Community Promotions
Management and Information Systems
Personnel
Finance
Insurance
Debt Service
Non-Departmental
CIP
Department Budqets Not Tentativelv Approved:
Planning
GENERAL FUND CLEAN-UP ITEMS:
During the process of preparing the budget, the following
administrative discrepancies were discovered and are recommended to
be corrected with the final budget adoption. Many of these are
issues which were highlighted in previous commentary to you,
however, the funds were not actually placed in the budget. Others
are computer errors where information was not contained in the
final budget printouts.
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS
Department
Adiustment Item
159
CITY CLERK
$ 8,760 Recommended approval of hourly
assistance for citywide
conversion to automated
records system as highlighted
in the Clerk's budget
narrative but inadvertently
deleted by the computer.
($ 700) Consolidation of maintenance
of communications-type
equipment (70% transferred to
Building and Housing/
Communications Division.)
/1-2
115
212
250
1000
1400
1500
1600
Sub-Total
Page 3 , Item /1
Meeting Date 6/15/93
HUMAN RELATIONS $
COMMISSION
MIS
PERSONNEL
POLICE
PUBLIC WORKS
PARKS &
RECREATION
LIBRARY
325 Addition of overtime hours for
clerical staff support to the
Commission.
$ 10,020 Consolidation of mainframe
computer maintenance in MIS.
$ 4,432 Mid-year reclass of Admin
Analyst II to Sr. Mgmt
Analyst.
($ 3,420) Reduction of auto allowance.
($ 4,006) Correction of Salary/Benefit
Level for Assistant Director.
($14,320) Consolidation of mainframe
computer maintenance in MIS.
($4,500) Consolidation of
communications-type equipment
maintenance (70% transferred
to Building and Housing/
Communications Division.)
$11,090 Judge Grant offset: City just
notified of reduction in grant
funding from County.
$17,170 Equipment Maint Correction to
reflect Po-recommended fleet
composition.
$ 3,050 Equipment Replacement
Correction.
$16,300 Correction for computer input
errors.
$32,246 Addition of funds for turf
mower and maintenance costs as
highlighted in Park's budget
narrative.
$ 2,270 Adjustment of maintenance and
replacement costs for vehicle
originally to be removed from
fleet.
($9,080) Adjustments for Eastlake
Library as a result of final
agreement.
$ 69,637
I/':!
OTHER FUND EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS
Department
Adiustment
219
POLICE GRANTS
($ 11,090)
7000
GARAGE
$ 20,526
Sub-Total
$ 9,436
Page 4 ,Item II
Meeting Date 6/15/93
Item
Correction to reflect
actual grant amount as
reduced by County.
Equipment maintenance
correction to offset
adjustments made by PD in
specific recommended
fleet reductions, and
additional vehicles not
included in original
calculations.
COUNCIL ACTIONS SUBSEOUENT TO PROPOSED BUDGET
General Fund
COMMUNITY PROMOTIONS $ 2,410
PARKS & RECREATION
$ 12,900
YOUTH COMMISSION
$
150
Sub-Total
$ 15,460
Other Funds
EQUIP REPLACEMENT
$889,600
Sub-Total
$889,600
GENERAL FUND REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
NIC/BCT
($ 2,200)
REDEV AGENCY
($ 77,759)
I/~i
Support of Bonitafest
Addition of dual staffing
at 4 afterschool sites.
Restore proposed
reductions
Vehicle replacements as
presented in Supplemental
Budget Report No.6.
Reduced General Fund
transfer to BCT to
reflect actual.
Agency portion of special
events not reflected in
Proposed Budget.
Sub-Total
($ 79,959)
Page 5 , Item (J
Meeting Date 6/15/93
Credit/Additional
Revenues to the General
Fund
SUMMARY OF ADJUSTMENTS
General Fund
Expenditure Adjustments
Council Adjustments
Less Additional Revenues
NET EXPENDITURES SUB-TOTAL
$ 69,637
$ 15,460
($ 79,959)
$ 5,138
Other Funds
Expenditure Adjustments
Equipment Replacement Fund
Revenue Adjustments
SUB-TOTAL
$ 9,436
$889,600
$ 0
$899,036
$904,174
GRAND TOTAL ALL ADJUSTMENTS
The above does not include changes made to the Redevelopment
Agency or Transit budgets as these are not part of the City's
operating budget. Changes to the Redevelopment Agency budget will
be considered at an upcoming Agency meeting.
WISH LIST
During the discussion of the Supplemental Budget Report on the
proposed Youth Action Program, Council approved adding this
program to the Wish List. The total cost of the program is
$73,083 which represents start-up funds and staff to implement
the following:
Junior High Outreach, High School Happenings, Late
Night Teen Programs, Transportation, Special Events,
and Cultural Arts.
Since the cost of these programs had not been included in the
Manager-recommended budget, funding would have to be accomplished
by either finding additional revenue, by expenditure cuts
elsewhere in the General Fund budget, or by a combination of
both.
Should the Council desire to approve funding for this program,
the following are possible options for funding:
1. Kaiser Agreement revenue balance of $400,000 which could
be reduced to $326,917. (It would be more prudent to
consider use of this money either in connection with State
revenue cuts or in balancing the 1994-95 budget.)
2. Approach an outside source, such as a major utility, to
fund this program.
11'5"
Page 6 ,Item
Meeting Date
/J
6/15/93
3. Establishment of a minimum percentage of Planning staff
time to be devoted to reimbursable projects from current 42%
to 64% would generate an additional $75,000 in revenue to
the General Fund. (Staff feels this would be easy to
accomplish.)
4. Various expenditure reductions in general fund department
budgets, plus additional property tax revenue based on just
completed property tax audit:'
$ 10,000 Contractual Programming in MIS
$ 6,240 Hourly wages for part-time word
processor
$ 9,740 Renegotiation of fitness evaluation
contract
$ 17,250 est. Salary savings from VTO Policy (This is
a very conservative estimate. Amount
expected to be much higher. )
$ 43,230 Subtotal
$ 29,850 Additional property tax revenue
$ 73,080 TOTAL
5. Direct Manager to include the additional expenditure cuts
equal to the $73,080 in the proposed cuts, to be presented
shortly, to deal with the likely reductions from the State.
Staff is in the process of preparing a complete package of
proposed expenditure cuts and additional revenue sources.
This package should be ready for Council within the next
month, when we have a clearer indication of how much the
State cut may be. Since staff is currently in the process
of analyzing departments' 2, 5 and 10% cuts, it would
provide a more complete picture of proposed expenditure cuts
as one package rather than taking a small cut now and then
having to revise the "State" cuts package.
Among these alternatives, it is recommended that if the Council
wants to fund this program, the City Manager be authorized to
lThe City has just received a letter from Katz Hollis, its
consultant, to determine if there are any errors in the taxable
property values assigned to the City and the Redevelopment Project
Areas in Chula Vista. They discovered errors in misencoding
certain properties in or out of the City or the Agency project
areas, to the extent that for 1992-93, there is a possibility of
property tax revenue increase of $29,850 into the General Fund, an
increase in the tax increment of $86,535 into the Redevelopment
Fund.
1/-(,
Page 7,
Meeting
Item / /
Date6/15/93
approach a major outside source to determine their interest in
underwriting this program. If that does not occur, it would be
recommended that the Council pursue Alternative #3, followed by
Alternative #4.
CONSOLIDATION OF SEWER FUNDS
The attached Resolution also authorizes the Finance Director to
merge Fund 223 (Montgomery Sewer Service Revenue Fund) into Fund
225 (Sewer Service Revenue Fund), and to merge Fund 224
(Montgomery Sewer Replacement Fund) into Fund 226 (Sewer
Facilities Replacement Fund). Both Fund 223 and Fund 224 were
established at the time of the Montgomery annexation in 1985 in
order to separately track revenue and expenditures relating to
that area. It has been several years since separate records were
kept for Montgomery, so staff is proposing to merge the
Montgomery sewer funds into the appropriate city sewer funds.
Exhibits:
\\ Exhibi t A:
,,\ Exhibi t B:
'.:>Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Attached are the following exhibits:
Operating Budget, Special Revenue, and Capital Detail
Financing Sources and Uses
General Fund Summary
Remaining Council Action Items
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed "All Funds" budget, including debt service was
$88,562,160, plus adjustments requested of $904,174, creates a
revised all funds budget of $89,466,334. This amount includes a
revised General Fund operating budget of $54,901,807.
budadopt. f94
1/-7
on 0 '" ~ 0 0 '" 0- r-
'"
r- '" '" 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~
~ " 0 0 0 '" "
.., 00 ~" ,," "," vS "" '" &j'
.., ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~
~ .., .., .., .., ..,
..,
..,
<( 0 ~ 0 0 1'l 1'l ~ " 0 1'l 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ '" 0 r-
~ 0 0 " '" 1!:l 0 " '" on 8 ~ :ii:
...... ~ on '" on 0 '" '" '" 00 " '" 00 ~ '"
z vS vS i'f 00 i'f ~ N ..,f r-" '" "," M ~ ..,f rf 00" r-" ::t .n ~"
.0 0 0 on '" " ~ ;'\ '" ~ 00 ~ '" on " 0
'" .., .., '" '" 0 '" '" r- ~ '" 0 '" on 00 '" '"
.~ ~ .., .., .., --" --" .., --" --" --" .., .., vS "" ~" --" ,," M ,,"
.c:: "" .., .., .., .., .., ~ .., .., ~ .., .., on
>< ~ " .., .., ..,
UJ 0;-
B ~ ""
'" ~
~
13 ""
I 0 ~
u
~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 1'l 0 0 0 1'l 0 8 ~ 0 ~ 0 1'l ~ 0 s
8 83 :g 0 '" ~ on '" 1!:l on on f:'
~ on '" "1. '" 00 " '" 00 ~ ~ '" on r-
Z '8 vS 00 ~ --" ~ --" 00 "" '" M "," 00" "," N 00" --" '8, ,," ","
~ 0 on ~ ~ '" ~ ;'\ '" ~ ~ 00 $ r- '" " on ~
'" .., .., '" '" 0 '" '" ~ 0 '" on r- '" 00
0 0 ~ .., .., .., --" ~" .., --" --" --" .., .., vS "" --" --" ,," M ,,"
~ ~ -g, .. .. .., .. .., ~ .., .., ~ .., .. on
.. .., ..,
~ ~ ""
~ 0
~ ~
"" ""
I ~
'"
~
'"
o
~
~
~
""
~
~
~ ~IQ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "" d
~ ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~
B 8 I"" ~ ~ g ~ ~ 01 ~
g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
g ! 8 g g I ~ ~ 8 I ~
~
~
~
~
o
~
o
u
~
~
o
~
o
u
o
r-
~
o
~
~~~~~
~~~~~
1!:l :;
~ ~
o 0
::> ::>
~ ~
~
~ ~
~ ! ~
~ ~ ~
z
o
~ ~
~ u
o gj
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ "" ~
d
~
~
::>
o
:c
~
d
~
o
~ ~
800 - 00 V1
,.-I cq ~ ~ c:: $
------
::> ::> ::> ::> ::> ::>
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
V1 _ 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 _ 0 0 _ - _ - - -
S ~ ~ ~ ~ M N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b N g ~ ~ ~
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ _ - - - - -
g 8 8 8 8 8 8 g g g g 8 8 8 8 g 8 g g
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~
8
~
d
~
~
""
i
~
~
~
d
~
~ I/-r
~ 0
@ :El :g '"
~ 0--
~ on - ,....
.--" ~f 0;- g: .--"
- gg g;:
e '" 00
'" '" '"
'"
'"
~ z
~ 0
'" ~
r;;: ~ ;i;
= ~ ~
u g:: 0
~ ~
8 ~
,
,
,
,
I
~
u
w
'"
!
i
z
~ ~ ~
~ ~ '"
u _ 0
::g ~
'"
~
~
-<:
~
I
~
Q
~
o
u
u
-<:
...l
o
~
o
u
~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
f;f ~~ ~~;i ~~ ~~ ~~ 8~
~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ rl
Q\~ 64 v.J. Vt _~ _~
'" '" -
'"
~ ~ a ~
~(;f g
'" '" on
0;-
'"
o 0
;g ~
"<t~ N
- -
'" '"
'" '"
~ ~ ~
on _ -
g f:i ~r
~~~~~
'" -
'"
Q
W
~ ~
huuL~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ffi ~ ~ w ~ ~
~~~~;~g~~
u ~ ~ ~ '" g g ~ ~
~
~ ~
~ ~
o 0 0 0 0 0
0-- '" ~ ({:l 0 on
N ~ '" '" ~ Sl
0.. 0 ~ v1 0 Ir)
N ~ N ~ ~ ~
o 0 0 0 0 ~ 8 0 ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ ~ ~
~$gj~~~~~~i~f;;:~
-.:t Eo"} lr) Eo"} &":t v.t N 0\ ('l")
v.t,......j V} V:) .-r
'" '"
o 0
o '"
'<> ,....
0--" g
ii8 '"
'" '"
o 0 0 000 000
~ ~ g ii8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~$~~~~f~~n~~~
~Eo')~EAv.t;::;tA~:_
'" '"
~ ~
U Q
~ 0 ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 3 ~
~~~~~
~ 8 f}J U ...l
~b~~;
z ,:Q 0 f-< ,:Q
~ ~
@ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~Z~~w~Q
o '" 0 U E!J
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~Qo~u
g~I~!~
iii I:i U U w '"
~oo
~ s ~
::J ~^ 0'
g ~^ ~
g S 8 ~ ~ g s ~ g ~ S
M lr) M Ir) ..... ..... Ir) ~ 00 00 N
~ ~ 0' 0' ~ ~ ~ Ir) Ir) lr) ~
~ 0 0 M ~ ~ ..... v1 0 ~ .....
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lr) ~
0-- 0
_ 0
'" -
'<> 00
::> ::>
~ ~ Q ~ !
~ ~ 12 ~
\0 Ottl 0
"'=t 0 0 0
\0 r:- r:- 00
o
'8
on
::>
~
~
o
,,;
!if
0--"
'"
'"
o
~
g
'"
'"
!if
o
..:
'"
on
~"
'"
~
o
~ ~
is 0
~ ~
~ ~
IoU J,
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ b
o f-<
~ ~
~ 0
'"
~
g
'"
i;
'"
o
on
,....
.-:
..,.
'"
","
00
'"
~
o
<n
<Il
<n
o
~
'"
j
'"
<n
is
~
~
~
~
o
:I:
<n
~
i
~
o
i'!'i
Q
~
'"
o
~
'"
~
~
o
~
.
I/'Cj
8 ~
on on 8 '"
~ :g '"
~ 0 ~ ....
...< ....- ,.: ...< 'if,
N ~ ~ '"
N '" '" on
'" ~ '" '"
~
'"
'"
8 8 8 0 0 N .,. .... 0 0 0 0 0 on 0 0 0 >;! 8 '" on ~ ....
8 8 t! ~ N '" i'l 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ N
~ '" on 0 '" .,. 0 0 0 0 on on '"
Z 00 qj ~ ~r ,..; ,..; '" ,.: '" '" "," "," ...." i'i d' .,.- on" v5 d' '" ,.: ..;- '"
0 '" '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;El '" ~ '" '" '" 0 .,. on '" !.;!
'" '" ~ '" '" ~ 0 on on '" .,. '" '0 ~ ~ '" ~
'" ~ '" '" '" '" '" ...< '" '" '" '" '" '" ~" ...< '" ...< ...< ~ ~"
~ <J, '" '" '" '" '" '" 0
'" ~
~ '"
i::l '"
~ '" 0
~
~
'"
0 ~
u
I
~ 8 0 8 8 8 '" ~ .... 0 ~ 8 8 [5 0 8 8 8 '" 8 .,. on ~ .,.
8 .,. N '" on ;g ~ ~ ....
.... '" on "'" .... on ~
z as '" N" ~ ...< ~" '" ,.: '" '" N ~ 00 "" ci ..;- '" "" 8" ...< ...." ti [i
@ 0 '" ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ on on ~ !.;! '" '2 00 on
'" '" '" .,. ~ '" '" ~ 0 on .... ~ '" '" ~ '" '" on 00
<.5 ~ '" '" '" '" '" ~- '" '" '" '" '" '" ~" ...<'" ...< ...< ~ on"
<:Q ~ .,. '" '" '" '" '" '" 0
'" ~
~ "I '"
~ '"
'" '"
0 '" 0
~
1 ::;: ~
'"
~
~
<
-
~
~
'"
~
o
~
o
u
u
<
...<
o
~
o
u
fi: ><
Ifi:G~ ~ ~ ~
fi: ~~f:J~~~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ go~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o~
~ ~ ~ '" 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ '"
a ~ ~ g ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g
~ ~ ~
\0 ~ 0
N N ~
~
2 ~ ~
gs E9 ~ ~
~ ...< 0 ~
~ ~ ~ ~
i=l 0 '" '"
~ ~ ~ g
~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s
~ N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ @ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ @ ~ @ ~ ~
~
o
~
~~
~ ~ ~
o ~ ~
~ ~ ~
:r: :;: u
~ ~ iJ:
o ~ u
~ 0 :.:1
i=l 8 ~
[5
~
'"
~
...... ~ s
~ .,. 0
"I "I 'I'
~ ~ g
~ ~ '"
@
o
@
<:Q
~
~
~
o
~
I
~
o
~
~ @
o 0
~ @
o <:Q
~ ~
o u
/ /, /t?
'"
...., " ...
" x
.~ " w X
.t:J " X W
.~ " w '"
" '" Q,
.s= " ... ... ... '" ... ...
x " '" '" '" => '" '" '"
" " " " ... '" :!: " "
LLJ " Q, Q, Q, '" x Q, Q,
" Q, Q, Q, " Q, Q,
w " => => => Q, w '" ... x => =>
'" " ... '" '" '" Q, ... ... ... ... ... '" ~ '" 15 ... '" '"
" " '" => '" '" '" '" '" < '"
Q, " " ~ w w '" " " " " " " ~ Q, ~ " ~ w
'" " Q, " u u ... Q, Q, Q, Q, Q, :!: Q, " u
=> Q, '" :;: :;: '" w Q, Q, Q, Q, Q, ~ ~ Q, '" :;:
Q, => ... " u => => => => => Q '" " => ... w
'" x '" '" Q, :;: '" '" '" '" '" ~ => ... '" x u '"
" w w Q, ::; Q, '" " ;: w
" U '" '" => '" " " " " " ... " " u '"
x '" w :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: '" ~ '" Q, x '"
U ~ ~ '" w Q, ;: ~ w ~
... '" '" w ... ... ... ... ... w U => '" '"
< ~ < < u '" < < < < < u w '" '" < ~ <
'" ~ '" '" w '" '" '" '" '" '" '" ~ ... '"
w < '" '" ~ '" w w w w w ~ < '" ... w < '" '"
Q, '" " w Q, Q, Q, Q, Q, " x '" U Q, '" w
" ... ~ ~ Q, '" " " " " " Q, '" ~ '" " ... Q ~
..
~ " "
x x
"' => =>
g: ~ ~
"
... x " ...
u => w x U
~ < ~ u => '" < '"
~ '" x x ~ w
> " w " w " < > " w
'" '" x u x " " => " '" ... ... '" x U
w w => :;: => x x x x ... => '" w => :;:
'" '" ~ ~ => => w => < '" => ~ ~ '" ~
=> iIi '" ~ ~ > ~ '" ~ '" u " '"
x ~ w ~ w x ... '" x ~ w
olI '" < ... '" '" W W '" '" W < Q, < ... '"
~ " W < '" U W Q, ... ~ " " x ~ w ~
'" => ~ ~ '" => ;: x ... i!i x '" u z z =>
w x < '" ~ ~ W W ~ W ... => => x < '" '"
U '" < '" < x u x u -... ~ ~ '" '" <
'" olI '" ~ W W '" ~ ~ :; ... olI a '"
a u '" '" '" " " '" " x ~ ~ ~ '"
x U x '" ~ u " " < < x U :;
'" ... ~ ~ ... '" " :;; w Q, Q, '" '" '" ... ~
~ ~ ~ w '!i! '" " " ~ ~ w w ~ ~ ~
" < < '" '" " '" '" w '" ~ ~ x x < < ~ ..;,
x w '" < => '" w ... < ~ x => < w w w " "
x ... U Q, < '" '" Q, => Q, " '" " " x ... " u
u
x
< ...
x
" Q,
~ " 0 "
" 0 ~ w
< " "' u "
... " x w
'" " Q ::; '"
:;: " x
" => '" olI
" " ~ w
< ... " '" ...
~ " " " " " " " " " " " " " " w x 0 " '" "
=> " x x x x x x x x x x x x x u " x x w x
x " => => => => => => => => => => => => => :;: u => => '" =>
u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~
'" ... ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w x ~ ~ x ~
" < < < < < < < < < < < < < '" " < < <
'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
~ w w w w w w w w w w w w w ... ~ w w " w
... x x x x x z x x x x x z z '" ~ x x x x
U w w w w w w w w w w w w w w < w w 0 w
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " '" " " '" "
~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ::l 0
... " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 '" N 0 0 0
x " 0' ",' 0' ",' ",' 0' 0' ",' ;eo 0' ..'
a " "' .. ~ R: 0 t; ~ 0 "' ~
" ~ 0 '" .. 0 ~ ~ ~ N N 0 '" .. ~ 0 ~ ~
" " '" N .. .. .. t3 "', e N ~
"' < " ~' ~
'" " N ~
-... "
'" "
0 " N "' .. ~
-... ~ "
'" w "
0 '" "
11-/1
"
" ~
" u
" <
" ~
"
" ~ '"
" '" "
" 0 ~ '"
" 0- '" e-
" 0- 0
W " => 0- ~ ~ ~
~ " ~ 0- ~ ~ '" '" '" ~ ~
0 " => '" '" < < < '" w '"
0- " W ~ 0 0 0- 0- 0- 0 U 0
'" " u ~ ~ ~ 0- 0- 0- Z 0-
=> " ;; '" w z Z 0- 0- ~ ~ ~ 0- < 0-
0- " 0 u w w => => 0 0 0 w => -' =>
" '" 0- ;; :IE: :IE: ~ ~ u ~ < ~
" W 0- >- >- ;; '"
~ => '" < < '" '" ~ ~ ~ '" '"
>- ~ W 0- 0- Z Z '" '" '" '" :!: w z
~ w w ;: ;: w w w w ~
'" w '" '" u u u ~ ~ < ~
< u '" < < < w <
'" w z z '" '" ..... ..... ..... ~ '" '" '"
'" -' '" < < w w ., ., ., '" w u w
-' 0 w 0 0 0- 0- ~ ~ ~ W 0- :!: 0-
"'- ~ -' -' 0 0 0 0 0
~
'r'
'" ~
g:; >-
~ 0
z '"
>- " w => w z
z ~ u =>
~ " 0 z z ~
" '" :IE: W ~ ~ g <
~ " z '" '" 0- => '" u 0 '" ~
w " => z z w z z w '" ~ => '"
~ " ~ => => -' w => ~ 0- < ~ =>
=> ~ " ~ ~ w > ~ 0 ~ :!: '"
" >- ~ w '" - z ~
.. '" " '" w w '" '" 0- - W
~ " < '" u <> '" w '" 0- ~
~ " '" => ;;: :0 <> z ~ u z '" w ~ z '"
w '" N ., :;: W ~ => W ~ W ~
U '" :IE: , ~ ~ '" U :IE:
'" -' W W '" '" '" ~ z a >- -'
a ~ ~ z z '" '" z -' w ~ 0
u => => z 0 < u u '" -' u
~ ~ '" ~ ~ :IE: '" '" W 0-
-' W W '" " ~ w z ~ " :IE: -'
'" '" ~ '" ~ ~ 0 '" >- z il -' '" w '"
z => ~ w u ~ < < w 0 '1 z =>
U 0- < ~ '" <> ~ 0- '" '" ~ '" => 0-
Z
<
Z ~
~ " <> <> 0-
<> :IE:
" <> <> <> w z
< " ~ '" '" '" '" g
~ " N W
~ " N '" '" '" '" ~
;;: " z z z <
" '" '" => => => .. ~
<> " z z ~ ~ ~ z
< ~ " => => ~ w
-' " '" '" '" ~ ~ '" '" w w w ~ '" 0- <>
=> " z z z z z u u u w z ~ Z
:IE: " => => => > > => => ;; ;; ;; '" => =>
u " ~ ~ ~ '" '" ~ ~ w ~ u ~
" w w '" '" '" ~
~ " -' -' -' ~ ~ -' -' w w w :!: -' ~ -'
0 " < < < < < ~ ~ ~ < '" <
" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" w '"
>- " w w w w w w w ~ ~ ~ '" w " w
~ " z z z '" '" z z '" '" '" z z '" z
U " w w w w w w w w w w 0 w '1 w
" '" '" '" ~ ~ '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
"
"
"
"
" ~ ~ ~
" ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;
" <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
" <> <> <> '" '" '" <> <> <> <> <> <> '" <> <> <> <>
~ " <> <> <> ., <> <> <> <> N <> <> N "'. <> <> <> <>
z " ...... ",' ......
a " ., <> ., N <> N <> <> N ~ <> <> <> ~
" ~ <> ~ N ~ ~ ~ ., ., :;: ~ N <> .,
:IE: " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~
'" < " ~
'" " N N
, "
., "
<> ~ " '" .....
, " ., '" <> :: N ~ ;!
'" w "
<> '" "
//-/2
" ~ ~
" z
" w U :E
" :E < w z
" w '" ~ '" .. 0
" '" 0 0 ..
" .. z '" z ~
" ::> 0 "" 0 '" <
" '" '" .. '" z ..
" ;!'; ~ u
" z z
w " w z z ~ z 0 '"
'" " ~ .. < < ;'!i ~ :': ~
0 " .. 0 0 ~ .. ~ ..
.. " 0 '" ~ ~ < ~ < < ~ ;::
.. " .. w ~ z ~ u .. u
::> " .. u z z 0 0 ~
.. " ::> z w 0 w ~ ~ ~ '" ~
" '" < :E ~ :E ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ::> 0
" ~ >- >- .. .. < .. < ..
" '" < < ::> < 0 0 0 ~ ~
" ~ '" .. '" .. .. .. ::l .. .. ::l ~ ..
" w w .. .. .. w 0 w
" ~ w .. w .. ::> ::> ~ ::> u ~ u
" < u u '" '" '" .... w ....
" .. ::> z :; z ;8 ;8 ..
" W Q < ;'!i ~ ~ ~ '" < '"
" .. w 0 0 u u ~ u ~ ~ :E ~
" 0 .. ~ .. ~ '" '" '" '"
"
"
~ "
'1' "
"
'" " '"
g: " >-
" '"
" w w w
~ u u '" z
z z ~ 0
< < :E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'" .. .. ~ .. u u u u u 0
w ::> ::> w w w w w w ..
'" '" '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..
::> i'i ~ ~ u w 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
~ .. .. .. .. .. ..
"" .. ::: .. .. .. .. .. .. -
~ ~ ~ '" '" Q
'" Z z :0 '" z u u u u u u ..
w w w w '" ::> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w
U :E :E U ~ "- "- "- "- "- "- ~
.. >- >- Q Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z
is 0 0 z ~ z ~ z z z z z z w
~ ~ ::> '" ::> < 0 0 0 0 0 0 u
'" " .. .. ~ .. ~ .. .. .. .. ::' ::' ::' z
" :E :E W ~ ~ ~
'" " w w ~ ~ ~ z >- >- >- >- >- >- ~
z " z z u w < < < < < <
" ::> ::> .. Q Q '" '" '" '" '" '" '" ~
u "
z "
< "
z
~ Q Q 0 Q
Z >- >- '" >- 0 ~ Q
< ~ ~ u u '" u '" '"
~ Q N Z Z Z
'" ~ Z N ;: ;: Q < Q Q Q
;; < ::> z > z z z
'" ~ Q .. .. ::> .. ::> ::> ::>
0 z z w w ~ w ~ ~ ~
< ~ W w ::> '" '" '"
~ Q .. U Q ~ z z w z w W Q W
::> z i'i ;; z 0 0 U 0 U U Z U
:E ::> ::> > u u ;; u ;; ;; ::> ;;
u ~ u .. ~ .. ~
W W ~ ~ .. ~ .. .. ..
~ ~ '" '" ~ '" Z Z W Z W W ~ W
0 < .. < 0 0 '" 0 '" '" < '"
.. W .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
>- W "" W W W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~
~ Z .. '" Z '" >- >- '" >- '" '" Z '"
W ~ W W W < < W < W W W W
U '" '" '" '" '" '" Q '" Q Q '" Q
:; :; :; :; :; ~ :; :; :; :; ~ ~
0 0 0 '" 0 0 0 0
Q Q Q '" 0 '" Q 0 Q '" Q 0 '" 0 '" 0
~ 0 0 0 '" 0 0 "', ~ N '" ~ N '" 0 ~ Q
z ",' 0' ",' ",' N'
is 0 N ~ 0 ;:! N 0 N ~ 0 0
N 0 N ~ '" ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ N '"
:E ~ ::; ::; ~ ~, N N N ~ ~ '" ~
'" < ~
'" ::; '" ~ ~
"-
'"
Q .... N
"- ~ ~ ~ ., ~ '" N
'" W N N
'" ..
//--/;1
M
'"
......
o
.-i
......
Ie
o
u
+>
.~
.Cl
.~
.s::::
X
LU
"
o
.-i
-
"
Ie
o
-
CO
if>
~
... .-i
CO M
N N
" Ie
Ie ...
... 0
~ -
CO
if>
co
o
...
-
Ie
...
...
1!1 ;::-
.-i 0
N CO
- -
CO .-i
... 0
M '"
III q< ...
1!1 1!1
if> ~
~~~
~ 000000000000 0 OOq<
rl 000000000000 0 0000
N 000000000000 0 aooq<
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ...
~ m mOMq<OOO~~OrlOO m OMM
m q< N~Omq<O~~Nm~O m OO~rl
I ~ OON q<q<rl q< ~ M--
M'" ...... ... -
0'\ m N M LO
'" ...
.-i if>
~
~
~
I
~
I
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
; ~ ~; ~
i ~ i !; ~...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
i I ~~~I!~~il;~1 ~ I ~ i ~I ~ ~
~ ~ 1~~:I!i~~~1 .: i i~ ~
I III ~ ~m~2~"o ~ IO~~
..: !Xi c.i / / - I L/ Q r.l r.: ci ~
Cl
....,
.....
.0 V>
..... +'
..c: e::
>: 0)
E
~ +'
I-
<0
0-
0)
Cl
"C
0)
+'
<0
0)
cr;
+'
e::
0) .s:;
E u V>
0- e:: e::
0 <0 0
I-
0) ce +'
> 0-
0) <0 0
Cl +' '"
V> +' 0-,
V> .~ e:: I
M V> > 0) M
0-, >, 0) E 0-,
U) I +' .s:; <0 0) 0-,
N U +' ~
W 0-, u e:: '" <0
0-, 0) .s:; ..0 I-
:J ~ 0) ce u <( <( 0
U) .s:; U 4-
0> +' I- "C ::;:
U) V> e:: 0) 0 e:: >- +'
+' e:: 0> V) <0 0)
V> I- .~ e:: 0) 0>
<-' 0) '" 0) "C 0) .s:; "C
'" Cl +' V> e:: V> +' '"
Z CT l- V> <0 <0 ce
0) 0) 0 <0 0) 0
0 cr; V> 0- o.. >, l- +' "C
:::::> 0- I- U e::
Z 0> '" "C <0 e:: V> '"
e:: l- V) e:: I- ~ "C L.L.
;:!: .~ 0) <0 ..0 e::
4- "C "C .~ >< '" +'
4- .~ e:: V> -' <0 L.L. VI
U) <0 > '" 0) I- '"
l- +' 0 L.L. V> e:: Cl l-
V) I- '" .~ 0) <( I-
:J o.. ce <0 V> o.. E
+' <0 ::;: e:: e:: <0
0 e:: 0) l- I- 0) +' 0 I-
0) U 0) > I- U 0>
E e:: u 0 E +' 0
+' > 0) 4- -' E <0 l-
I- I- c.!:J e:: 0 0) o..
<0 0) 0 V> V> U I-
0- V) "C 0) V> U e::
0) -- e:: 0> E 0) 0 0) 0
Cl +' <0 e:: <0 e:: +' cr; ....
VI e:: .~ z: CIl +'
.... 0> <0 "C V> V> "C 01 U
... e:: +' <0 >, '" <0 0) -c <(
0 0 +' l- ce V> V> '"
Q.. e:: '" I- <0 0 0 CO .s:;
CIl e:: V> ~ 0) I- '" 0- 0- +'
a:: <0 e:: \..- > ..0 0-, 0 0 01 '"
0 0 "C 0-, l- I- e:: 0
.... o.. U 30 <( -' ~ o.. o.. .~ >-
CIl ....
01 ...
-c ....
'" ~ ~ ~ ~ o.. CIl +'
CO N M '" L.(") .0 " CO 0-, ..... Q.. V>
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U 0
~ -'
... 4- 4-
.... 0 0 .s:;
e:: V>
CIl e:: e::
E 0 0 ::;:
CIl e:: c: c: c: c: .~ .~
~ 0 0 0 0 0 .... ....
Q.. 0 0 0 Q.. Q..
Q.. +' 4- 4- +' +' 4- +' +' 0 0
'" u e:: c: u u c: u u -c -c
III <( ~ ~ <( <( ~ <( <( <( <( <0
..... //:/f' / / /-//J
RESOLUTION NO
/7/~J
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF THE FINAL BUDGET OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1993
AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1994
The City Council of the city of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Charter of the
City of Chula Vista, sections 1004 and 1005, the city Council is
required to adopt a budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
1993 and ending June 30, 1994, and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has prepared and filed with the
city Clerk his proposed budget, and
WHEREAS, due notice has been given by the City Clerk, as
required by law, that said proposed budget is on file and open to
anyone interested, and
WHEREAS, a hearing has been held on said proposed budget
as required by law, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Chula vista that there is hereby appropriated out of the
resources, including prospective revenues, of the city of Chula
vista for municipal purposes and for use by the various
departments, the amounts shown in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as if set forth herein in full.
The City Council finds that all appropriations contained in this
resolution are within the legal spending limitations authorized by
law.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the appropriations attached
are approved as the budget for the 1993-94 fiscal year. The city
Manager and the Director of Finance are hereby jointly authorized
to transfer appropriations within control accounts for all services
and to transfer appropriations between control accounts for
Employee Services only.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance may,
from time to time, invest temporarily idle funds from anyone fund
in legal investments permitted by law for charter cities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the interfund transfers
described on Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof, are
hereby authorized; and any such inter fund transfers described
thereon as loans shall bear interest at the rate of 6.0% per annum
1
11- /7
which the city council finds and determines is the current prime
interest rate.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director is
authorized to merge Fund 223 (Montgomery Sewer Service Revenue
Fund) into Fund 225 (Sewer Service Revenue Fund) and merge Fund 224
(Montgomery Sewer Replacement Fund) into Fund 226 (Sewer Facilities
Replacement Fund).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that revenues received from
Developer Deposit Funds for projects for which consultants rather
than city officers or employees are engaged are hereby continuously
appropriated to the Developer Deposit Fund.
Presented by
"OIl
John D. Goss, city Manager
Bruce M.
Attorney
C:\rs\annual.bud
2
/ /- /g"
NOTICE OF HEARING
CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held by the City Council of Chula
Vista, California to consider the adoption of the budget for fiscal year 1993-94 which
includes establishing appropriations limit for fiscal year ended 06/30/94.
The public hearings are being held pursuant to the provisions of the Charter of Chula
Vista Sections 1000-1006. The following reflects the City of Chula Vista proposed
budget:
General Fund
Special Revenue Funds
Debt Service Funds
Open Space Funds
Landscaping & Maintenance Districts
Capital Improvement Projects
Equipment Replacement Fund
TOTAL
Proposed
City Budget
$54,816,710
19,263,146
11,100,150
1,589,300
183,510
23,352,424
859.521
$111,164,761
Said public hearings will be held in the Council Chamber, Public Services Building, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California on Tuesday, June 15, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. at which
time individuals and/or groups may make oral comments. Senior citizens are
encouraged to attend and comment. A copy of the 1993-94 City of Chula Vista Proposed
Budget is available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 276 Fourth
Avenue, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Dated: June 1, 1993
City Clerk
///)-0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE:
May 27, 1993
FROM:
Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
Lyman ChristoPher;tAfirector of
Finance
TO:
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR FY 1993-94 CITY BUDGET
Please have the attached Notice of Public Hearing published in the
Chula vista star News on the dates of June 2 and June 9, 1993.
Please call me if you have any questions. Thank you.
LC/eb
Attachment
/J/))
June 14, 1993
TO:
Councilman Jerry Rindone
John D. Goss, City Manager~
,
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Response to Questions regarding the June 15, 1993 Agenda
Following are staff's responses to your comments/questions regarding items on the
above referenced Council agenda.
Item 3 - Flex Plan for Assistant City Manager
1. Please provide the date of the Council meeting when the referral of this
item was requested by Council.
The flex plan amount for the Assistant City Manager was originally discussed at
the January 12, 1993 Council meeting.
2. Please provide the minutes of the meeting when the Council referral was
made.
Attached are the minutes from the January 12, 1993 meeting.
Item 8 - Contract for Fireworks Display
1. The cost of the fireworks to the contractor is $16,500. Is only $14,000
funded by the City and $2,500 from.KKLQ radio station?
The City is contracting with San Diego Fireworks for $16,500. The sponsoring
radio station is providing an additional $2,500 in fireworks. The net result
will be that the Chula Vista fireworks display will consist of $19,000 worth of
fireworks.
2. Why was this not broken down in the fiscal impact statement instead of
Attachment E, budget detail?
Staff has historically provided the Fourth of July budget detail as a separate
attachment. However, your point is well taken and the department will include
this information in the Fiscal Impact part of the staff report in the future.
3. What, if any, publicity coordination is planned with the fireworks held at
the marina and planned at EastLake?
[here has been no publicity coordination, since it is staff's understanding that
EastLake prefers to target their fireworks promotional material to EastLake
residents only.
) / / ) L/
-
Item 9 - Beer and Wine Sales at 1498 Melrose
1. Who was the "no" vote for this direction?
The motion on the beer and alcohol sales was combined with that of the mlnl-
mart/car wash CUP use. Since Councilman Moore voted "no" on the mini-mart/car
wash use, his "no" vote is also reflected for the beer and:wine sales. I am
attaching a copy of the minutes from the June 1 Council meeting when this item
was discussed.
Item 11 - Adoption of 1993-94 Budget
1. On Page 11-3, under MIS, staff is recommending a reclassification of an
Administrative Analyst II to Senior Management Analyst. Why?
Attached is the commentary from the proposed budget which discusses the reasons
for reclassification of this position.
2. The $4,006 listed under Personnel for correction of salary benefit level
for the Assistant Director is recommended for what purpose?
This was a computer input error which needs to be corrected.
3. On Page 11-4, why is the $889,600 for the Equipment Replacement Fund not
listed under General Fund expenditure adjustment. Please explain.
The Equipment Replacement Fund was established by resolution in 1985 to account
for veh i c le rep 1 acement charges made aga i ns t City departments (vi a account #5270,
Vehicle Replacement) to finance the eventual replacement of the vehicles assigned
to them. In order to make expenditures from this fund, Council must appropriate
the funds thereunder.
Item 13 - Solid Waste Participation Agreement
1. This is a difficult and complex subject. Staff listed on Page 4 of the
report five possible alternative disposal options. However, one which was
not listed (which I think needs serious consideration) is to establish a
South County JPA for solid waste landfill purposes for the four South Bay
cities (and/or Lemon Grove). Has staff explored this option? Please
provide staff's recommendation regarding this alternative.
At the staff level, there has been no interest expressed by the Cities of
National City, Imperial Beach, Coronado or Lemon Grove to pursue a South County
JPA for alternative options to the County system. All of these cities have
previously approved the Agreement, and at least one city has committed 100% of
its waste flow.
Conceptually, such a JPA could serve the same purpose in the South Bay as it has
in North Cou'nty, if the desire is to seriously examine exiting (or possible
contracting with) the County system. Although it 1S unclear how the idea would
be received by the other cities, it should be pursued as a possible consideration
during whatever timeframe is eventually determined to be available for
pursuing options.
)j-J)
i::
.~
i::
o
'.0
'(j)
o
c..
Vl
\..
Ol
bIl
'"
i::
l'Il
6
..
Ol
.;i
o
i::
l'Il
Ol
N
Ol
Ol
..
....
Vl
'"
-
-
Ol
~
Vl
'"
i::
o
'.0
.~
Vl
8..
-
i::
Ol
S
Ol
bIl
'"
I'::
'"
S
'"
~ ~
'" '"
~ Ol
.~ >,
"0 ~
Vl i::
~ Ol
o ..
u ..
o 8
- Ol
Ol ..<::
~ -
l'Il ..
6 .,E
I'::
Ol
Ol
.D
Ol
;.
'"
..<::
Vl
- Ol
.. U
~ ~
Ol -;;;
~~
OJ
0"<::
o 0
o ~
0\'
~~
.... ..
o 0
-
Ol
bIl
~
::l
.D
Ol
..<::
~
~...IOi--Qj-Ol
I':: .. 5 ~ u i:: ::l
~;~ ~ ~~!!
~ ~o:S';; ~.5al
::s "-._....tn
'Ci.2~~t~~
(/'J - ..... 0 rJ) '"" tJ
bIl 2! bIl..o I':: -E .5
i:: ..<:: '" 0 ~
'S: ..8 bIl ~ '.;:l ..e-.5'
~:egc.."'Ol~
"'~.;; ~E~~
..... l'tI _ 0..... .......
"'..c:"'bIl'E~O
I':: .~ ~'.5 - ~ ~
Oli>o3~::l=
N ~ '.;:l " i:: Qj '1:'
o ",'~ l'Il ~ ;s
~ - f/) (/'J ..... -
~ 0 '" I':: - I'::
Qj_c....<::Ol:;:lo
..c c.. u '" ~ '.0
o Ol It') ::l ~ .~
..... "" N (/J be'-::: ~
~]~~'~~c..
5"'''<::Ol'''~~
"E~~>,:::E~..tl
o i:: '(j) .5 .5 Ol ..!..
~~~'-c~~
OJ ..... u 0 0 ~ ..c::
~ ~e $ :-9 .5 .;g
.E ~ '"" r./) ~ '::I
" 'E !t 8.. .E 'Ci
~ObllOli::~
,Iii ~ .5 .5 .,g ~
_ ......."'"" _ u
(/'J >. = ....!., 'IJ"J CU
8'::l~-;;; 8...;;
.l:l 5 ~..<:: ~
Olt:~t:ELs~
o.D::lOlOl..o u
"'t:u~;....!.,~c:;
Q.,o s-Ol'"
_._ ~ fa""'u I'::
1.,.1 ..... .~ "2 ~ .~
c .- .... - Qj "'0
",VlVlO~Olc....
o '" .......<:: X 0
Vl c...D Vl Qj ., Ol
6 .. Ol .~ ..<:: .. Vl bIl
Ol 0 6 i:: ~ Ol .~ i::
..... l/) ._ 0 Qj ~ ..... ',;i
VJf/)-'.o_f/)~f/'J
~ J.., .~ ~ c: .'x
U'lo~~Ol,jg~Ol
~ P: c.. c.." " .. ....
~ >..It')''i::bIlo~
~ "'0 ;' U'l --s ro Iool c:
.;; s .. .~ 0 'c.. Ol
>oo:S~~~s
]":e--;oc:{j5~
] .5 ~ .;; .,g ~ ~ ..g
Q) ..... l'tI .... l'tI r.n U l::
s~c:~]"'sOl
S ~ 0 c..Ol ~'E"
Ou c..Ol 9-6::l Ol ~
~ u ,- 6 0 Ol '"
~C:8:g0"<::VlOl
,~ ~ V; ::l u Ol 5 b
.~ e .~ ~ ~ .~ ~ .~
~.. ~ :o.~ :.2 t ~ .D
":' o..c:~l- '" c:~
C'I'j Q) ..... l'tI . ~.... Co.lu
~..<::~..s~ Vl
......,Ol...lOi~.;;::l::l
~ u .. _ 'S: .D ~
.. '" 0 0 v i> Ol 0
&: .;i s.. ~ .E ,-;:: .;i s..
Qj"=
.....-SOl.~
.....;i
o 0 Ol
... ..
~ 0 ~
::l I':: -
OJ e 0 ,n
:> QJ '';:: r::
.- ..0 u 0
ti ::l .,
~ ~].~
o >,:-::;
V; c: .D "8
-;;; : ~ 6
c: ~ la Ol
<'E Kl
t: Qj i .;;
E Vl~-S
Ol~ ~~
'" 0 u
I':: '(j) .5 ..:
'" Vl Ol
:::E ~ t:: bIl
.... e ..... ~
oo..ie",
'2 Ol ~:::E
~.;iI'1$
l'Il bIl< ~
.E .19 ~ '0'
"'9. ::l .~ P:
~al.l:l'i;j
S .. Vl '0
Vl '2
~ .s'::l ~
"C_.ar.n
~31<Ol
Ol i:t: .;i
.D 0
- Ol
-.D
~
Vl :::l
~ 'i
c:
<x:
~
i:: ..
Ol.,E
..
3 ~
u c:
Ol '"
- ..<:: ~
l'Il ~ 0
Vl >,_
~8..D'i;j
'.00"'0;
~Q.Q)u
ti (/J e Qj
'2 il .,E .;i -d
.;::: .. bIl ~
s::;'-Q)C'....
~~o..:etf
VlQj::l_
QJO..oUl'tl
-:5 ~ C' .5 ~
~ Q) G ....,... Q)
..<::Vl~i::C)
..... l'tI ra: Q)
~b-S.6~
~ .5 ~ .... ....
i:: ..!t i::
Ol Ol 0 Ol 0
'" ..<:: ~ ~ ~
'" l- u
E .... Ol '"
o ..<:: c..
~ Qj ~ .E
.... >'.-l
Ol ~
o -.l!l Ol
r./) i-t c:: c::
-;;; Ol::l 0
.~ ~ ..<:: 0 c:
0\ bIl l:j Ol
;:: ,- :.2 ra ..0
] ~ .~.~ .( ; ~ >,
.~ I':: U '::l u ~ ]
e.- ........: r:: ...... Vl
.-bOCUtUQJO
~&it:.;i-o:.g ~1:;
lil ,,-oVlXOl
,,~...: Ol~ 8..Ol.6
".~~].. .!:l..
~u Ol Ol 8j.~.5 '"
lil1:;-e:;;.;i go
Ol.lSlileu~~Q
~VlOlSO"'i::..<::-
u '(j). u.. '" ". Ol
..VlS!PQjO ,i>i::
.'" <x: ... .. ... i:: - i::
~ c: ~ .l!l Ol .,8 ~ Sl
... ta~::::s! u~ ~
~~.~~~:gjlilQ.,
::l~Ui::...c..<::'"
o ~ Ol <\I c..::; bIl..
I-l ~ .:; ........ _ ._'_ Q)
';;:E os~ lil-; 0..
~ ~ ~'1;) .VJ .:; ni 11
>,i::::l:.::l:EgOl:-::;
..s e ~ .~ l- '" ~ ~
~ i:: 0 ~.... .E .~ .~
Ol ~ 6Vl~ ~ Ol'~
bIlOl...:-1:; i> o!fc:
i:: c..Vl Qj Vl 6 Ol.S
'S: '" ~ 6 '" .. 0..-;0
g 01 ~ 0.. lO 0 ..s .~
'" Vl 'r' 0 'C " Ol :-::;
....t"I:Ii""'QjQJQ.I>f.n
oU~>(/'J""'QJ(/)
~~~~~~~]....
=~._.e-.:a~1:t"I:I~
~ - u .~ .~ Ol ~ ..<:: ~
~~.5 e<X:.D e~-;;;
Ol OJ bIl6t:-t'8 Vl ~
,,>,c: 0 Ol ~ c: 01<
'S: '0 '(j) U ~ E .~ ~ Ol
o .. ~ 0 bIl'- ~ u .];
....g,Jc...-ta-QJ-ta
0...0 "1'::"3 c: c: ..
06" Ol '" >,Ol.lSt;
~::l ;"~ "'.;; ~'2
Ol i:: ,~ .. 6 bIl'~ .;:::
"3 '" Ol Ol .sa Ol c: Ol '"
........~~s::..c::.=-=~
OJ.,E "'''~~~ i::<X:
i:: S!PE"3'Ol i::- Ol
S .::: 0 0 = ..<:: Ol Cll .;;
l/) ~ 't: -S ... -' -' > \?4?oo0
.... Q,.I V" U':t Q.I QJ
~~ o...t'~~ ~ g Vl
'So ....- <':S - - ~ QJ
.5-C:~] c: lillil ",''5
~ c: 'x <: ..<:: ~ ..<:: ~
~.S .~ Qj ~ .~..s ~ "
c: Ol OlCO::'.o_ Qj Vll'::
'" Vl o..Ol '" "'';; >''''
-€e~6~0 ~Ol
.9.QJ~~'2:~~~
..<:: 0.. Ol .~ Ol i:: .~ '"
.~ -;; e .;i .@ ~ .~ ~ E
::l 8j o..".<x: 6 '" C:.,E
.~ .D .;i ~ Ol 8j ] ~ lil
.. ~ 'S: bIl"<:: >, = t:: 0..
Ol ..<:: .. '" ~ 0 .~ ,9 ~
--' o_~-lo-I
'v ... s:: :a ... 0... QJ lV 0
::SJ! e i:: >'6.D 0.."
.E~~::l"S..Ol~~~
.....0c:00''5..<::c:'''
...... ~ '" U .", ,_ ., l'Il .D
M
M
~::. ~8~//-2?
TO:
June 15, 1993
Coun~ilmember Jerry Rindone
FROM:
SUBJECT:
, .' .-',
John D. Goss, City Manager~
,
Supplemental Response to Questions Regarding 6/15/93 Agenda
i
In reviewing the responses to your questions regarding the June 15 meet~ng, I
felt a need to provide some supplemental information in order to respond more
completely to the questions. '
Item 7 - Flex Plan for Assistant Citv Manaaer
In reviewing the very brief A-113 for Item 7, and then the minutes of the Council
meeting when the referral was made, it was obvious that the A-1l3 was not
complete. The request by the Council was a separate recommendated justification
regarding the flex plan amount for the Assistant City Manager.
Basically, the flex plan amount was a part of the overall economic package for
the Assistant City Manager, based on the market for this particular position.
While this position has a compensation package which is probably above the
average for like positions in similar sized cities, the real market for this
position was established at the time the position was filled. At that time, the
incumbent was being pursued by another jurisdiction which was able to offer a
salary which was several thousand dollars more than what would have been feasible
for the Assistant City Manager in Chula Vista. In order to make an offer that
was somewhat, but not totally, competitive with the other jurisdiction, an
automobile and a somewhat higher market basket amount were offered in exchange.
As a result of that, the offer was accepted and, in effect, the "market' for that
position was established within that context. As a result of that and that
alone, the salary and subsequent auto allowance, which are now in place, meet the
market for this position, as well as the commitment that was made when the
position was offered. The only thing that is remaining is adjusting the market
basket amount to the amount that is recommended.
One of the concerns with the market r sket amount is that it is the same as that
of the City Attorney and that, as atter of philosophy it is inappropriate to
tie two positions together in this! 1ner. Again, this was done in connection
with the "market" for this particular position and also to provide recognition
that the Assistant City Manager position was a "strong No.2" position, and had
higher status than the previous incumbent in the position. Now, as a matter of
philosophy, there may be understandable disagreement with such an arrangement.
On the other hand, even though it is recognized that the commitment that was made
when the position was offered is not the City Council's commitment, it was a
commitment that was made and accepted in good faith.' Therefore, it is
recommended that the market basket for this position be adjusted as proposed.
As an alternative, it is suggested that this market basket be approved with the
direction that the agreement be renegotiated, if the Council finds this
arrangement so onerous that it is unacceptable.
~ // ~;L7
(p~j
Item II - Adoption of 1993-94 Budaet
A question was raised as to why a reclassification was recommended for an
Administrative Analyst II to a Senior Management Analyst. The response was a
reference to the budget commentary on this subject, which was attached. The
commentary basically speaks to the funding of the reclassification, rather than
the reason for it. The rationale for the reclassification is based upon a
reclassification study conducted by the Personnel Department. In that study,
they eva luate the level of dut ies being performed by the incumbent in the
position, and they have concluded that the person is performing at the Senior
Management Analyst level, rather than at the Administrative Analyst II level.
As a matter of equity, therefore, the reclassification is recommended.
Regarding funding the increased cost of $4,434, this expense is totally pffset
by reducing the Professional Services account and also by the deletion of the car
allowance budgeted for the Special Projects Manager. In this way, the impact on
the General Fund by the reclassification will be zero. .
JDG:mab
cc: Mayor/City Council
/ / ~cJ-r/
June 15, 1993
MEMO TO:
The Honorable City Council
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Tim Nader, Mayor
BUDGET
In looking over the proposed 1993/93 budget, it is clear to me that this is not a zero-
based budget. In other words, if we were to look afresh at how spending the tax money
available to us would most enhance the quality of life of our citizens, we would not
necessarily spend it in the way proposed.
To better meet the needs of Chula Vista and to better reflect the spending priorities which
. would enhance our quality of life, I propose the following changes to the City Manager's
budget:
1.. CUTS
A. Administration - $60,000
The City has more administration than it needs. The time of some of our highest priced
administrators is too often spent conducting review of reports already reviewed by
department heads (if a department head cannot do a report to the City Council, he/she
should be replaced). The level of administrative support for the City Manager's office
looks especially high compared with the level of staff support provided to the Mayor and
Council, who are supposed to make the policy decisions upon which the City is
governed. Administration -the execution of Council directives - should not require a
budget as large as that proposed, although it is acknowledged that this function like any
other, can be carried out more easily with higher levels of funding. However, the perfect
administration is not worth what economists call the "opportunity costs" of lesser services
in the areas proposed for reallocation below.
B. Manaaement Services: Eliminate department and more data processing and word
processing functions under the City Manager's administration budget, split research
functions between Administration and Mayor/Council, and reallocate bulk of budget for
computer services to administration with the understanding that the bulk will be made
available to service City departments as needed on whatever is the most cost-effective
basis (this may sometimes be in the form of an outside contract). Cut $50,000 from the
overall allocation for Management Services.
II-'~ S
C. PLANNING: CUT $50,000
Cross-training should allow some functions currently carried out by the Planning
Department to be carried out by other departments or vice versa (if vice versa, then funds
could be reallocated from the appropriate department). For example, one does not need
to be a fulltime planner to read a zoning map, as evidenced by the fact that this function
is already carried out in redevelopment project areas by community development staff.
A side benefit is the potential to streamline projects which would add to our City's
economic base.
In addition, in reviewing the supplemental budget memo no. 14, it appears that some
large private projects are being funded from the General Fund. Unless there is a benefit
to the public at large, projects which consume a large amount of staff time or necessitate
a significant expenditures by themselves should be paid by those who will benefit.
In light of other, more pressing needs of the City, not fully funded under the current
proposed budget, a $50,000 reduction in Planning does not seem unreasonable given
the scarcity of tax resources.
D. PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING: CUT $50.000
There appears to be more supervision and administration in Engineering than is
absolutely necessary. Workers who cannot be self-initiating to a greater extent than is
suggested by the number of supervisory personnel here should be replaced. We cannot
afford to sacrifice the safety of our public or the welfare of our youth for extra supervision.
E. FREEZE ON RECLASSIFICATION OF POSITIONS TO HIGHER SALARY LEVELS
The exact amount this would save has not been totalled, but there obviously be some
would be some cost savings to the City. Some of the savings would be duplicative of
other cuts proposed above, in that some of those cuts would be achieved through
foregoing reclassification.
I wish to clear up one point on which there appears to be some confusion: I am
proposing a freeze on reclassification, not on merit pay increases which are built into
existing classifications. The latter is an administrative matter which is within classifications
already approved by the Council. However, an actual reclassification of a position -
changing the entire nature of the position in a manner which results in a salary increase
beyond that previously authorized by the Councilor under any collective bargaining
agreement - is a policy matter, and is clearly considered so under the City Charter. It is
also a luxury which I believe in these current times of economic distress we cannot afford.
Like last year's hiring freeze (which I hope we may avoid this year) I would contemplate
that the Council could make exemptions on a case-by-case basis.
)! ~ 3D
II. SPENDING REALLOCATIONS
As I indicated above, part of the rationale for some of the above spending cuts is that if
a zero-base budgeting approach is used, there are other, more pressing needs of the
City that are not adequately funded under the currently proposed budget. The
suggestions for additions to the budget below (to be funded from cuts proposed above)
are in recognition of the need for higher levels of service in certain areas. However, it is
understood that the assumption is built in that Sacramento will leave us alone - and
admittedly dubious assumption. It might be desirable to hold off on making some or all
of the expenditures proposed below until the budget picture in Sacramento is clearer.
A. POLICE: ADD $50.000
We have failed to meet police thresholds for the second year in a row. I have learned
from police officers that the situation is not even as rosy as it has been made appeared
to us, in that a larger number of calls are "killed" by communications than was previously
the case - i. e., they may not be showing up in our response time stats because citizens
are told that police do not have the resources to respond rapidly to calls that are less
than priority one. In addition, I understand that certain police equipment, such as bullet
proof vests, may be in need of more rapid replacement than the current budget allows.
I am also concerned that, while it is laudable to attempt to economize on overtime, it has
always been the Council's intent that such economizing would not jeopardize levels of
service (thus our vote last year against the City Manager's recommendation to cut the
police overtime budget). However, I understand that because of constraints on overtime
that there has been a short staffing of some police beats when officers are out sick.
Finally, I find it difficult to believe that if some funds were available some progress toward
obtaining computer-assisted dispatching (CAD) equipment could not be made within the
coming fiscal year.
Regrettably, either we cut some fat from the budgets proposed above, we would not
have the resources to meet all of the public safety needs which would have been
generated by a combination of rapid growth and deteriorating social family values.
However, I would proposed that an additional $90,000 be allocated to the Police
Department to be used for any of the above needs which the Police Department might
see as highest priority.
B. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT - YOUTH PROGRAMS - $80.000
The Youth Action Program developed by Jess Valenzuela in response to the Youth
Summits, should be taken off the wish list and fully funded. Some additional funds
should be provided to develop and/or support other needed youth programs. I believe
every member of the Council having attended at least one of the Youth Summits is aware
of the present need for teen services in our community to provide our youth with
wholesome activities.
))-~I
C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $30.000
Our Economic Development Coordinator is overworked. To some extent this is because
she has been used as a project manager on individual projects, such as the power
center, which, whatever their merits may be in terms of enhancing City revenues, will not
provide career positions in large numbers to Chula Vista residents. Such projects I would
respectfully suggest, should be shepherded by people who are hired for the purpose of
being project managers; if Administration thinks that those individuals are not capable of
doing the job, they should be replaced. Even so, the Economic Development
Coordinator could undoubtedly use additional clerical support (perhaps on a contract
basis as needed) and may from time to time need additional contracted services for
specific projects (e.g. the hightech/biotech zone, the labor pool survey, the Border
Environmental Commerce Zone, and activities related to implementation of the City's
Economic Development Plan).
If Council is concerned about the accountability of setting aside this pool of money, I
would propose that specific expenditures be approved on a case-to-case basis.
TIM BUD
TN:pw
) 1- 32
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /,;J..
Meeting Date 6/15/93
SUBMITTED BY:
Public Hearing: PCA-92-03 - Consideration of an amendment to Title
19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to require a conditional use permit
for any proposal to expand or modify alcoholic beverage sales facilities
in the C-N zone - City initiated .
Ordinance :<5~t:? Amending Section 19.34.030 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code Relating to Requirements for the Expansion or
Modification of Alcoholic Beverage Sales Facilities
.-.,r?/
Director of Planning Ift1t
City Manager~ ~ ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No_1U
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
I. On August 25, 1992, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2526 to require the
issuance of a conditional use permit to sell alcoholic beverages in the C-N zone.
2. At the meeting of April 13, 1993, Council expressed concern with the fact that the new
ordinance does not distinguish between the extent or amount of alcohol sales or
between the sale of beer, wine and hard liquor, and thus previously approved or
"grandfathered" facilities in the C-N zone are able to expand or modify their operations
without local review and approval.
3. On April 20, 1993, Council adopted an interim urgency ordinance (Ordinance No.
2552) to require a conditional use permit for any proposal to expand or modify alcohol
sales in the C-N zone, and directed staff to return with a permanent amendment to the
Code within 90 days.
4. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed amendment
is exempt from environmental review as a minor alteration in land use, in accordance
with Section 15305 Class 5 of the CEQA guidelines and Class 5F of the City of Chula
Vista Environmental Review Procedures.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the ordinance enacting PCA 92-03 to amend the
requirements for alcoholic beverage sales facilities in the C- N zone.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On May 26, 1993, the Planning
Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that Council enact the amendment in accordance with
Resolution PCA-92-03. (Draft minutes attached.)
/:2- /
Page 2, Item I;'"
Meeting Date 6/15/93
DISCUSSION:
The City Council has established a local review and approval process to ensure that the
operation of all alcoholic beverage sales facilities within the C-N zone is consistent with the
intent and purpose of the zone to provide for convenient access to goods and services while
preserving and complementing the character of the surrounding residential area. It is believed
that the expansion or modification of alcohol sales in the C-N zone may have an adverse
impact on the public health, safety and welfare as it relates to an over-concentration of alcohol
sales and the resulting impact on crime in the surrounding area.
The current ordinance requires the issuance of a conditional use permit only for the
establishment of new alcoholic beverage sales facilities within the C-N zone. Previously
approved and "grandfathered" facilities could expand or modify their operations without local
review and approval. Adoption of the proposed amendment would require that any
modification or expansion of alcoholic beverage sales operations in the C-N zone shall be
subject to issuance of a conditional use permit, in accordance with the provisions of CVMC
Section 19.14.030A6, thus establishing a review and control mechanism to ensure compliance
with the C-N zone intent and purpose.
Section 19.14.030A6 requires a Zoning Administrator conditional use permit with a public
hearing for alcohol sales facilities in the C- N zone. In addition to the normal findings required
for a CUP, and in consultation with the Police Department, the Zoning Administrator is
required to find that the facility would not result in an overconcentration of such facilities in
the neighborhood.
Overconcentration may be found to exist based on (I) the number and location or existing
facilities; (2) compliance with State Alcohol Beverage Control overconcentration standards in
effect at the time of project consideration; (3) the impact of the proposed facility on crime; and
(4) the impact of the proposed facility on traffic volume and traffic flow. The City Council
is informed of the Zoning Administrator's decision, and the Councilor other interested party,
can appeal the matter directly to the City Council for public hearing.
The proposed amendment to Chapter 19.34, C-N Neighborhood Commercial Zone, of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code reads as follows:
Section 19.34.030 Conditional Uses
H. Establishments contained in the list of permitted uses above, but which
include the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site use or consumption,
including anv new facilities and anv facilities which expand the area
devoted to alcohol sales or which require the issuance of a tvpe of
alcoholic beverage license bv State Alcohol Beverage Control. different
from the license previouslv held, in accordance with the procedures in
Section 19.14.030;
J;/. ~.2..
Page 3, Item /,;..
Meeting Date 6/15/93
The language for the proposed amendment to Section 19.34.030 differs from that which was
adopted as part of the Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 2552 in order to avoid unnecessary
reviews of insignificant changes such as a change in the brand of alcoholic beverage sold
which does not require a change in the type of licensing by A.B.C. The A.RC. requires a
different type of license for malt beverages and beers, wines and distilled spirits, as well as for
some alcoholic beverages within these classes when there is a proposed change in the alcoholic
content of the beverage. Thus, the amendment would require local review if there is any
expansion or significant change in the type of alcoholic beverage sold.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
WPC F:\home\planning\973.93
1~-3//J.-1
ORDINANCE NO.
:<56,0
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING
SECTION 19.34.030 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EXPANSION OR
MODIFICATION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES FACILITIES
WHEREAS, on April 13, 1993, the City Council expressed concern with the fact that the City's
recently adopted ordinance requiring a conditional use permit for alcohol sales facilities in the C-N zone
(Ordinance No. 2526) does not distinguish between the extent or amount of alcohol sales or between
the sale of malt beverages & beer, wine and distilled spirits, and
WHEREAS, a previously approved or "grandfathered" alcohol sales facility in the C-N zone can
therefore expand or modify their operations without local review and approval, and
WHEREAS, the expansion or modification of alcohol sales in the C-N zone may have an adverse
impact on the public health, safety, and welfare as it relates to an over-concentration of alcohol sales
and the resulting impact on crime in the surrounding area, and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 1993, Council adopted an interim urgency ordinance (Ordinance No.
2552) requiring for a period of 90 days a conditional use permit, in accordance with CVMC Section
19.14.030A6, for any proposal to expand or modify alcohol sales in the C-N zone, and directed staff
to prepare a permanent ordinance for consideration and adoption prior to the expiration of the 90-day
period, and
WHEREAS, on May 26, 1993, the Planning Commission adopted resolution PCA 92-03 by a
vote of 6-0 to recommend that the City Council enact the proposed amendment, and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the Project PCA 92-03
is exempt from environmental review as a minor alteration in land use, in accordance with Section
15305 Class 5 of the CEQA guidelines and Class 5F of the City of Chula Vista Environmental Review
Procedures.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine
and ordain as follows:
SECTION I: The City Council finds that the Project PCA 92-03 is exempt from environmental
review as a minor alteration in land use, in accordance with Section 15305 Class 5 of the CEQA
guidelines and Class 5F of the City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures.
SECTION II: That the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice
justifies the amendment and that the amendment is in substantial compliance with the City of Chula
Vista General Plan.
SECTION III: That Section 19.34.030 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended to read
as follows:
);< ~5"
Ordinance No.
Page 2
19.34.030
Conditional uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in the C-N zone, provided a conditional use permit is
issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.14.060:
A. Automobile service stations, in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.58.280;
B. Sale of beer or other alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises only where the sale
is incidental with the sale of food;
C. Electrical substations and gas regulator stations, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.140;
D. Unclassified uses, see Chapter 19.54;
E. Roof-mounted satellite dishes subject to the standards set forth in Section 19.30.040;
F. Recycling collection centers, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.340;
G. Automated, drive-through car washes in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.58.060;
H. Establishments contained in the list of permitted uses above, but which include the sale of
alcoholic beverages for off-site use or consumption, includin~ any new facilities and any
facilities which expand the area devoted to alcohol sales or which require the issuance of a type
of alcoholic beverage license by State Alcohol Beverage Control different from the license
previously held. in accordance with the procedures in Section 19.14.030;
I. Liquor store (package, off sale only), in accordance with the procedures in Section 19.14.030.
SECTION IV. Ordinance Number 2552 is repealed, effective when this ordinance becomes
effective.
SECTION V. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect
on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption.
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
~
Presented by
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
WPC F:\home\planning\895.93
1..2 ... ~
Excerpt from Draft Minutes of 5/26/93 Planning Commission Meeting
ITEM 4:
PCA-92-03; CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 19 OF THE
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR ANY PROPOSAL TO EXPAND OR MODIFY ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE SALES FACILITIES IN THE C-N ZONE - City Initiated
Principal Planner Griffin presented the staff report, and noted that the City Council had adopted
an emergency ordinance requiring the CUP with over-concentration findings to be applied to any
changes to existing alcohol sales facilities. Council had directed staff to return within 90 days
with a permanent amendment to reflect that. This amendment would cover any new facilities
or any significant changes in the C-N zone and would apply the CUP over-concentration analysis
to those facilities.
Chair Fuller asked what was meant by significant increase in alcoholic content. Mr. Griffin
used beer as an example--going from normal beer to a fortified beer.
Commissioner Tarantino asked how the City would monitor the changes. Mr. Griffin said the
City was notified by the ABC if a different type of license was required.
Chair Fuller inquired if those types of sales required a different type of license. Mr. Griffin
answered affirmatively.
Commissioner Ray asked if previously approved or grandfathered alcohol sales facilities within
the C- N zone could expand without the review. Mr. Griffin explained that with this amendment,
any expansion or change would require local review.
Commissioner Martin referred to a Time Magazine article revisiting the riot of Los Angeles and
the abundance of liquor stores in the area. He felt that anything that could be done to halt this
would be helpful.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened; no one wishing to
speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Martin/Carson) 6-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher absent) to adopt Resolution PCA-93-03
recommending that the City Council enact the draft City Council ordinance to amend the
requirements for alcoholic beverage sales facilities in the C-N zone.
;.). .. ?
RESOLUTION NO. PCA 92-03
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
THE ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION
19.34.030 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EXPANSION OR
MODI FICA TION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES
FACILITIES IN THE CoN ZONE
WHEREAS, on August 25, 1992, the City Council adopted Ordinance no. 2526 to require
the issuance of a CUP to sell alcoholic beverages in the CoN zone, and
WHEREAS, on April 13, 1993, Council expressed concern that the ordinance does not
distinguish between the extent or amount of alcohol sales or between the sale of malt beverages
& beer, wine and distilled spirits, and thus previously approved or "grandfathered" alcoholic
beverage sales facilities are able to expand or modify their operations without local review and
approval, and
WHEREAS, the expansion or modification of alcohol sales in the CoN zone may have an
adverse impact on the public health, safety, and welfare as it relates to an over-concentration of
alcohol sales and the resulting impact on crime in the surrounding area, and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 1993, Council adopted Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 2552
to require for a period of 90 days conditional use permit, in accordance with CVMC Section
19.14.030A6, for any proposal to expand or modify alcohol sales in the CoN zone, and directed
staff to prepare a permanent ordinance for adoption by Council, and
WHEREAS, the project PCA 92-03 is exempt from environmental review as a minor
alteration in land use, in accordance with Section 15305, Class 5 of the CEQA guidelines and
Class 5F of the City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on the proposed
amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in
a newspaper of general circulation in the city at least ten days prior to the hearing, and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m.,
May 26, 1993, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
based on the facts presented at the hearing, recommends that the City Council adopt the attached
draft ordinance amending Section 19.34.030 of the Municipal Code based on the findings
contained therein.
. That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
/,2 "'/r
Resolution No. PCA 92-03
Page 2
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 26th day of May, 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
Carson, Fuller, Martin, Moot, Ray, Tarantino
NOES:
None
'-
ABSENT:
Tuchscher
-jM//fI ~?h~
Susan Fuller, Chair
A TrEST:
caw~~ ~;
Nancy Ripl y, Seer r
WPC F_Iplaonlng'll93.93
1':< ~ <1
EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF AUGUST 25. 1992 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PUBUC HEARINGS AND RElAn:D RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
12. PUBUC HEARING PCA-92-03: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL
CODE REQUIRING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SALES OF ALCOHOUC BEVERAGES IN THE
COMMERCIAL-NEIGHBORHOOD (C.N) ZONE. 01Y INITIAn:D . On 4121/92, Council directed staff to
return with a proposed ordinance outlining an application procedure for alcohol sales in the C.N zone. The
procedure would require approval by the City and input by the Police Department, with approval being
subsequently placed on the consent calendar for Council action. Staff recommends Council place ordinance
on tint reading. (Director of Planning) Continued from the 8/11/92 meeting.
ORDINANCE 2526 AMENDING SECTIONS 19.14.030, 19.34.020, AND 19.34.030 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE RElATING TO THE SALE OF ALCOHOUC BEVERAGES IN THE COMMERCIAL-
NEIGHBORHOOD (C-N) ZONE (tint readinll)
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
William Tuchscher, 3633 Bonita Verde Dr., B~nita. CA, representing the Economic Development Commission,
spoke in opposition to staff recommendation.
There being no further public testimony. the public hearing was declared closed.
ORDINANCE 2526 WAS PLACED ON FIRST READING BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM, reading of the text was
waived..
Mayor Nader stated that the reason for the ordinance was a public safery concern rather than strictly a
building or land use concern. He thought the Police Department was best equipped to judge whether an
alcohol ret&il outlet in a particular neighborhood was going to pose a public safety threat.
AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE: <Nader/Moore) (1) to require the approval of the Police Department for
an aclmillistntive approval and (2) to put any administrative approva1 of an alcohol outlet in a C-N zone
on the Consent Calendar for the following Council meeting.
Councilman Moore had a problem with .Police Department approval." He thought the Police Department
should recommend or not recommend approval to the Zoning Administrator who had that approval given
to him by Council, the Police Department did not have that approval.
Mayor Nader added to amendment that the zoning administrator shall not approve without the conc:wrence
or pWitin: recommendation of the Police Department.
As the second, Councilman Moore, agreed to Mayor Nader's addition to the amendment.
Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney, advised Council that staff had consulted him about the requirement of having
the Police Chiefs approval and his office tried to persuade them from wording it that way on the theory that
the Zoning Administrator was assigned the zoning power in the City not the Police Chief. It was worded
to receive the input of the Police Department and any other department, but allowed the Zoning
Administrator, which was a recognized office of the City by both the Charter and state law, as having the
tint layer of zoning authority.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: failed 2-3 with Councilmembers Malcolm, Moore and Rindone opposed.
VOTE ON ORDINANCE: approved unanimously.
I).-It)
EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF .\PRIL 20, 1993 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CONSEm' CALENDAR
(Items pulled: 6 and 7)
B~CE OF TI-IE CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY COUNaLMAN RINDONE. reading of the tal: was
waived, passed and approved +0-1.
8. ORDINANCE 2552 IMPOSING, AS AN INmIUM AND URGENCY MEASURE. A REQUIREMEm" ,
TIiAT FOR A PERIOD OF NINE1Y DAYS ANY PROPOSAL TO EXPAND OR MODIFY ALCOHOL SALES IN TI-IE ';
C-N ZONE IS SUBJECT TO TI-IE ISSUANCE OF A CONDmONAL USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITI-I TI-IE
PROVISIONS OF MUNICIPAL CODE SEcnON 19.14.030(6) C=cv) .On 4/13/93, Council expressed
concern with the fact that the City's recently adopted ordinance requiring a conditional use permit for
alcohol sales facilities in the C.N zone does not distinguish between the extent or amount of alcohol sales
or between the sale of beer/wine and hard liquor. Staff recommends Council adopt the urgency ordinance.
(Director of Planning) 4/5th's ~te requirecI.
9. ORDINANCE 2553 AMENDING sa-moUlJ; X, SEcnON 10.48.050 OF TI-IE MUNICIPAL CODE
DECREASING STATE LAW MAXIMUM SPEED UMI1'S IN CERTAIN AREAS, PASEO RANOiERO AND BUENA
/.2 ~ J /
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold
a public hearing to consider the following:
Considering an amendment to Title 19 of the Municipal Code requiring
issuance of conditional use permit, in accordance to Section 19.14.030 A.6, for
any proposal to expand or modify alcoholic beverage sales facilities in the C-N
zone.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this matter in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's Office at or prior to the
public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, June
15, 1993, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth
Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: May 25,1993
Beverly A. Authelet
City Clerk
/2--/1/
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN 11IAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY 11IE CITY
COUNCIL of Chula Vista, California, for the purpose of considering an amendment to Title 19
of the Municipal Code requiring the issuance of a conditional use permit, in accordance with the
provisions of Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.14.030 A.6, for any proposal to expand or
modify alcoholic beverage sales facilities in the C-N zone. The Environmental Review
Coordinator has determined that the proposed amendment is exempt from environmental review
as a minor alteration in land use, in accordance with Section 15305 Class 5 of the CEQA
guidelines, or Class 5F of the City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures. Copies
of the proposed amendment, PCA-92-03, are on file in the office of the Planning Department.
Copies of the proposed amendment PCA-92-03, are on file in the office of the Planning
Department. Any petitions to be submitted to the City Council must be received by the City
Clerks office no later than noon of the hearing date.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this amendment to the Municipal Code in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior
to the public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE COUNCIL on Tuesday, June 15,1993 at
6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time
any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: May 26, 1993
CASE NO: PCA-92-03
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\944.93
/~-/3
Item
Meeting Date
/,3
6/15/93
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
TITLE:
REPORT Status Report on the Solid Waste Participation Agreement
and Alternative Disposal Options
SUBMITTED BY:
Principal Management Assistant Snyder~
City Manager~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ Nol)
REVIEWED BY:
At the 5/27/93 meeting, Council discussed the proposed Solid Waste Participation
Agreement even though it required unanimous approval by all cities and it had, at that
point, been rejected by four cities. Council action at the meeting conceptually
approved the Agreement, to include committing 50% of the City's wastestream to the
County and bringing three specific items of concern to the negotiation table of the
Interim Commission.
On 6/1/93, the County Board of Supervisors approved a revised Agreement for
redistribution to the cities and action by June 22, 1993. The revised Agreement
(Attachment 1) does not require unanimous ,approval and is being forwarded to Council
for action at this time. This report also includes additional information requested
by Council regarding disposal options available to the City which could be considered
as alternatives to the Agreement and the 50% commitment of waste flow to the County.
The aim of this report is to provide as much data as is available based on City Council
requests for information. It should be recognized, however, that the process which is
occurring after the Board action on June 1 leaves much of the data gathering and
evaluation of this subject in flux. Not reflected in this A-113 is the City Manager's
meeting with the other managers of the County on Friday, June 11, and a meeting between
the City Manager and other representatives from those cities that have landfills on
Tuesday, June 15. An update from these meet i ngs can be prov i ded at the June 15
meet i ng, but it is expected that there wi 11 be add i t i ona 1 i nformat ion that wi 11 be
gathered during the coming week, after your June 15th meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept testimony and any other information required for a Council
decision, and continue the item to the Council meeting of 6/22/93.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
DISCUSSION:
Not applicable.
Status of the Solid Waste Participation Aqreements
As noted above and reflected in the attached revised Agreement, the County has deleted
the "all or nothing" clause from the previously circulated Agreement. Changes are
i nd i cated in shadow, and the on 1 yother changes are: 1) effect i ve date for city
action is changed from June 1 to June 22, 1993, and 2) the date for a city to decide
on committing the remaining 50% wastestream has been slipped one month from December
1993 to January 1994. At Board direction, the Agreement is being sent to all cities.
1.3-1/;3 - 5"
2 ,6
Page . Item
Meeting Date 6/15/93
Per the terms of the Agreement, an Interim Commission is currently in the process of
being formed, since it has been approved to date by the County and the Cities of La
Mesa and Santee. It is also understood that the staff is recommending approval for the
Cities of Coronado and Lemon Grove, and probably the bulk of the other jurisdictions
that previously approved this agreement before June 1. Full Commission membership will
be determined after June 22, 1993 and the first meeting of the Commission will be
scheduled as soon as possible. This time schedule would seem to be contrary to Chula
Vista's best efforts and Chula Vista may wish to encourage other jurisdictions, as well
as the County, to slow down this process.
Among the jurisdictions who did not approve the initial agreement which was circulated
by the County prior to June 1, at least two of the cities are considering embarking on
a different approach. These jurisdictions, namely the Cities of Carlsbad and
Encinitas, have indicated at the staff level that they may be willing to commit to an
interim agreement, which would include going to a pay-as-you-go tipping fee ($67.00 per
ton), with the understanding that the County would hold back on issuing debt for
landfill operations. This would not preclude the issuance of debt later on and the
subsequent reduction of the tipping fee. What is being attempted is to provide enough
time to meet on and develop the governance structure for landfill operations and to
look at the long-term alternatives to see if there are cheaper methods than what would
be envisioned in staying in the County system. Similar to the initial Chula Vista
staff recommendation that we commit 50% of our flow because of our past commitments to
the landfill operations to help support County debt service but keep the remainder of
the 50% open because there is too much uncertainty to commit that flow, the North
County cities'approach is to not commit any of the flow at this time in order to look
at the governance structure and long-range alternatives, but in exchange for that are
willing in the short term or interim basis to go to a much higher tipping fee.
Even though the North County cities that did not support the original agreement may be
looking at this different approach, they are also suspicious of proposals being offered
by the private sector, with what they perceive as offering "teaser rates" and possibly
a behind-the-scenes effort to close the San Marcos Landfill so that private sector
proposals may look more attractive economically. Also, there is some suspicion of
proposals which have come to light only at the last minute without analysis by anyone.
In any case, the North County cities, through the earlier creation of a Joint Powers
Agreement, have hired a consultant (GGB) which will making a presentation on short- and
long-term strategies which pertain to the County landfill system, at a meeting to be
held July 1, 1993 at the Oceanside City Hall. With this presentation right around the
corner, the arbitrary June 22 date for making a decision on a revised agreement
circulated by the County Board, does not make a great deal of sense to Chula Vista's
best interests. It is for that reason that it was suggested earlier that we work with
the County Board and other jurisdictions to stretch out the June 22 date and to delay
the work, if not the substant i ve act i on, that mi ght be undertaken by the Inter im
Commission.
The Work of the Interim Commission
The first meeting will signal the beginning of the Commission's charge and immediate
decisions: addressing issues raised by signatory cities as concerns to be negotiated;
determining recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding bond issuance, tip
/J'k
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date
,6
6/15/93
fees and economic risk surcharges; and commencement of discussions about the ultimate
form of governance.
Council will recall that the prior action on 5/27/93 included direction to the City's
representative on the Interim Commission to brin9 three specific items of concern to
the negotiating table:
1. That a solid waste facility fee be paid to the City of Chula Vista on the
entire tonnage entering the Otay landfill, except for 10% to be set aside to
eventually incorporate the closed landfill into the Otay Valley Regional Park,
and the fee is to be paid for the duration of the flow control covenant or the
operational life of the landfill, whichever is sooner;
2. That the remaining uncommitted 50% be retained by the City without penalty
of surcharge dur i ng the time that the f i na 1 govern i ng author i ty is be i ng
determined; and
3. That the Commission be given a mechanism by the Board of Supervisors for rate
review and accountability (in terms of reasonableness of rates) that would give
the citizens of the City equitable representation.
Settinq of Tip Fees
On 5/4/93, the Board took action to increase tip fees on July 1, 1993 from $28/ton to
$43/ton. The $43 rate was determined to be the minimum increase necessary and would
require the County's ability to bond for San Marcos landfill expenses. The County's
ability to issue bonds is dependent upon the commitment of flow from signatory cities.
It is important to note that the County's request of a minimum commitment of 50% was
based on the previous Agreement's premise that all cities would be participating.
Actions taken up to June 1 on that previous Agreement show eleven cities approving it,
five cities rejecting it (Carlsbad, Escondido, Oceanside, Encinitas, and El Cajon), and
one city taking no action (Del Mar). Less than 100% flow commitment from the 11 cities
which conceptually approved the Agreement by June 1 will not provide enough flow to
guarantee the $60 million bond issuance.
As was previously reported to the Council, any impediment to the bond issue would
require that the tip fee be set at about $65-$70/ton in order to generate enough
revenue to keep the Enterprise Fund solvent. Decisions on the bond issue and the new
tip fee rate will be made by the County after June 22, 1993, probably with input from
the Interim Commission.
The proposed Agreement is silent on an immediate economic risk surcharge for non-
signatory cities since its original conception assumed that all cities would pledge at
least 50% of their wastestream initially. This now becomes an issue to be dealt with
and the Commission is expected to playa significant role in determining and
recommending to the Board a surcharge for non-signatory cities which continue to use
the County system on a temporary basis until other permanent facilities are available.
Based on the data provided during the course of the audit, the surcharge can be
expected to be at least 50% of the base tip fee without solid waste facility fees and
/]-7
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date
/~
6/15/93
mitigation fees.
One of the questions that was raised informally was that out of the proposed $43
tipping fee, only $4 is for landfill operations. While staff is obtaining more up-to-
date information which can be provided in chart form for the City Council on Tuesday,
that does not appear to be accurate. By piecing together various information on the
current $28 per ton tip fee, City staff was able to obtain information regarding the
following costs: Operation and Maintenance ($10.10); Facilities Improvements ($ 4.82);
Planning/Engineering and Facility Siting ($2.89); Administration ($2.33); State
mandated surcharges ($2.03); Act i ve 1 andf i 11 closure reserve ($1. 95) ; Resource
recovery/recycling ($1.73); Hazardous Waste Management ($1.30); and a variety of other
miscellaneous categories, each of which accounts for less than $1.00.
Alternative Disposal Options
At the Council's 4/20/93 meeting, staff provided information on long-term disposal
options which were most recently being discussed by other cities as possible
alternatives to remaining in the County system (Attachment 2). The information was
gathered from the three cities in the North County Solid Waste Management Agency
(NCSWMA- a JPA including the Cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside and Escondido) and it was
noted that South Bay cities would have additional facility and transport costs not
included in the limited cost data available. This previously transmitted attachment
has been s 1 i ght ly mod if ied to ref 1 ect some add it i ona 1 concerns wh i ch have been
developed since April. Previously, the options described to Council included:
o Rail haul to Utah
o Campo Indian Reservation
o Eagle Mountain, Riverside County
o Rail cycle to San Bernardino County (Amboy)
o Orange County
At this time, there is no updated cost information available on those options from
other San Diego County cities. However, updated qenera 1 i nformat i on about those
options includes:
o Campo Indian Reservation- Current status: permits have been obtained and
currently contracting for the design and development of the liner. Expected to
be open for business early in 1994.
o Oranqe Countv- The Orange County Board of Supervi sors has not yet taken
action to rescind local ban on import of waste from out of the County and there
is opposition to the plan. As a budget-enhancing move, however, the County will
begin accepting bids in the near future from the public and private sectors for
excess capacity. The minimum bid is $32.75/ton on a "put or pay" contract.
Within our own county, the NCSWMA is currently working with a consultant to issue an
RFP for disposal alternatives to the County system and those proposals are expected to
bring the first clear cost data available to date. Proposers will be addressing
processing, transport and disposal costs. It is hoped that the RFP will be public by
mid-July and responses would be expected by mid-August.
/3-'25
Page 5, Item /~
Meeting Date~
Subsequent to the preparation of the list of options, it appears that the City of El
Cajon was approached by Waste Management, Inc. with a proposal to use a special "swap
body" type of technology which would eliminate the need for a transfer station but
allow for direct truck haul to one of the company's landfills north of Los Angeles.
Although WMI is not the City's franchised hauler and could not offer the same service
to Chula Vista, Laidlaw Waste Systems has recently indicated a desire to begin
discussions with the City on either a similar type of service or a privately
constructed transfer station which could provide capabilities for long haul to distant
landfills. Possible destination landfills are the Campo Indian Reservation or Chiquita
Canyon, the Laidlaw-owned facility in Valencia, California. This facility is currently
in operation and meets the EPA's "Subtitle 0" requirements.
It is not possible to determine comparison costs at this time. However, Laidlaw
officials have indicated that negotiations with the company should produce competitive
prices and company representatives will be present at the Council meeting to address
any questions. Issues needing Council awareness in considering these possible options
include:
o "Swap body" technology involves a special canister which can be used for
residential and commercial collection throughout the City and then switched to
a truck with long haul capabilities. Lower tip fees at a more distant landfill
would need to be gauged against increased hauler costs for fleet replacement and
the company's need to amortize the equipment, understanding that amortizing over
longer timeframes can result in lower rate components.
o The development of a private transfer station is simple enough from a
construction standpoint, but would realistically require a minimum of 12-24
months to find a site and comp 1 ete the env i ronmenta 1 rev i ew and permi tt i n9
process. Such a major investment (staff of other cities estimated a cost of up
to $20 million depending on what goes into the facility) may require
renegotiation of the existing franchise term or negotiation of a new franchise
just for the transfer station. This movement may not be consistent with the
current Council direction that shorter, more competitive franchise periods are
desirable. The development and construction costs would also have to be added
to the additional transport and tip fees.
Conclusion
All of the possible disposal options have unknown costs and uncertainties. One
approach is to use 50% of the flow to "lock-in" the lowest tip fees possible in the
County system to start, and then use additional time to determine whether there is
truly a lower-cost alternative which could be used for the remaining 50% waste flow to
offset the County system cost. Another approach is to hold back 100% if the County
would agree, including holding back on issuing debt, but with a $67/ton tipping fee.
Then, options could be formally explored for the remaining 50% or 100% to include all
alternatives being seriously considered by the NCSWMA over the next few months, as well
as concepts raised by Laidlaw. The additional time would provide more solid information
for cost-benefit analyses and decision-making. (It is also possible that the flow
commitment on the initial 50% would revert back to the City during the year if,
;3-'1
J ,- /
)j
Page 6, Item
Meeting Date 6/15/93
ultimately, the County is unable to use the commitment to bond for the San Marcos
landfill expansion or closure. Meanwhile, the City would also benefit financially from
remaining in the County system by receiving solid waste facility fees which may be
jeopardized if the City decided not to participate in the Interim Commission.)
A decision to not participate in the Interim Commission would need to factor in unknown
costs and uncertainties beyond the development, implementation and operational costs
of an undetermined alternative, such as:
o Immediate economic risk surcharges to be basically set by the Commission,
Chula Vista's neighboring jurisdictions which have chosen to remain in the system
and have a vested interest in moving ahead with long-term planning and preserving
system capacity for Commission members;
o Continuing closure/post-closure costs of an undetermined amount for the City's
current liability of County system use to date, costs which may be recoverable
only during the period of time the City continues to use the system as a non-
signatory city, adding even more enormous increases to the near future rates; and
o Potential loss of facility fees, available to the General Fund, which could
conceivably range from $6.5 to $27 million over the expected life of the Otay
landfill.
FISCAL IMPACT: As previously reported, the fiscal impact of this decision will fall
directly on the rate payer. There are two important factors which are currently
unknown and hamper the Council's ability to accurately assess the impact of staying in
the system versus leaving, as viewed from the rate payers' perspective: whether the
tip fee will reflect a bond issuance, and the amount of the economic risk surcharge.
For purposes of illustration, the following assumes the County will not be able to
issue bonds and the surcharge will be set at 50% of the base tip fee (without certain
special fees):
TIP FEE
MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL BILL
CURRENT FEES
SIGNATORY CITY
NON-SIGNATORY CITY
$28
$65-70
$80-85
$12.28/MO.
$17 .43/MO. (EST.)*
$19.38/MO. (EST.)*
*Estimates based only on projected increase in landfi 11 component and do not
include increases for hauler's operational costs, new programs, etc.
/ 3-/!J
Attachment 1
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for signature by Any or All cities
Page 1
AGREEMENT BY, BETWEEN AND AMONG THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
AND THE CITIES OF THE COUNTY
ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM SOLID WASTE COMMISSION
AND PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
(" INTERIM AGREEMENT")
This Agreement (" INTERIM AGREEMENT"), is entered into by,
between and among the County of San Diego ("COUNTY") and m!1i@$~~fi
cities within the COUNTY, for the purpose of providing a commItted
flow of solid waste that serves as a basis for the COUNTY to issue
bonds to finance the expansion and/or closure of the San Marcos
Landfill and to p:r:()y!cie ..f i~?;~ci~9forotll,~E~~C::~lOllOl?;:r:XlOl()1 idw<3:ste
-
can mutually participate in dealing with regional solid waste
matters; and to develop a permanent governance authority to deal
with regional solid waste matters that will promote the long term
health and safety of the residents of the COUNTY and the cities.
Now, therefore, the undersigned COUNTY and cities (collectively,
"Member Agencies") agree to participate in good faith in the
performance of this INTERIM AGREEMENT, and to act in a manner that
conforms to the spirit, intent and general premises of this INTERIM
AGREEMENT, and in accordance with the following:
1.0 MEMBERSHIP
1.1 COUNTY Membership. To be a signatory of this INTERIM
AGREEMENT and participate as a full member of the Interim
Commission, the COUNTY is committing 100% of its Acceptable Waste
flow in accordance with the provisions of Part 3 of this document.
1.2 city Membership.
and participate as a
city is committing at
Acceptable Waste flow
of this document.
To be a signatory of this INTERIM AGREEMENT
full member of the Interim commission, each
least 50%, and may commit up to 100%, of its
in accordance with the provisions of Part 3
a. A member city committing at least 50% of its Acceptable
Waste flow at the time of signing this document may, until December
1, 1993, deliver more than its committed Acceptable Waste to a
COUNTY facility and such additional waste shall not be subject to
the Economic Risk Surcharge set forth in this document at Part 3,
section 3.6, subsection d.
1
;3-//
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for signature by Any or All cities
Page 2
b. On or before g;~nm~M!ii@~~4, a member city may file a
written addendum, in a :f6imacceptilbleto the Interim Commission,
committing Acceptable Waste in addition to that committed in
section 1.2 (a) to the Interim commission; on the terms set forth
in section 3.10.
1. 3 ci tv of San Dieao Membership. Based on the City of San
Diego'S unique role in regional waste management issues, the City
of San Diego may participate as an ex-officio non-voting member of
the Interim commission. The COUNTY will negotiate a separate
agreement with the City of San Diego which reflects the City of San
Diego's unique role in regional waste management issues. Such
agreement will be brought before the Commission for review and
comment prior to adoption.
2.0 EFFECTIVE DATE, TERM
2.1 Effective Date. This INTERIM AGREEMENT shall take effect on
2.2 Term. Except as otherwise provided in Part 3 of this INTERIM
AGREEMENT concerning the commitment and disposal of Acceptable
Waste, the term of the INTERIM AGREEMENT shall expire on May 31,
1994, unless sooner terminated by creation of a permanent
governance entity pursuant to section 4.5(c).
3.0 COMMITMENT OF SOLID WASTE FLOW
AND DISPOSAL OBLIGATION
3.1 Title. This Part of the INTERIM AGREEMENT shall be known as
the "Flow Control Covenant."
3.2 Commitment of Acceptable Waste. To the extent allowed by law,
each Member Agency agrees that the portion of its Acceptable Waste
designated in the execution section of this document shall be
delivered to the facility that the COUNTY reasonably designates.
For purposes of this agreement, a 50% commitment constitutes the
tonnage commitment for the respective cities as set forth in
Exhibit "A", until adjusted by the Interim commission. The Interim
commission may review the tonnage commitment and revise the
apportionment.
2
/3-/;L
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All cities
Page 3
3.3 Acceptable Waste Defined.
a. "Acceptable Waste" is garbage, refuse, waste and other
matter which is legally acceptable at a Class III landfill pursuant
to California Code of Regulations Title 23, Subchapter 15 or under
such laws or regulations as are in effect at the time of disposal
which is generated within its respective jurisdiction which, for
the COUNTY, consists of the unincorporated area. Except: waste
generated by a State or Federal governmental entity unless the
Member Agency has exercised control over such waste and chooses to
commit it; or waste generated by any person and transported or
disposed of by or on behalf of a self hauler hauling less than 50
tons per month.
b. Each Member Agency shall have the right, without penalty,
to recycle (as defined at Public Resource Code S 40180) any solid
waste (as defined at Public Resources Code S 40191) by any means
selected by the Member Agency and any such recycled material shall
be excluded from the commitment otherwise made to the COUNTY by
this Flow Control Covenant. However, if the residue of the
recycling process which can legally be disposed of at a Class III
landfill exceeds five percent (5%) of such recycled material, such
process residue shall be returned to the System for disposal unless
exempted by the COUNTY.
3.4 Enforcement of Flow Control. To the extent allowable by law,
each Member Agency shall establish, implement and carry out a waste
flow enforcement program which is sufficient to assure compliance
with the Flow Control Covenant. This program may include to the
extent necessary and appropriate in the circumstances, but shall
not be limited to, (1) licensing, permitting or franchising
haulers (on an exclusive or nonexclusive basis), upon the condition
of compliance with the Flow Control Covenant, (2) adopting
ordinances or resolutions requiring compliance with the Flow
Control Covenant, and (3) taking enforcement actions under any
such license, permit, franchise, ordinance or resolution. Direct
municipal collection of Acceptable Waste shall not be required
hereunder unless all other available means and methods of enforcing
the Flow Control Covenant have been unsuccessful. If any event or
circumstance (including without limitation a change or adverse
interpretation of applicable law) impairs or precludes compliance
with the Flow Control Covenant by the means or methods then being
employed by the affected party, such party shall implement
alternative or substitute means and methods to enable it to
lawfully satisfy the terms and conditions of the Flow Control
Covenant. If a change or interpretation in applicable law impairs
or precludes either party from complying with the Flow Control
3
JJr/3
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All cities
Page 4
Covenant by any means, such party shall use its best efforts, to
the extent practicable and subject to indemnification by the
COUNTY, to effectuate executive, legislative or jUdicial change in
or relief from the applicability of such law so as to enable city
lawfully to resume compliance with the Flow Control Covenant as
soon as possible following such change or interpretation of
applicable law. Compliance by the affected party with its
obligations under this paragraph shall be deemed sufficient to
satisfy the its obligation to enforce the Flow Control Covenant.
a. Power to Exercise Flow Control.
Each Member Agency represents that it has the right,
power and authority under existing applicable law to enter into,
comply with, implement and enforce the Flow Control Covenant. Each
party shall use good faith and best efforts to preserve, protect
and defend its right and power to enter into, comply with,
implement. and enforce the Flow Control Covenant in accordance
herewith against any challenge thereto, legal or otherwise
(including any lawsuits by or against such party, whether as
plaintiff or defendant) by any person based upon breach of
contract, violation of law or any other theory.
b. Consistency of Aqreements.
As soon as practicable after the Effective Date, all
licenses, permits, contracts, agreements, leases, franchises,
ordinances and resolutions of the affected party which are lawfully
in effect with or pertaining to any person relating to or affecting
Acceptable Waste shall, if and to the extent necessary, be amended
to provide explicitly that the affected party shall have the right
without material restriction to direct the delivery of the
committed Acceptable Waste in accordance with the Flow Control
Covenant. On and after the Effective Date, the affected party
shall not enter into, issue or adopt any license, permit, contract,
agreement, lease, franchise, ordinance or resolution which is
materially inconsistent with the Flow Control Covenant.
3.5 COUNTY's Disposal Obliqation. In a manner that is economical,
fiscally sound and reasonably protects the environment, the COUNTY
agrees to dispose of the Acceptable Waste directed by Member
Agencies to the COUNTY under this Flow Control Covenant.
4
/..~ ,ILl
_..5 /
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All cities
Page 5
3.6 Disposal Charqes. The COUNTY may only charge a Member Agency
for the disposition of Acceptable Waste by imposing a fee in an
amount that does not exceed the COUNTY's cost for providing such
disposal. All revenue, including interest earned thereon, from
disposal charges shall be placed in the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
used only for solid waste purposes.
a. TiD Fee to Member Aqencv. The Tip Fee charged by the
COUNTY for the disposal of Acceptable Waste within the System shall
be sufficient to fund the reasonable and necessary costs for
operation, management and financing of the System, including:
solid waste facility closure and post closure costs, solid waste
facility and mitigation fees. For the disposal of Acceptable Waste
the COUNTY shall charge all sources in the unincorporated area, and
shall charge a Tip Fee for waste delivered from a Member Agency.
(1) Solid Waste Facilitv Fee.
(a) To the extent allowed by law, the COUNTY shall
charge a Facility Fee for waste delivered for
processing or disposal to a system facility. The
COUNTY shall pay-over the collected Facility Fee to
the city or COUNTY in the case of the
unincorporated area in whose jurisdiction the
facility is located to compensate the hosting
member for the reoccurring impacts of having the
facility within its jurisdiction. The Facility Fee
shall initially be set at an amount equivalent to
the appropriate percentage for the facility type
(as described below), as that percentage of the Tip
Fee in effect on January 1, 1993. Thereafter, the
Facility Fee shall be adjusted automatically and
concurrently with any increase in the Tip Fee, by
an amount equal to the percentage increase in the
Tip Fee but not greater than five percent (5%) of
the then current Facility Fee, whichever is less.
(b) Facility types and percentage of the Tip
Fee* (In effect on January 1, 1993):
o Landfill = 10% of Tip Fee ($2.80)
o Mixed Solid Waste Material Recovery Facility
= 7.5% of Tip Fee ($2.10)
o Transfer Station = 5% of Tip Fee ($1.40)
*For the
section,
Facility
purpose of the calculation in this
the Tip Fee does not include the
Fee or the Mitigation Fee.
5
-"
/3 - J.;;,
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All cities
Page 6
(cl If a jurisdiction has more than~ one
Facility at .the same location, or contiguous
location, it would receive the higher of the
applicable Facility Fees, but not more than
one Facility Fee.
(d) The Facility Fee for all future
facilities shall be the Facility Fee for that
type facility as of January 1, 1993 with
adjustments as described in subsection (1),
above.
2. Mitiqation Fee.
(a) To the extent allowed by law and commencing
July 1, 1993, the COUNTY shall impose a Mitigation
Fee for waste delivered to a system facility. The
Mitigation Fee shall be in an amount that is five
percent (5%) of the Tip Fee in effect on January 1,
1993. Thereafter, the Mitigation Fee shall be
adjusted automatically and concurrently with any
increase in the Tip Fee, by an amount equal to the
percentage increase in the Tip Fee or an amount not
greater than five percent (5%) of the then current
Mitigation Fee, whichever is less.
(b) Mitigation Fee funds shall only be used for
specific projects that correct a documented impact
arising from a system facility. Any city or the
COUNTY for the unincorporated area may apply to the
COUNTY for a share of the Mitigation Fee funds.
Mitigation Fee funds shall not be used for a
mitigation measure which is required for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act or
any other regulatory process. Moreover, any Member
Agency which is receiving a Facility Fee for a
particular facility will not be eligible to receive
Mitigation Fee funds for that same facility.
b. Economic Risk Surcharqe.
(1) To the extent allowed by law, in order to offset any
increased costs to the system and account for any
economic risks created by non-committed waste being
deposited into the system, COUNTY may impose an Economic
Risk Surcharge for the disposal of Acceptable Waste from
a non-signatory source or from a Member Agency in excess
of the portion of Acceptable Waste committed under the
Flow Control Covenant.
6
/.3-)?
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for signature by Any or All cities
Page 7
(2) From ifB:w* 1, 1993 to ~+&; 1, 1994 the. surcharge
shall not exceed fifty percerit(50%) of the Tip Fee in
effect at the time of the transaction, excluding the
Solid Waste Facility Fee and the Mitigation Fee, if any.
The criteria used to establish the Economic Risk
Surcharge include but are not limited to: capital
charges, the increased depletion rate of landfill
capaci ty and timing effects. Economic Risk surcharge
funds shall only be used to pay for the costs of the
operation, management and financing of the disposal
system.
3.7 Protection of Flow Control Covenant. If any challenge raises
issues common to the Member Agencies under this Flow Control
Covenant, the COUNTY through the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund shall
indemnify and hold harmless the affected party from the reasonable
costs, fees and expenses properly allocable to defending such right
and power.
3.8 Expiration and Reversion of Flow Control Covenant.
a. Expiration. This Flow Control Covenant shall expire on
the first of any of the following to occur:
(1) No Bond Issue. As to all members, on May 31, 1994,
unless the COUNTY first relies on the Flow control
Covenant in issuing bonds to finance the San Marcos
facility expansion and/or closure and to provide
financing for other solid waste projects in the
approximate amount of $60 to $100 million;
(2) Expiration of Term of Bond. As to all members, if
the COUNTY timely issues the bonds described above, the
Flow Control Covenant shall expire upon the expiration of
the term of such bonds or upon the refinancing of such
bonds, but in no event later than 20 years from the date
of the original bond issuance.
(3) Improper Charqe. As to affected members, if the
COUNTY imposes on a Member Agency a fee that is not
consistent with this Flow Control Covenant and after 60
days written notice from the Interim Commission, COUNTY
fails to adjust the fee so as to be in compliance with
this Flow Control Covenant and fails to refund or grant
a credit for any over-charges;
7
l3~/7
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All cities
Page 8
(4) Failure To Dispose. As to affected members, if the
COUNTY is unable to dispose of all of the committed
Acceptable Waste from the member and after 60 days
written notice from the Interim Commission County fails
to dispose of such waste; or
(5) Leqal Impossibi1itv. As to affected members, if the
law precludes a member from directing the flow of
Acceptable Waste to the COUNTY.
b. Reversion.
(1) To Member.
Covenant to the
shall revert to
Upon expiration of the Flow
COUNTY, the member's commitment
the committing member;
Control
of flow
(2) To Interim Commission. In the event that a
permanent governance entity is not established pursuant
to section 4.5 (c) any flow committed to the Interim
Commission shall be retained by the Commission, as
allowed by law, otherwise to the Member Agency.
(3) To Permanent Entitv. If a permanent governance
entity acceptable to the Interim Commission is
established pursuant to section 4.5 (c), the member's
commitment of flow shall be assigned to that permanent
entity on the terms specified in the document creating
the permanent entity.
3.9 continuation of Interim Commission. Notwithstanding section
2.2 hereof, the Interim Commission established in Part 4 shall
continue to exist so long as is necessary to accomplish the
purposes of Part 3.
3.10 Flow Commitment to Interim Commission.
Interim Commission shall be subject to the
the Member Agencies:
Flow commitment to the
following covenants of
a. The commitment shall be for the same term of the initial
commitment made to the COUNTY.
b. The COUNTY shall dispose of the commitment to the Interim
Commission without surcharge until May 31, 1994.
c. In the event that a permanent governance entity is
established pursuant to section 4.5(C), the flow committed to the
Interim Commission shall be assigned to that entity. In the event
that such an entity is not established, the Interim Commission
shall retain the commitment.
8
/ },- /g/
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All cities
Page 9
3.11 Alleqation of Breach. In the event that a MemQer Agency
alleges that another Member Agency has breached any part of this
Part 3 or section 4.6 the dispute shall be submitted to the Interim
Commission; the determination of the Interim Commission shall
constitute a rebuttable presumption of compliance with or breach of
such part or section.
4.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF Interim commission
4.1 Establishment. There is hereby established the Interim
Commission to accomplish the purposes set forth herein.
4.2 Composition. The Interim Commission shall consist of one
commissioner from the County of San Diego who shall be a
Supervisor; one commissioner from each member city who shall be a
mayor or councilperson: and one ex-officio commissioner from the
city of San Diego who shall be a mayor or councilperson.
Commissioners shall be appointed by their respective governing
bodies which may also appoint an alternate commissioner.
4.3 Procedures. The Interim Commission shall be subject to the
Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code SS 54950 et ~) and shall adopt
regulations to govern its internal operation.
a. A Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall be chosen by the
Interim commission.
b. The Commission shall meet at least once each month on the
commission's established regular meeting date.
c. Special meetings may be called at the request of three
commissioners with a minimum of 72 hours notice to all members
of the Interim commission.
d. A majority of the commissioners shall constitute a
quorum.
e. Actions shall be determined by a majority vote of the
commissioners, based on one vote per Member Agency. The
Interim Commission may amend this document to establish
procedures for a "Weighted Vote."
4.4 Staff for Interim commission.
such County administrative staff
Commission. The Interim commission
staffs of the members.
The COUNTY agrees to provide
as requested by the Interim
may request assistance from the
9
/J - / '}
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All cities
Page 10
4.5 Role of Interim Commission.
a. Advice. The Interim Commission shall provide advice to
the Board of supervisors of the COUNTY on the following matters
that concern solid waste facilities, operation, rates and
financing: capital projects in excess of $50,000, disposal
alternatives if the San Marcos site is closed, other disposal
options, outside-county disposal, intra-county transfer of solid
waste and Tip Fees.
b. Notice and Opportunity to Advise. Before considering a
solid waste matter listed in section 4.5 (a), the COUNTY will
provide to the Interim Commission a full staff report on each solid
waste matter to be addressed by the COUNTY's Board of Supervisors;
in sufficient time for the Interim commission to consider the
matter on the agenda of the Interim Commission's regular meeting.
The COUNTY is not required to comply with this process when an
emergency condition must be addressed and there is insufficient
time for compliance. In the event of such emergency, the COUNTY
shall provide a staff report to an Executive Committee appointed by
the Interim Commission.
c. Develop Permanent Governance Entitv. The Interim
Commission shall consider alternative organizational structures,
including a joint powers agreement, for exerting a unified effort
to accomplish regional, solid waste objectives. No later than May
31, 1994, the Interim Commission shall develop a permanent
governance entity designed to maximize the members' collective
strength in pursuing their interests in disposing of solid waste.
The permanent governance entity:
(1) Shall include all participating cities and the
COUNTY;
(2) Shall be empowered to contract for solid waste
processing and disposal; and
(3) May be empowered to (a) take over and operate the
COUNTY facilities, (b) create new facilities and (c)
contract with outside providers.
d.
provide
Interim
Acceptable Waste Disposal.
for disposal of Acceptable
commission. 2
The Interim Commission shall
Waste flow committed to the
10
/3 ~()
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All cities
Page 11
4.6 Attaininq Sub-Reqional Disposal Obiectives. During the term
of this INTERIM AGREEMENT, the COUNTY and the other Member Agencies
agree:
a. Process. To plan and implement the objective of
providing facilities to meet the waste disposal needs of the
var10US sUb-regions of the County of San Diego, without
unreasonably impacting another sub-region in an adverse manner.
Any dispute shall be resolved by the Interim commission in
accordance with section 3.11.
b. North County Disposal option. The County will use its
best efforts to provide a North County disposal option.
c. waiver of Geoqraphic Obiection. On condition that the
covenants set forth in section 4.6(a) and (b) are being performed,
not to object, on the basis of geographic origin, to the direction
of Acceptable Waste to any facility.
5.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
5.1 withdrawal.
a. Procedure. If any Member Agency requests to withdraw
from this INTERIM AGREEMENT, the Interim commission shall calculate
the impact on the system of such agency's withdrawal taken in
conjunction with all other members desiring to withdraw, and shall
thereafter formulate, in negotiation with all such agencies, a set
of final terms and conditions for early withdrawal which will
become effective upon approval of the Interim commission.
b. Limitation On withdrawal Charqes/Penalties. There shall
be no charge or penalty imposed on the withdrawing Member Agency if
the reason for withdrawal is the expiration of the Flow Control
Covenant as to the withdrawing member.
c.
section
survives.
Survival.
5.1 shall
Notwithstanding
survive as long
section 2.2 hereof, this
as the Interim Commission
5.2 Notices. All notices, demands or requests pursuant to this
INTERIM AGREEMENT shall be in writing. All notices, demands and
requests to be sent to any member shall be deemed to have been
properly given or served:
a. On the date of actual personal service; or
11
/J~/
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All cities
Page 12
b. On the date actually received, if deposited in the United
States mail, addressed to such party at the address of the Member
Agency's regular meeting chambers, or other address designated by
the Member, postage prepaid, registered or certified, and with
return receipt requested.
5.3 Non-Severabilitv. In the event that a substantive provision
of this INTERIM AGREEMENT shall be determined to be invalid,
illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the parties hereto shall
negotiate in good faith such amendments, modifications, or
supplements to this INTERIM AGREEMENT or such other appropriate
action as shall, to the maximum extent practicable in light of such
determination, implement and give effect to the intentions of the
parties as reflected herein. If negotiations in good faith fail,
the INTERIM AGREEMENT, including the Flow control Covenant, is
terminated.
5.4 Waiver of Breach. No breach of any provision herein can be
waived unless in writing. Waiver of anyone breach of any
provision herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other
breach of the same or other provision hereof.
5.5 Remedies. All Parties hereto shall have the right to commence
any action at law or equity, including specific performance, to
remedy a breach of the terms herein, provided that neither Party
shall have the right to terminate this Agreement except as provided
herein.
5.6 No Third Party Riqhts. There are no third party
beneficiaries of this Agreement. No action may be commenced to
enforce this Agreement, except by a Member Agency.
5.7 Counterparts. This
counterparts.
document
shall
be
executed
in
12
;:J -2cZ
APPROVED BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
Amended for Signature by Any or All cities
Page 13
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this INTERIM
AGREEMENT as of the dates set forth.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
committing 100% of its
Acceptable Waste flow
Date:
CITY OF LA MESA
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
By:
MAYOR
SUPERVISOR
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CLERK
CITY OF CARLS BAD
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
CITY OF LEMON GROVE
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
By:
MAYOR
MAYOR
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
By:
MAYOR
MAYOR
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK
13
/3-23 / t3--zf
APPROVED
Amended
CITY OF CORONADO
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF DEL MAR
committing % of its
Acceptable waste flow.
Date:
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF EL
committing
Acceptable
Date:
CAJON
% of j.ts
waste flow.
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
for Signature by Any or All cities
Page 14
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF POWAY
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
14
/3/..:u!
APPROVED
Amended
BY STEERING COMMITTEE, 11 May 1993
for Signature by Any or All cities
Page 15
CITY OF ENCINITAS
committing ___% of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
CITY OF SANTEE
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
By:
MAYOR
MAYOR
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
By:
MAYOR
MAYOR
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK
CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
CITY OF VISTA
committing % of its
Acceptable Waste flow.
Date:
By:
By:
MAYOR
MAYOR
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK
15
/3--,25'
ATTACHMENT "A"
CITY WASTESTREAM COMMITMENT*
Member Aqencv
Waste Tons
Chula vista
Oceanside
Escondido
El Cajon
vista
Carlsbad
National City
Encinitas
La Mesa
Santee
poway
San Marcos
Imperial Beach
Coronado
Lemon Grove
Solana Beach
Del Mar
82,399
80,450
65,566
52,430
44,028
38,149
34,065
32,844
31,399
31,289
26,371
24,854
15,767
15,503
14,327
7,663
2.875
600,000
* Calculation utilizes July 1992 population figures as
approved by SANDAG
'7..2/
/ - V
Attachment 2
Long-Term Disposa1 A1ternatives
(Ana1ysis prepared by city staff of San Diego County cities
and supplemented by comments from County staff.)
There are a number of possible alternatives currently being
discussed around the County although none will be available by July
1, 1993. In addition, these options may not offer reliable
alternatives in the near future (particularly to South Bay cities)
because of varying degrees of location, project completion,
environmental obstacles, or commitment limitations. It is
important to note that these options are independent of the Citv's
choice for a solid waste orqanizational structure.
The following brief description of some alternatives and their
strengths and weaknesses has been compiled from the experiences of
other cities in the County:
1) Rail haul to Utah- A recent offer to haul waste by rail
from the North County to a private landfill in East Carbon, Utah is
currently being reviewed by a coalition of North County cities. It
is a newly developed landfill with about 190 million cubic yards of
capacity.
STRENGTHS:
-Willing to
contracts.
enter
into
long
term
-Also offers opportunity to purchase
capacity.
WEAKNESSES:
-East Carbon Development Corporation
(ECDC) declines to quote comparable
tipping fees and transport costs without
formal negotiations.
-More information would be needed about
the viability of hauling waste from South
Bay, i.e. rail availability, transfer
station, etc.
COUNTY
CONCERNS:
-No known guarantees.
-Serious questions regarding liability:
ECDC currently accepting contaminated
soil from San Francisco.
-Changes
Carbon or
impact.
to local acceptance in East
to Utah law could have negative
/3/;27
2
COST:
-Without RFP, difficult to accurately
.predict. Estimated by City of Oceanside
at $58.47 /ton for FY 94-95. If this is
reasonable base cost for Chula Vista, it
does not include transfer and transport
costs from South County.
2) Campo Indian Reservation- This is planned as a 600 acre
landfill on the Campo Indian Reservation and is a joint effort
between the Campo Band of Mission Indians, Mid-American Waste
Systems, Inc. and North American Recycling Corp. It will have a
total capacity of 40 million cubic yards and will be able to accept
3,000 tons of waste per day for more than 30 years.
There is rail and truck access, and construction will begin soon.
However, there is a strong possibility of litigation from area
residents over groundwater contamination which may delay the
availability of the facility, currently expected to be within the
next 12 to 18 months.
STRENGTHS:
-Of all facilities outside the County
system, this is the most easily
accessible location for South Bay cities.
WEAKNESSES:
-Projected tip fee information is not
available so it is difficult to compare
disposal, transfer and transport costs at
this time. (Transfer station costs would
need to be added into the cost.)
-Stability of contractual services on
Federal reservation would be of concern.
COUNTY
CONCERNS:
-Impact on water and air quality.
COST:
-Unknown.
3) Eaqle Mountain. Riverside Countv- This proposed landfill
at the former Kaiser Steel mine is presently in the State
permitting process and is not expected to be available for at least
two years, assuming environmental concerns and threatened
litigation are overcome. It is the largest proposed disposal
facility in Southern California with an estimated capacity of 700
million tons. That capacity would provide 100 years of projected
regional disposal capacity at 20,000 tons per day.
STRENGTHS:
-Would provide
disposal capacity
for Chula Vista
Diego County.
adequate long-term
in Southern California,
and/or cities in San
).5/2;r
3
WEAKNESSES:
-Needs system of MRFs and transfer
stations located on or near rail lines
and direct rail routes do not currently
exist from the county.
COST:
-Unknown at this time.
4) Rail Cvcle to San Bernardino Countv- This is a proposal
to site a landfill in Amboy which has not yet been approved by San
Bernardino County and would probably be about one to two years
behind Eagle Mountain's schedule. The landfill has a 360 million
ton capacity. It would involve a comprehensive waste management
system including MRFs to be constructed along or near existing rail
lines, with waste residue from the MRFs transported by rail to the
disposal site approximately 225 miles from Los Angeles.
STRENGTHS:
-Would provide adequate long-term
disposal capacity in Southern California.
WEAKNESSES:
-Currently no planned transfer system to
allow cost-effective transport from South
Bay.
COST:
-Unknown at this time.
5) Oranae Countv- The Prima de Sheca landfill located in San
Juan Capistrano has an extraordinary lifespan. Orange County
officials are actively seeking imported waste from the Los Angeles
area although current ordinances prohibit the acceptance of out-of-
county waste. The Board of Supervisors will consider a proposal in
April 1993 to amend the law and allow the acceptance with payment
of $10 per ton host fee. Several North County cities have
seriously pursued this alternative.
STRENGTHS:
-Current disposal availability.
WEAKNESSES:
-Lack of transfer system to make this an
immediately available and cost-effective
opportunity for South County.
-Present indication is that only short-
term (i.e. five year) contracts will be
solicited.
-possible problem of cities along the
route contesting.
-Air pollution issues in the Los Angeles
basin.
/3-27
4
COST:
-Current tip fee is $23 per ton. Added
costs would be $10 per ton host fee, as
well as direct haul transport and/or
transfer costs. For comparison purposes,
short-term direct haul trucking costs
from North County are estimated at an
additional $16 per ton. Total South
County costs would likely be higher than
this $49 per ton estimate.
/3'3 {)
RESOLUTION NO.
171'1'/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BY, BETWEEN
AND AMONG THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE
CITIES OF THE COUNTY ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM
SOLID WASTE COMMISSION AND PROVIDING FOR THE
DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE, AND COMMITTING 50% OF
THE CITY'S WASTE STREAM TO THE COUNTY
WHEREAS, on 3/30/93, Council discussed regional solid
waste issues and a proposed Solid Waste Participation Agreement in
a workshop which identified general concerns and directed staff to
focus on key concerns and recommendations for modifying the
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, at the regular meeting of 4/20/93, Council again
received updated information on specific concerns and suggested
revisions, and provided input to Councilmember Moore in
representing South Bay cities in renegotiating the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the SANDAG Board (sitting as the Integrated
Waste Management Task Force) had established an Elected Officials
steering Committee with the direction to negotiate a modified
participation Agreement acceptable to the entire Task Force; and
WHEREAS, the new Agreement would then be distributed to
all the cities and the County for action by the respective councils
and the Board of Supervisors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby approve the Agreement by,
between and among the county of San Diego and the cities of the
County Establishing an Interim Solid Waste commission and Providing
for the Disposal of Solid Waste, and Committing 50% of the city's
Wastestream to the County, a copy of which is on file in the office
of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreement for and on behalf of the city of Chula vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
stephanie Snyder, Principal
Management Assistant
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney
F:\home\attomey\SoIWaste.res
/3"3/
June 14, 1993
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Councilman Jerry Rindone
John D. Goss, City Manager)/-
I
Response to Questions regarding the June 15, 1993 Agenda
Following are staff's responses to your comments/questions regarding items on the
above referenced Council agenda.
Item 3 - Flex Plan for Assistant City Manager
1. Please provide the date of the Council meeting when the referral of this
item was requested by Council.
The flex plan amount for the Assistant City Manager was originally discussed at
the January 12, 1993 Council meeting.
2. Please provide the minutes of the meeting when the Council referral was
made.
Attached are the minutes from the January 12, 1993 meeting.
Item B - Contract for Fireworks Display
1. The cost of the fireworks to the contractor is $16,500. Is only $14,000
funded by the City and $2,500 from,KKLQ radio station?
The City is contracting with San Diego Fireworks for $16,500. The sponsoring
radio station is providing an additional $2,500 in fireworks. The net result.
will be that the Chula Vista fireworks display will consist of $19,000 worth of
fireworks.
2. Why was this not broken down in the fiscal impact statement instead of
Attachment E, budget detail?
Staff has historically provided the Fourth of July budget detail as a separate
attachment. However, your point is well taken and the department will include
this information in the Fiscal Impact part of the staff report in the future.
3. What, if any, publicity coordination is planned with the fireworks held at
the marina and planned at EastLake?
[here has been no publicity coordination, since it is staff's understanding that
EastLake prefers to target their fireworks promotional material to EastLake
residents only.
/3 '~J2
-_.-
Item 9 - Beer and Wine Sales at 149B Melrose
1. Who was the "no" vote for this direction?
The motion on the beer and alcohol sales was combined with that of the m1n1-
mart/car wash CUP use. Since Councilman Moore voted "no" on the mini-mart/car
wash use, his "no" vote is also reflected for the beer and ~ine sales. I am
attaching a copy of the minutes from the June 1 Council meeting when this item
was discussed.
Item 11 - Adoption of 1993-94 Budget
1. On Page 11-3, under MIS, staff is recommending a reclassification of an
Administrative Analyst II to Senior Management Analyst. Why?
Attached is the commentary from the proposed budget which discusses the reasons
for reclassification of this position.
2. The $4,006 listed under Personnel for correction of salary benefit level
for the Assistant Director is recommended for what purpose?
This was a computer input error which needs to be corrected.
3. On Page 11-4, why is the $889,600 for the Equ ipment Rep lacement Fund not
listed under General Fund expenditure adjustment. Please explain.
The Equipment Replacement Fund was established by resolution in 1985 to account
for vehicle replacement charges made against City departments (via account #5270,
Vehicle Replacement) to finance the eventual replacement of the vehicles assigned
to them. In order to make expenditures from this fund, Council must appropriate
the funds thereunder.
Item 13 - Solid Waste Participation Agreement
1. This is a difficult and complex subject. Staff listed on Page 4 of the
report five possible alternative disposal options. However, one which was
not listed (which I think needs serious consideration) is to establish a
South County JPA for solid waste landfill purposes for the four South Bay
cities (and/or Lemon Grove). Has staff explored this option? Please
provide staff's recommendation regarding this alternative.
At the staff level, there has been no interest expressed by the Cities of
National City, Imperial Beach, Coronado or Lemon Grove to pursue a South County
JPA for alternative options to the County system. All of these cities have
previously approved the Agreement, and at least one city has.committed 100% of
its waste flow.
Conceptually, such a JPA could serve the same purpose in the South Bay as it has
in North County, if the desire is to seriously examine exiting (or possible
contracting with) the County system. Although it 1S unclear how the idea would
be received by the other cities, it should be pursued as a possible consideration
during whatever timeframe is eventually determined to be available for
pursuing options.
~
J3'/3}
June 15, 1993
TO: Mayor Nader
This is a reminder that Supervisor Bilbray has requested that Item #13 (Status
Report on Solid Waste) be trailed until he arrives...his plane is due at 7:00
P.M. and he would expect to be in between 7:30 and 8:00 P.M.
Manager's Office
)3~3 /
'iCL'-:f~ . .LL-J,
,,! /r I. " 'I'
. '-U....,,'~
1600 Pacific Highway' Room 452
San Diego, CA 92101 . (619) 531-5400
San Diego Local Age~A Commission
LAFCO
Chairperson
John MacDonald
County Board of
Supervisors
Members
Dianne Jacob
County Board of
SupervilOrt:
Mark J. Loscher
Councilmembef. CIty of
San Marcos
Joan Shoemaker
Mayor, City of
8 Cajon
Abbe Wolfsheimer
Councilmernber, City of
San Diego
John Sasso
President, Borrego
Waler Distrlcl
Or, Ulllan Keller Childa
Helix Water Diatricl
Or, Unell Fromm
Public Member
Alternate Members
Brian P. B1lbray
County Board of
Supervisors
Leonard M. Moore
Councilmember, City of
Chula Vista
Valerie Stallinga
Councilmember, City of
San Diego
David A. Per1dns
Public Member
executive Officer
Michae' D. Ott
Counsel
Uoyd M. Harmon, Jr.
'93 D -4 P3 :31
May 4, 1993
CITY OF CHULA ',ISlA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
TO: City Clerks
FROM: Local Agency Formation Commission
SUBJECT: Cities Advisory Committee Roster
Attached is the list of LAFCO's Cities Advisory Committee members
according to our latest records. Please check the names shown for your
city, and either indicate they are current, or make the necessary corrections.
Please note the Cities Advisory Committee Bylaws stipulate that the primary
representative shall be a legislator; the alternate representative shall be the
city manager or a staff alternate.
We will update our list from your responses. Please notify us in writing
whenever new appointments are made, or names should be deleted.
Please call Nancy Averill if you have any questions.
f/~/
MICHAEL D. OTT
Executive Officer
MDO:na
Attachment
/5b--j
SAN DIEGO LAFCO
CITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE ROSTER
PRIMARY REPRESENTATIVES
ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVES
Carls bad
Mayor Claude "Bud" Lewis
Mayor Pro Tem Ann Kulchin
Chula Vista
(Vacant)
Planning Director Robert A. Leiter
Coronado
Mayor Mary Herron
Del Mar
Mayor Rod Franklin
Ass't to City Manager Pam Willis
Planning Director J. D. Sandoval
EI Cajon
Council member Dick Ramos
Councilmember Mark Lewis
Encinitas
Mayor Anne Omsted
City Manager Warren Shafer
Escondido
Councilmember Kris Murphy
(Vacant)
Imperial Beach
Council member Marti Goethe
(Vacant)
La Mesa
Councilmember Ed Senachal
City Manager David Wear
Lemon Grove
Councilmember Brian Cochran
Planning Director James Butler
National City
Council member Michael Dalla
City Manager Tom McCabe
Oceanside
Council member Ben Ramsey
Mike Blessing
poway
(Vacant)
City Manager James Bowersox
/5'6 --;)..
Cities Advisory Committee Roster
Page Two
San Diego
Councilmember George Stevens
(Vacant)
San Marcos
(Vacant)
David Acuff
Santee
Councilmember Jim Bartell
City Manager Ronald L Ballard
Solana Beach
Councilmember Celine Olson
City .Manager Michael Huse
Vista
Councilmember Ted Cole
(Vacant)
5/3/93