HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1993/06/08
Tuesday, June 8, 1993
6:00 p.m.
"I declare under penalty of perjury that i am
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 ervjces Building and at City Ha,lI on . Coun~il Ch~b~rs
DATED~ ~ ~ '3 SIGNED ~ ./ ~..---" Pubhc Semces BUlldmg
Resmlar Meeting of the City of Ch~ Vista ItV Council
CALL TO ORDER
1.
ROIl. CAll:
Councilmembers Fox _, Horton _' Moore _, Rindone -' and Mayor
Nader _.
2. PLEDGE OF AI.J.EGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SII.ENf PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUfES: None submitted.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Proclamation commending --rile Music Machine- - The proclamation will be presented by
Mayor Nader.
b. Special performance by --rile Music Machine- from Bonita Vista High School's Performing
Arts Department - This awarding-winning group of 45 singers, dancers and musicians will
present three selections--including Chula Vista's City songnoutside by the fountain in front
of City Hall. "The Music Machine" represents the community more than 60 times a year at
conventions, special events and festivals, and for civic, service, school, and church groups.
c. Oath of Office: Marie Miehls - Child Care Commission.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 8)
The staff recommendations regarding the foHowing items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the
Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councibnember, a member of the public or City staff r~
that the item be puHed 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 prim to the meeting. (Complete the green form
to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff
recommendation.) Items puHed from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Board and Commission
Recommendations and Action Items. Items puHed by the public will be the first items of business.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter requesting support of Community First Project - Patrick O'Brien, Open Sea
Foundation, P.O. Box 40482, San Diego, CA 92164. It is recommended that the Police
Department continue to assist South Bay Community Services. However, if the Open Sea
Foundation is awarded the grant, the Police Department would be able to provide names
of "at-risk" youth for their program.
6. RESOLUTION 17136 APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACf
FOR INSTALLATION OF PAR.AI.J.EL SEWER IN INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD
FROM NORTII OF PALOMAR STREET TO SOunI OF ANITA STREET - On
5/19/93, sealed bids were received for the installation of parallel sewer in
Industrial Boulevard from north of Palomar Street to south of Anita Street.
The work includes the installation of new 12-inch and IS-inch parallel
sewer mains, excavation and grading, asphalt concrete pavement, shoring,
replacement of existing manholes, reconstruction of base of existing
manholes, new sewer manholes, sewer laterals, sewer lateral connections,
new survey monuments, traffic surveying, traffic control, preservation and
Agenda
-2-
June 8, 1993
restoration of property, and other miscellaneous work. In order to award
the contract to JSA Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $225,544, it is
necessary that $68,700 be appropriated from the fund balance of Fund
222- Trunk Sewer Capital Fund. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required.
7. RESOLUTION 17137 APPROPRIATING FUNDS, WAlVING IMMATERIAL DEFECf, ACCEPTING
BIDS AND AWARDING CONfRACf FOR FOURTI-I AVENUE WIDENING
BElWEEN KITnWAKE LANE AND CHULA VISTA ADll.T SCHOOL - On
4/28/93, sealed bids were received for the widening of Fourth Avenue
between Kittiwake Lane and Chula Adult High School. In order to award
the contract to the low bidder, Heffler Company, Inc., it is necessary that
$131,000 be appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the TransNet
Fund. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public
Works) 4/Sth's vote required.
8. REPORT APPUCATION OF THE CHULA VISTA PUBUC UBRARY FOR CAUFORNIA
STATE UBRARY-CAUFORNIA UBRARY SERVICES ACf FAMIUES FOR
UTERACY GRANT FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 1993-94 TI-lROUGH
THE CHULA VISTA UTERACY TEAM - The Chula Vista Public Library has
applied to the California State Library for $27,511 in Families for Literacy
grant funds to implement a Family Reading Program in FY 1993-94
through the Chula Vista Literacy Team. The program is designed to break
the intergenerational cycle of illiteracy. The funds cannot be used to
supplant the current tutor reading program. Staff recommends Council
accept the report and ratify the application. (Acting Library Director)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBUC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items luwe been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak
to any item, please fill out the -Request to Speak Form- available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior
to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommerulLltion; complete the pink form
to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individual.
9.
PUBUC HEARING
PCA 93-02; MODIFICATIONS TO THE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR)
REQUIREMENTS IN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENI1AL ZONES - CITY
INITIATED - 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 first reading. (Director of
Planning)
ORDINANCE 2SS9
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 DWEIJ.JNGS ON WTS
OF LESS mAN 7,000 SQUARE FEET AND PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION FOR
PATIO COVERS AND PORCHES OF 300 SQUARE FEET OR LESS (first
readin~)
Agenda
10.
PUBUC HEARING
11.
PUBUC HEARING
-3-
June 8, 1993
TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN INTERIM PRE-SR-125 DEVELOPMENT
IMPACf FEE AND TO CONSIDER MODIFICATION OF TIlE EXISTING
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACf FEE - Consideration of an
interim SR-125 report, adoption of an interim pre-SR-125 Transportation
Development Impact Fee, and modification of the existing Transportation
Development Impact Fee. Continued from the meeting of 5/18/93. Staff
recommends continuation of the hearin~ which will be renoticed prior to
the public hearin~ date. (Director of Public Works)
FORMATION OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICf NUMBER 92-2 (AlITOPARK) -
On 3/23/93, Council adopted the resolution of intention to order the
acquisition and financing of certain infrastructure serving the Autopark
development pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. On
5/4/93, Council gave preliminary approval to the Engineer's Report for
Assessment District Number 92-2 (Autopark) and set public hearings for
6/8/93 and 6/22/93. All owners of property within the proposed
assessment district have been mailed a notice of the public hearings
including the proposed assessment to their land. Staff recommends
Council open the public hearing, take testimony, close the public hearing,
and notify the public that the second public hearing will be held on
6/22/93. (Director of Public Works)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general publU: to address the city Council on any subject I'IUJtIeT within the Council's
jurisdiction that is not an item on this agendLl. (State law, however, generally prohibits the city Council from
taking action on any issues not included on the posted agendLl.) If you wish to address the Council on such a
subject, please complete the yeHow -Request to Speak Under Oral Cornrnunications Form- available in the lobby
and submit it to the City Clerlc prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address
for record purposes and fonow up action. Your time is limited to tJuee minutes per speaker.
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.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to e/U;it substantial discussions and deliberations by the
Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council and staff
recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the aItemative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out
a -Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerlc prior to the meeting. PublU:
comments are limited to five minutes.
12.
REPORT
CONSIDERATION OF A REVISED YARD WASTE RECYCUNG SERVICE
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS - As directed by
Council, staff has moved to fmalize the "meet and confer" process required
by Ordinance 2427 for development of additional recycling services. As
part of the process, Laidlaw indicated they could revise their proposal for
yard waste recycling and offer a significantly lower rate of service. The
report is submitted to allow Council the possibility of reconsideration of the
prior decision based on the new price. Staff recommends Council accept
in concept Laidlaw's Proposal and direct staff to negotiate to develop and
implement a yard waste recycling program at the preferred price.
(Administration)
Agenda
-4-
June 8, 1993
ITEMS PULLED FROM 1HE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Cowu:il will discuss items whU:h have been removed from the Consent Ca1endor. Agenda
items puHed at the request of the pub/U; will be considered prior to those puHed by CounciImembers. Pub/u;
comments are limited to five minutes per individuaL
OTI-IER BUSINESS
13. CIlY MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
14. MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
a. Ratification of appointments of Ex-Officio members to the Mobilehome Rent Review
Commission: Earl Biggers and Bert Epsten.
15. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilman Moore
a. Reaffirm policy regarding 4:00 p.m. meeting on Thursdays for City Council.
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.
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the Regular City Council Meeting on June 15,
1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A Special Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City Council
meeting.
June 3, 1993
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Goss, City Manager~\
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting of June 8, 1993
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular
City Council meeting of Tuesday, June 8, 1993. Comments regarding
the written Communications are as follows:
5a. This is a letter from Mr. Patrick O'Brien of the Open Sea
Foundation. Mr. O'Brien is requesting from 'our Police
Department names of "at-risk" youth required as part of their
grant submission to the Office of Criminal Justice Planning
related to prevention of gang violence. The Police Department
is already working with the South Bay Community Services on a
proposal for the same grant. THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED
THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT CONTINUE TO ASSIST SOUTH BAY
COMMUNITY SERVICES; HOWEVER, IF THE OPEN SEA FOUNDATION IS
AWARDED THE GRANT, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WOULD BE ABLE TO
PROVIDE NAMES OF "AT-RISK" YOUTH FOR THEIR PROGRAM.
COMMENDING
THE MUSIC MACHINE
IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
WHEREAS, The Music Machine composed of 45 singers, dancers and musicians
from Bonita Vista High School has been performing for sixteen years and is currently
recognized as one of the best singing and dancing ensembles in the nation; and
WHEREAS, The Music Machine has received 127 top honors in 91 festival
competitions on the west coast, 92 of which were first place; and
WHEREAS, music is the language of all peoples and one of the areatest forces
in creating peace and harmony; and
WHEREAS, The Music Machine was awarded the dist!nction of being the first
American high school show choir to be presented in the People's Republic of China,
during the north Sea Jazz Festival in Holland, and at the Montreaux Jazz Festival in
Switzerland; and
WHEREAS, The Music Machine has performed on local and national television
shows some of which include: PM Magazine, Sun-Up, Eye on San Diego, and Saturday
Morning:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, TIM NADER, Mayor of the City of Chula Vista, California
do hereby COMMEND THE MUSIC MACHINE for their dedication, initiative and creativity
in providing areat entertainment.
'-/w~1
1992-05-31 06:08 6192809437
003 POl
OPE" SEA FOUfiDflTIOtf
" p.o. Box 40482 · San Diogo. California 92164
(619) Z80-7628 · FAX (619) 280-9437
RECEIVED
"93 JUN -1 t\10 :35
June 1, 1993
To:
Tim Nader, Mayor cv
Pam O'Neil, District 1
" Sgt Becker, CVPD
Donald Reed, cvcc
L. Tarantino, Sweetwater Oist.
C'.TY OF 2~J.i~t1J?lc~
f'lTV eLLh,,-- -
George Wahs.&.~, Il_~"
Councilperson Vargas
Sgt Englasis, NCPO
Edith Hughes, NCCC
T. Pokorney, Coronado Diat.
Pm: Patrick O'Brien
Re: Port Commission meeting follow-up and Office of Criminal
Justice opportunity.
Dear Community Leader:
1. Thank you to those individuals and agencies that helped
with the package to the Port ot San Diego. About half of
those listed above joined in with letters or faxes.
2. With pUblic funds so tight and soon to be tighter, I am
surprised at how hard it is to get collaborations together
which cross jurisdictional lines.
The San Diego, National City and Chula Vista political lines
have little impact upon juvenile delinquency, gang violence,
drug abUse or eoonomic waste. These are the issues and not
the normal municipal competitions. .
3. In two weeks, Open Sea will sUbmit a plan to the Office of
criminal Justice Planning whioh includes gang violence
prevention aotions in eaoh of these three jurisdictions.
Over thirty letters ot support will be included. The
community components are in place and now need to be
supplemented by agency participation.
5. You are asked to join in this plan. It does not preclude
your SUbmitting a separate plan of your own nor ~rom jOining
another act:ivity. The idea here is that a Portion of
something for each area is better than all of nothing.
6. The National City and Chula Vista portions of the grant
will be administered in ooncert with the PAL or Community
POlicing actions. The SDPO collaboration inoludes Weed and
Seed and the Enterprise Zone.
7. In January 1993, the COMMUNITY FiRST plan came in second
in similar state-wide competition. Some of you participated
and now those "letters need updated. Please call with any
questions.
8. I am available
cc'E5~/4)
::f;~1 ~~~
to help other prevention projects.
WI
EN COMMUNI<:ATJ N5>
~-I " . rk/P~
1992-05-31 06:09 6192809437
003 P02
S ^ N
COMMUNITY PIRST
COMMUNITY PIRST impacts delinquency problems by drawing at
risk youth into the "collective we" that built San Diego and
that strives everyday to utilize and to reinforce the power
of community. Youth at risk for gang affiliation, drug use
and economic waste are coached in projects which reinrorce
individual responsibility and community belonging. ,
CUlturally speciric creative and artistic projects, including
visual, performing and business arts, are developed with
community role models. Projects occur over a twelve month
period and include individual counseling, basic education,
problem solving and job readiness skill development.
Youth are referred by justice, prObation, law enforcement and
. school sources. Project sites include adult education
centers, county libraries, schools, recreation and community
centers in Linda Vista, Barrio Logan, Logan Heights and the
South Bay. Four sites will be funded by the 1993-94 Office
of criminal Justice Planning grant.
Operating History:
COMMUNITY FIRST is the outcome or a series of County of San
Diego, state of California and federal government contracted
prevention activities conducted by the Open Sea Foundation.
These contracts have targeted transitional populations,
multicultural at risk youth, county businesses and
workplaces. Action oriented coalition bUilding and
entrepreneur prevention initiatives are achieved by ~he Open
Sea Foundation by the brokering of services to maximize
limited public resources.
In 1992, COMMUNITY FIRST gathered over eighty prevention,
public safety, qovernment, human service, civic qroups and
businesses into a community building process. The
CUlminating event, FIRST NIGHT, was attended by 8,000 people.
This component offers a sustainable future to the COMMUNITY
FIRST prevention efforts independent of pUblic resources.
..
COMMUNITY FIRST. The fact: 1s that delinquency, drug and
crime prOblems call for the power of community. community'
power 88 a developmental fot'Ce needs to be reatfirmea and
strongly practiced today in ,San Dieqo.
p.o. BOX 40482 · 4M DIEGO · ~FORNIA. (6 t 9] 280-7628 . FI\X (6 t 9)' 280-9437
.5~ -"Z
1992-05-31 06:10 6192809437
Office of Criminal Justioe Planning format
Please adjust as needed and place on your stationary.
MUTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
and OPEN SEA FOUNDATION
This document stands as evidence of the intended working
relationship between
and the Open Sea Foundation towards the mutual goal
of Ganq Violence Suppression among youth in San Diego.
Both agencies believe that Offioe of Criminal JUstioe
Planning (OCJP) support of the COMMUNITY FIRST projeot, as
described in this single component prevention proposal, will
further this goal. To this end, eaoh agency agrees to
participate in the program, if OCJP support is implemented,
by coordinating services.
1. Open Sea Foundation will:
11 Meet all certification, verification, evaluation and
auditing requirements of the Office of Criminal Justice
Planning.
* Manage and coordinate the COMMUNITY FIRST projeot to
maximize available community-wide assistance for prevention
of gang activity and gang violen.ce as well . as the
intervention of youth already involved in gang activity.
* Build upon existing prevention and violence cessation
'activities which include at risk youth, multioultura1
populations and workplace preventions.
* Leverage public
actions in a new,
improvement model.
* Continue the development of. neighborhood-baSed prevention
and diversion activities Which mutually support each other in
a fiscally responsible manner.
and private
entrepreneur
resources and preventive
human ser.f icej communi ty
.~
5~ . .J
1992-05-31 06:11 6192809437
003 P04
Office of Criminal Justice Planning ~ormat
Please adjust as needed and place on your stationary
2.
will:
* Provide support thzough it's regular operations, including
the promotion of community values and objectives.
· Assist in communication and community awareness by keeping
staft and it's immediate sphere of influence informed about
the program.
* Collaborate in neighborhoOd and community improvement
activities as may be appropriate with this agencies mission.
date
date
Patrick O'Brien
Open Sea Foundation
( A signed copy will be returned to you. Thank you.)
~
~~~r
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
6
Meeting Date 6/8/93
ITEM TITLE: Resolution I? /3 ~ Appropriating funds, accepting bids and
awarding contract for installation of parallel sewer in Industrial
Boulevard from north of Palomar Street to south of Anita Street in the
City of Chula Vista, CA
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager JCj '0 ~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes X No--.J
At 2:00 p;m. on May 19, 1993, in Conference Room 3 in the Public Services Building, the
Director of Public Works received sealed bids for "Installation of parallel sewer in Industrial
Boulevard from north of Palomar Street to south of Anita Street in the City of Chula Vista,
CA". The work includes the installation of new IS-inch and 12-inch parallel sewer mains,
excavation and grading, asphalt concrete pavement, shoring, replacement of existing manholes,
reconstruction of base of existing manholes, new sewer manholes, sewer laterals, sewer lateral
connections, new survey monuments, traffic surveying, traffic control, preservation and
restoration of property and other miscellaneous work.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution approving the following:
1. Approve expanding the length of the project.
2. Appropriate $68,686.41 from the fund balance of Fund 222- Trunk Sewer Capital
Reserve Fund to Construct parallel sewer - Industrial Boulevard, Palomar to Anita -
SW202.
3. Accept bids and award contract to JSA Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $225,544.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Construction of 1,680 linear feet of 15 inch parallel sewer in Industrial Boulevard was included
in the 1990-91 budget with some additional funds approved in the 1991-92 budget. The
purpose of the project was to relieve the existing IS-inch sewer line which is flowing beyond
its design capacity. The project will provide additional capacity to handle the excess flow and
to mitigate the risk of sewage spills. Based on flow meter tests taken prior to completing the
design, it was determined that the project limits needed to be extended slightly to north of
Palomar Street and to the first manhole south of Anita Street in order to completely eliminate
the flow restrictions in the system. The Sewer Engineering Section was in agreement with the
proposed expansion of the project. This expansion of the project by an additional 610 lineal
~-/
Page 2, Item~
Meeting Date 6/8/93
feet of 15 inch sewer line and 454 lineal feet of 12 inch sewer line requires the additional
funding necessary to construct the project.
Bids for construction of the project were received from nine contractors as follows:
Contractor Bid Amount
1. JSA Engineering, Inc. - Carlsbad $225,544
2. KTA Construction, Inc. - El Cajon 261,080
3. Ivanko, Inc. - San Dimas 268,963
4. Peter Artukovich Construction Co., Inc. - Whittier 277,230
5. Cass Construction, Inc. - El Cajon 282,424
6. Ortiz Corporation - Chula Vista 294,933
7. CPC Mechanical, Inc. - Lakeside 320,794
8. BRH-Garver, Inc. - San Diego 329,882
9. State Construction Co. - San Diego 367,998
The low bid by JSA Engineering, Inc. is below the Engineer's estimate of$325,120 by $99,576
or approximately 31 %.
The Engineer's estimate was prepared utilizing recent bids we had received on other sewer
projects. However, the bid received was excellent. The major areas of differences between
the Engineer's estimate and that of the low bidder were in the cost of installing the sewer
mains which staff estimated at approximately $184,000 versus the bid received of about
$108,000. The second major area of difference was in the removal and disposal of existing
improvements. Staffs estimate was $38,000 and the low bid was $15,900. These items
represented the bulk of the difference between the Engineer's estimate and the bid received
from the low bidder.
The Engineer's estimate of $325,120 was above the initial estimate of $194,760 because of the
increase in the length of the project. Adequate funds were available for the recommended
expansion of the project in the unappropriated funds of the sewer accounts. Since this project
will be funded with sewer funds. No prevailing wage requirements were necessary or a part
of the bid documents. No special minority or women-owned business requirements were
necessary or part of the bid documents.
Staff has also completed reference check on the contractor and has found them to be
acceptable.
~-.2.
Page 3, Item~
Meeting Date 6/8/93
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Per the Initial Study IS-93-06, this project had no significant environmental impact, and
therefore, a notice of proposed negative declaration was filed in the office of the County Clerk
on August 27, 1992 and was returned to the City on September 29, 1992.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funds Required for Construction
1. Contract Amount $225,544.00
2. Contingencies (approx. 10%) 22,456.00
3. Staff Cost (design and inspection) 15,000.00
Total Funds Required for Construction $263,000.00
Funds Available for Construction
1. Construct Parallel Sewer Industrial Blvd., Palomar to $194,313.59
Anita - SW202
2. Appropriation of Funds from Fund 222- Trunk Sewer 68,686.41
Capital Reserve Fund to Construct Parallel Sewer
Industrial Blvd., Palomar to Anita - SW202
Total Funds Available for Construction $263,000.00
Additional funds are being requested mainly due to the increased scope of construction. These
funds are available in the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund, Fund #222. After construction,
only routine City maintenance will be required.
SLH:AR-034
WPC F:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\PARSEWR.CON
~'J
-,
t
.
1
.
1
~"'"''''
,. .. I ...
j,.. - "r.-
. .... . ~-
,..... .....
i '
t.l.l/no~
i,
,
rs.:
;"1
/
---f.
T __
/"':---
..g
.
C'
.
'" -..-,..... _. - - ;
It!
I
i " _
I ..
,
t
..
o
cr
o
...
)(
o
..._ __ __._u_
I
,-
]
J
J
J
]
]
]
]
]
']
l
"t" -".
I
~
~
~~ ~
~ ~...... II
;~ .I.i~ ;
~,~~
\;)"'..
"
',: ~
. ~' '. -. 'N...~ ~:'
. ~ \.~,.
~fl,(..\. ,
S; '~.I'>I--.
~ ~'" Y)'
n' /lJ~ ~'
~ '7 'I'
~\' ".'
.~ '
T'TTT'"IT~ ,..
'''IHsnONI
~
~
~
~~
~~
~ ~~
:5
C!Il::
~ ~-
~ -~
~ I~
l.~ :z: oCC
~ eat-
~ ~~
r- ~ a=:: c::::::a
en ~ t:; t-
i!5r-:
~ c....,)r
~ Ck:~
I ~;E
S 9~
to- <fa..
U 5!e e:
1.&.1 a.. c,."')
-
#
CJ
Ck:
~
~ ~
~ ;
LaJ
to-
X
W
~
~
~
.........,j
~
CI'
CIC)
~
C'\.I
~
Ii
I
a
)" 1-"'1
(17r:/77,:,7 i ~/ ;-'p
(7'7-7/11:) / ;1'l7vt;'"
(/~?7..?7) (;6
t
~~
~
~
~
~
(flPy( C,./'1
?f 't. 7f:
/" ".-
(IP!~/~/~Cl)
~h 7zJ;
"
~
~ (dOf// b!k7)
~ / 6b 'E'ZE'
~
~
~~
~ ~ (1"'1/:#:,"')
~ ~ ,hS;C;ZE
<Q 2 :is YJ/N
~~
~ QV'7?~/ ,,/>{>~
~ 4j ,
~~
~~
~
I
I
133b'lS AH10b'OO
()?l(~lqIJc? )
, S?1l1z~
./
I
,
,
,
,
,
r /1
, /
"--- - ---
t-.>/'-'
, ~
\~ ~
,It:) ~
',f) "
. ~';t
~ ,....
~\V)
~ '!~
~
.~
~
.'J
~
~)
!~"~
~ ,~
~ '-J
1J lttSb'ttlY
,J
"
,~
\~
~
\
~
,
"
~
V)
\'
.. ~ '~
~
'-..L ,,~~
~'\. ~
, \
..... ~,\
Rt~
<:,,' ~.........
r~ ") ..
::'\) '\ '"
~, .~
~~~
-(.
\i
" \,
~
\
~
1
'Ii
VI
~
/ THE CITY OF CHULA VISI'A DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
(You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign
contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary 'action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and
all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which i~ the SlJbject of the application .or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
~~ ~~~
lLc-I-n-i L.V\.L~
~ BJb\J\.l(Cl:iLt~ ~.
2. If any person. identified pW'SWl,llt to'(l) above is a coIpOration or partnership, -list the names of all individuals owning
more than 10~ of the shares in the coIpOration or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
~'9.i ~S,,,-
( L i:;l ~ Lv l'-' ~O.-J
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 DOn-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
k.1 <'- ~
4.
Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any me~ber of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_ No If yes, please indicate person(s):
5.
Please identify each -and every person, including any agents. employees, consultants, or independent contractors who you
haye assigned to repreaalt you before the City in this matter.
r-Jol'l~
6.
Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the agg::;.ate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Council member in the
current or preceding election period? Ycs_ No - If yes, state which Council member(s):
· · · (NOTE: Attach additional pages as
Date: _~- l ~-y3
r/applicant
~~a)&it.J -:r'C*MS~
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
· P~rson U dejiMd as: .,:1)' indiWillull,jinrt, co-JHUfMnhip,joint~, QSSocialion. 60cial clI4b,jrcuemal organiZJUion, cotporalion, UUIU, rnul. r~ceiver.
syndicau. IhU anJ tInY oIMr COllllly. ciry tINl cOfllllry. t:iry 1rIIIIIicipaliry. tlUlricI, or oIMr polilical6ubJivUion. or tInY other ,roup or combinalilHl aclin, as a
~. ~-~
:::::::::::
RESOLUTION NO.
/7/Jt
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING
BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF
PARALLEL SEWER IN INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD FROM
NORTH OF PALOMAR STREET TO SOUTH OF ANITA
STREET IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA
The City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on May 19, 1993, in Conference Room
3 in the Public Services Building, the Director of Public Works
received the following nine sealed bids for the installation of
parallel sewer in Industrial Boulevard from north of Palomar Street
to south of Anita Street in the City of Chula Vista, CA:
Contractor Bid Amount
1. JSA Engineering, Inc. - Carlsbad $225,544
2. KTA Construction, Inc. - EI Cltion 261,080
3. Ivanko, Inc. - San Dimas 268,963
4. Peter Artukovich Construction Co., Inc. - Whittier 277 ,230
5. Cass Construction, Inc. - El Cajon 282,424
6. Ortiz Corporation - Chula Vista 294,933
7. CPC Mechanical, Inc. - Lakeside 320,794
8. BRH-Garver, Inc. - San Diego 329,882
9. State Construction Co. - San Diego 367,998
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the bids and recommends
awarding the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, JSA
Engineering, Inc., who has assured the City that they are a
licensed contractor in the State of california, and can produce an
acceptable performance bond.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City council does
hereby accept the nine bids and award the contract for installation
of parallel sewer in Industrial Boulevard from north of Palomar
Street to south of Anita Street in the City of Chula Vista, CA to
JSA Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $225,544.
1
~"7
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
appropriate $68,686.41 from the fund balance of Fund 222-Trunk
Sewer Capital Reserve Fund to Construct Parallel Sewer - Industrial
Boulevard, Palomar to Anita - SW202.
Presented by
If:: ~ ~orm b:J
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Bruce M. Boogaa
City Attorney
(F: \Home\Attomey\Indust)
2
~,r
.
MEMORANDUM
June 8, 1993
TO:
Tim Nader, Mayor
~
FROM:
John Lippitt, Dir. of Public Works
SUBJECT: Contracts on Agenda for Tonight Items #6 & #7
Per our telephone call this morning, I am inclosing a copy of Council Resolution #12493. and
Ordinance 2504, which deals with policy of City's practice on paying Prevailing wages for
Public Works Contracts.
As I indicated, we only require MBE/DBE/WBE provisions for all Federally funded
Transportation projects and Community Development Block Grant Projects. Or if required for
special projects or programs required by the program.
The Fourth Ave. Project is paying prevailing wages, as required, and the firm is a qualified
MBE and WBE firm, although not required.
The Sewer Contractor is not an MBE or WBE. They are not paying prevailing wages but
definately much more than minimum wages. We have been told that prevailing wages would
average $23 per hour while their employees earn between $16 - $20 per hour. Minimun wage
is around $5 per hour.
I do not have copies of Resolutions regarding MBE on Federally funded projects, however, if
you'd like to see them, the Clerks office or I can assist you.
cc: Admin.
&/7
.
RESOLUTION NO. 12493
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 7532
RELATING TO THE PAYMENT OF PREVAILING WAGES
FOR CONTRACTS LET BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, Labor Code Section 1770, et seq., requires any
public entity to pay prevailing wages on public works projects,
and
WHEREAS, on November 26, 1974, the City Council of the
city of Chula Vista adopted Resolution No. 7532 which established
the prevailing wage rates as those listed in the booklet entitled
'Equipment Rental Rates and General Prevailing, Wage Rates",
published by the State of California, and
WHEREAS, the California Court of Appeal has held that
prevailing wage requirements of the Labor Code do not pertain to
public works of a chartered city, when the Ci ty is contracting
for projects which are limited to "municipal affairs", and
WHEREAS, the rescission
allow the City to contract for
reduced rate, and
of Resolution
services at
No. 7532 will
a substantially
WHEREAS, the rescission of Resolution No. 7532 will
allow smaller companies to bid on City projects due to the lower
wage scales used by said companies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista hereby rescirids Resolution No. 7532.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that projects which are required
to have the prevailing wage schedule due to their funding by
State or Federal programs, the booklet entitled "Equipment Rental
Rates and General Prevailing Wage Rates", published by the State
of California shall be used for said projects.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
f~-
~+~i:f'Af.i~
Attorney
City
P. Lippi t, Director of
Works/City Engineer
1527a
t: -/0
//'1/1 ,-
d~-5
ADOPTED AND APPROveD sy THE CITY COUNCIL Of THE CITY Of CHULA
~.l., CALIfORNIA this 20th day of
May
19 86
-'
the fo 11 owing vote, to-wi t:
. ~: Councilmember Me Ca n d 1 ; s s , Cox, Ma 1 eo 1 m, Moore, Camp be 11
:5: Councilmember None
~UN: Councilmember None
::~T : Councilmember None
R. ~
Mayor
"EST {JivH L (1 4L/J1i~~ltr
eputy City Clerk.
ty of Chula Vista
:,rE Of CALIfORNIA
.STY Of SAN DIEGO
~J Of CHULA VISTA
)
) ss.
)
I, ADELE A. SARMIENTO, DEPUTY CITY CLERK of the City of Chula Vista,
.:ifornia, DO HERESy CERTIfY that the above and foregoing is a full,
.c and correct copy of RESOLUTION NO.
12493
, and that the same
;, not been amended or repealed.
~Et>
~Vt.
~
..........~--~........,.~
- --
Deputy City Clerk.
CllY OF
HUlA VISTA
t ~/I
/ /]d./-.
c7 ' ../
DCC-660
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 8
ITEM TITLE:
Meeting Date 5/20/86
Resol ution /;. '-/43 Establi shing the minimum wage as the
prevailing wage scale for construction and maintenance
projects involving City funds
Director of Public Works/City Engineer ~
City Manager~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No~)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Per Resolution 7532 adopted November 26, 1974, the City Council established as
the prevail ing wage rates those li sted in the booklet entitled, IIEquipment
Rental Rates and General Prevailing Wage Rates, II published by the State 'of
California be used for all public works construction contracts 'let by the City
of Chul a Vi sta.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council rescind the use of the booklet entitled,
"Equipment Rates and General Prevail ing Wage Ratesll as the basi s of pay for
projects not involving the use of Federal or State monies.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
,
.' ., .I
. . .
r.
.
Recently, it has come to our attention that the City coul d save a substanti al
aoount of money if it were able to pay less than the prevailing wage rates on
certai n publ i c works projects. For example, the City recently received bi ds
for the construction of the Library water feature. The bid received for this
project was consi derably higher than the engineer's estimate. Upon
conversations with the low bidder, it was apparent that the wages required to
be paid utilizing the prevailing wage scales listed in the booklet entitled,
"Equipment Rental Rates and General Prevailing Wage Rates,1I were much greater
than what he paid his employees for doing similar type work. This resulted in
a bid price considerably greater than what was expected. In addition, the
requirement of paying prevailing wage scale probably discourages many smaller
finns from bidding City projects because the wages they pay their employees
a~ considerably less than those listed in the said booklet.
A second project for the installation of sewer laterals in the Country Club
area is now out to bid. These plans were prepared by Fuller Plumbing under
Ci ty contract. As pa rt of hi s contract, Mr. Full er provi ded the Ci ty wi th
guaranteed prices for which he woul d construct the indivi dual house lateral s
to the various homes. Mr. Fuller, who is. now reviewing the plans and
specifications for the project, now indicates that his bidding of the project
utilizing the prevailing wage scale, he would not be able to match the prices
~ has guaranteed to us as part of his consultant contract. The reasons for
this is strictly the prevailing wages required to be paid to perform the work.
t.~
,. ~.' ~'"
~~/~
/.:;;d~'
Page 2, Item 8
Meeting Date 5/20/86
Recently, Gene Grady, Di rector of Bui 1 di ng and Housi ng, requested from Charl es
Gill, Assistant City Attorney, an opinion concerning prevailing wages.
Attached is a memo to Gene Grady concerni ng thi smatter. It is apparent that
the recent court case in the City of San Diego has clearly established that
charter ci ti es are not requi red to pay prevai 1 i ng wages as outl i ned in the
Labor Code, Section 1770, et seq., as long as the projects in question are
"ithin the realm of municipal affairs.
Since the City of Chula Vista is a charter city and it is in the best interest
of the City and its citizens to extend the purchasing power of its CIP
dollars, it is appropriate for the City to not pay prevailing wage scale for
projects funded with other than State of FeOeral monies. For projects not
funded with State of Federal funds and are within the realm of municipal
affairs, wage scale would not be less than minimum wage.
FISCAL IMPACT: Unknown, but it is expected that the City could save several
thousand dollars a year.
.PC 2072E
I~
ty ti ,c ity Council of
Chula Vista, California
Dated
~/ /9f6
r
t~/;
/r'ji
0/---
April 9, 1985
TO:
Gene Grady, Director of Building and Housing
Charles Gill, Assistant City Attorneyt~
Prevailing Wages
FROt>!:
SUBJECT:
You have requested that this office provide its advice relating
to the state requirements for the payment of "prevailing wages"
on public works projects.
Your request for our advice indicated that the City could save a
substantial amount of money if it were able to pay less than
prevailing wages on certain public works projects. You
specifically referenced a recent City of San Diego opinion
relating to this subject which concluded that the Ci ty of San
Diego need not pay prevailing wages.
,
Labor Code ~1770, et. seq. requires any public entity to pay
prevail ing wages on Public Works projects. However, in the case
of Vial v. City of San Diego (1981) 121 C.A.3d 346, 175 Cal.Rptr.
647, the Court of Appeals held that the prevailing wage
requirements of the Labor Code do not pertain to publ ic works of
a chartered ci ty, when the city is contracting for projects which
are limited in scope to "municipal affairs".
In Vial, the Ci ty of San Diego adopted a resolution rescinding
the wage schedule and declaring payment of prevailing wages to be
appropriate "only when required by federal or state grants and on
other jobs considered to be of state concern...." (Vial, at page
347). Section 5 of Article 11 of. the California -constitution
provides a defini tion for municipal affairs. A chartered ci ty I S
ordinances which deal wi th purely municipal affairs are valid
even if they conflict wi th general laws. The prevailing wage
.law, a general law, does not apply to the public works projects
of a chartered ci ty; as long as the projects in question are
within the realm of municipal affairs. (City of Pasadena v.
f:.narleville [1932J 215 C. 384, 10 P.2d 745). Accordingly, the
City of Chula Vista should adopt a resolution which substantially
comports wi th the terms of the resolution adopted by the City
Council of the Ci ty of San Diego rescinding the prevailing wage
schedule and declaring that prevailing wages will only be paid
when the job is of a statewide concern or involves federal or
state monies.
Should you have any further questions
please do not hes ita te to call.
relating to this matter,
eRG: clb
C298a
RECEIVED
!' PH 0 9 1985
t -10/
By _____ ~ .
BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION
CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA
ORDINANCE NO. 2504
AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 2.58.070 TO THE CHUlA'
VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING THE PAYMENT OF
PREVAILING WAGES FOR CONTRACTS lET BY THE CITY
WHEREAS, labor Code Section 1770 et seq. requires a public entity to pay
prevailing wages on public works projects;
WHEREAS, on May 20, 1986, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
adopted Resolution No. 12493 rescinding Resolution No. 7532 which established
the prevailing wage rates as those listed in the published book entitled
IIEquipment Rental oRates and General Prevailing Wage Rates,lI published by the
State of California;
WHEREAS, Resolution 12493 limited payment of the prevailing wage to
"projects which are required to have the prevailing wage schedule due to their
funding by State or Federal programs, the booklet entitled 'Equipment Rental
Rates and General Prevailing Rates,' published by the State of California
shall be used for said projects";
WHEREAS, the City Council has consulted its City Attorney who has
determined that the prevailing wage requirements of the labor Code do not
pertain to local public works projects of a chartered city, when the City is
contracting for projects which are limited to "municipal affairs,lI and State
or Federal funding do not otherwise require the payment of the prevailing
wage;
WHEREAS, this Ordinance codifies the policy incorporated in Resolution
No. 12493 by limiting payment of the prevailing wage requirements to public
works projects which involve "statewide concerns," or where required by State
or Federal programs;
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vfsta does ordain
as follows: 0
SECTION 1. Section 2.58.070 is hereby added to the Municipal Code, and
said Section shall read as follows:
2.58.070
Payment of Prevailing Wages
~1~O
Ordinance No. 2504
Page 3
PASSED. APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista. California. this 21th day of April, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Grasser Horton, Malcolm, Moore,
Rindone
NOES: Councilmembers: Nader
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
/aJ ~;;t!J
David MJ1lcolm
Mayor Pro-Tempore
ATTEST:
- /,.
__ r./l ~ _/ / /'
-I. " , .
I\"..~-';'.,"I. ~i ;..-:'.~:''t'/
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) SSe
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2504 had its first reading on
April 7, 1992, and its second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of
said City Council held on the 21th day of April, 1992.
Executed this 21th day of April, 1992.
/'
c:~~/ /} /2
~~/l [II Ltidt:.fc:/
Beverly A: Authelet, City Clerk
~~/?
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
ITEM TITLE:
Meeting Date 6/8/93
Resolution 1713? Appropriating funds, waiving immaterial
defect, accepting bids and awarding contract for Fourth A venue widening
between Kittiwake Lane and Chula Vista Adult School in the City of
Chula Vista, California
Director of Publi~ W or~ qtJ
City Manager.J~ ~~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes X No--1
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
At 2:00 p.m. on April 28, 1993, in the Public Services Building, the Director of Public Works
received sealed bids for the widening of Fourth A venue between Kittiwake Lane and Chula Vista
Adult School in the City of Chula Vista, California.
In order to award the contract to the apparent low bidder, Heffler Company, Inc., it is necessary
that Council appropriate $131,000 from the unappropriated balance of the TransNet Fund.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution approving the following:
1. Appropriate $131,000 from the unappropriated balance of the Transportation Sales Tax
Fund (TransNet);
2. Waive immaterial defect; and
3. Accept bids and award contract to Heffler Company, Inc. in the amount of $327,704.25.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Historical Background
The widening of Fourth Avenue from Kittiwake Lane to Chula Vista Adult School, project ST
506, was originally budgeted in 1989-90 with additional funds being added to the project in the
FY 91-92 CIP budget. The total amount budgeted is currently $441,000. The project was
budgeted on the basis of the dedication of the required rights-of-way at no cost to the City.
Rights-of-way were required from 14 property owners. Staff and former Mayor Cox ultimately
negotiated a total of 13 right-of-way acquisition agreements with property owners along both
sides of Fourth Avenue and on May 24, 1991, by Resolution 16155, the City Council approved
these agreements. Each of these agreements stipulates certain conditions to be met prior to the
actual recordation of the subject easements. Attached is an exhibit showing the general work
7-/
Page 2, Item~
Meeting Date 6/8/93
to be completed as a condition of the dedication of the property. According to the agreements,
when the subject project is completed, the City Council, exercising their reasonable discretion,
shall determine that the conditions in the agreements have been met and that the easements may
be recorded. At that time, the City will hold a public hearing to afford to each property owner
the opportunity to appear and present evidence as to whether the conditions have been met.
Staff expended extensive time and effort to meet each and every property owner's conditions.
Minor revisions were also obtained, in writing, from some property owners.
Throughout the design and rights-of-way negotiation process, the estimated cost of the project
escalated to the current $572,000 consisting of $431,951 total construction cost plus $140,049
of design and administration cost. Due to the extensive staff time spent in negotiating for the
rights-of-way, including negotiations with one property owner who refused to dedicate the right-
of-way, the staff costs on this project are higher than for a normal project. This also includes
redesign work to eliminate work where the required property could not be acquired. In addition,
the commitments made on the right of way acquisition, as shown on the attached exhibit, have
increased the contract cost above that estimated in FY 91-92. To cover the contract cost,
relocate water utilities, inspection staff expenditures and contingencies, Council needs to
appropriate an additional $131,000. There are sufficient funds in the unappropriated balance of
the TransNet Fund to cover this deficit.
Description of Work
The subject project includes the construction of curb, gutter and sidewalk, traffic signal upgrade,
storm drainage system, various retaining wall, relocation of water facilities and other related
improvements.
Bid Results
The project was advertised between March 27 and April 28, 1993. On the bid opening date,
bids were received from eight contractors as follows in order of the lowest bid first:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Contractor
Heffler Company, Inc. San Diego
CGC Construction Co., San Marcos
Southland Paving, Inc., Escondido
Sim J. Harris Company, San Diego
L. R. Hubbard Co., Inc., San Diego
Basile Construction Co., San Diego
Granite Construction Co." San Diego
Carolyn E. Scheidel Construction Co., La Mesa
Bid Amount
$327,704.25
329,353.22
354,707.65
358,000.00
374,931.43
377,652.73
391,305.00
397,530.00
The low bid received from Heffler Company, Inc. did include a legal bid bond. However, the
bond was executed on a different form than what is provided for by the contract documents.
Staff recommends that Council waive this irregularity and find that this irregularity is
immaterial. The lack of use of the City's bid bond form did not provide an advantage to the
low bidder. Additionally, Heffler Company, Inc. did execute the bid bond on the City's form
at a later date.
7~~
Page 3, ltem2
Meeting Date 6/8/93
The low bid by Heffler Company, Inc. is below the Engineer's estimate of $349,618.50 by
$21,914.25 or 6.3%. We have reviewed the low bid and recommend awarding contract to
Heffler Company, Inc. Heffler Company performed satisfactory work when they constructed
Landis Street parking lot in the City of Chula Vista. Staff has reviewed this bid and conducted
a past performance evaluation and determined that Heffler Company, Inc. has available
resources to complete the job and that the company is in good standing.
This project will be funded with Gas Tax and TransNet Funds. Prevailing wage scales as those
determined by the Director of Industrial Relations, State of California were determined to be
applicable to the work to be done. No special minority or women-owned business
requirements were necessary or part of the bid documents.
Environmental Status
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the project and determined that
it is categorically exempt under Section 15301, Class I Type (C), "Existing facilities" of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
FISCAL IMPACT:
FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION
1. Contract Amount $327,704.25
2. Relocation of Water Utilities 42,200.00
3. Inspection Staff 30,000.00
4. Contingencies (approx. 10%) 32,046.75
TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR $431,951.00
CONSTRUCTION
FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION
1. Gas Tax ST 506 $181,751.00
2. TransNet ST 506 119,200.00
3. Appropriation from TransNet Fund to - ST 506 131,000.00
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR $431,951.00
CONSTRUCTION
After construction, only routine City maintenance amounting mainly to street sweeping will
be required.
SA:AX-116
WPC F:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA \kittwake.con
7-J
FOURTH AVENUE
PROPERTY OWNERS CONDITIONS
AX-116
At 1010 Fourth Avenue
Relocate three (3) palm trees, construct new sliding gate at south driveway and
new swinging gate at north driveway.
Reconstruct existing brick barbecue like kind.
Provide block wall with fence above retaining wall.
At 974 Fourth Avenue
Contractor shall plant two (2) new trees, type Podocarpus Gracillior (Fern Pine),
15 gallon in size. Tree ball is to be set wet as directed by the City Engineer.
Relocate wrought iron fence, relocate block wall fence.
Relocate one (1) palm tree as directed by the City.
At 1006 Fourth Avenue
Relocate existing rolling gate, provide additional on site parking.
Replace existing fence with new 5 feet high fence.
Provide two block walls with landscaping.
At 957 Fourth Avenue
Reconstruct trash enclosure like existing kind and size.
At 963 Fourth Avenue
Reconstruct concrete steps, reconstruct driveway, relocate retaining wall.
7.lj
At 405 Moss Street
Transplant existing or plant new Junipers, remove one large pine tree.
Remove all large surface roots on Moss Street side yard, relocate fence.
At 395 Moss Street
Trim existing five (5) trees as directed by the City, relocate fence.
At 986 Fourth Avenue
Provide concrete pavement behind sidewalk.
At 976 Fourth Avenue
Consolidate two existing power poles into one, relocate traffic signal control box.
At 992 Fourth Avenue
Construct full street improvement along the entire frontage on Moss Street
abutting the property, new driveway, permit grantor to construct and occupy a
room addition.
At 1015 Fourth Avenue
Build a retaining wall to provide level front yard, remove tree, provide driveway,
place fence on top of retaining wall
At 980 Fourth Avenue
Waive sewer connection fees, replace two driveways.
At 398 Moss Street
Construct full street improvement along full frontage of Moss Street. Relocate
existing fence.
SA dv
(SA/conditions)
7'5' /1-8
--/-
THE CITY OF CHULA VIST A DISCLOSURE ST ATEMENT
You 2rl Ilquired to tile c- Stc:tel1lent ot Disclosure 01 Cf:rtcin ovvnership or 1inancial interests, payments, or campaign
contributions, on all matters which will require discretioncry 8ction on the part 01 the City Council, Planning Commission,
and all other 01ficial bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the n3mes of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or
the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
Carmen V~rg~~-~~ff'~r
iJiffnrM ~ ~~ffl~r III
Patrick A. Heffler
2. If any person. identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals
owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership,
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 the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_ No-X. If yes, please indicate
person Is) :
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or Independent contractors
who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
N/A
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in
the current or preceding election period? Yes_ No..u If yes, state which Councilmemberls):
. · · (NOTE:
Altach additional pages as ~. 4.)/., .~
Signatu.. of ooo.,.."",'I/If;....
Patrick A. Heffler'
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
v-p
Date:
04-27-93
i;!
. Penon" tkJlned as: "Any lndJvldIUJI,Jlnn. co-paTfl1enh/p.jo/nl venllU'e, AUocfcadon, IocIIIl CbW,jrGlet?liJ/ orranlZIJdon, corporadon, u14U, ",.", nce/ver.
IYndlcale, dIU and MY other colUlly. city and colUllry. city mwdclpaUty. dUlrlcrs. or other poUliclll subdivision. or MY odter IrouP or comblMllon acdnl
. "aud, ",
7'~
7
-_.~. ..... \.A ~1aJ4.7184
('
r-
I \
..
I
('
i ~
"'1
C3
~
\ ,...
'"
-
,
I
('
~J
I
--~~)
- -PL-
~
32'
/
I
~ 7., 7 ~~~~~II
~ 1IIIr
_~...~__.__ ..___....1:::!;:j ,.... ~
RESOLUTION NO. / 7/3 7
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING FUNDS, WAIVING
IMMATERIAL DEFECT, ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR FOURTH AVENUE WIDENING BETWEEN
KITTIWAKE LANE AND CHULA VISTA ADULT SCHOOL IN
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on April 28, 1993, in the Public
Services Building, the Director of Public Works received the
following sealed bids for the widening of Fourth Avenue between
Kittiwake Lane and Del Rey High School in the City of Chula Vista,
California:
Contractor Bid Amount
1. Heffler Company, Inc. San Diego $327,704.25
2. CGC Construction Co., San Marcos 329,353.22
3. Southland Paving, Inc., Escondido 354,707.65
4. Sim J. Harris Company, San Diego 358,000.00
5. L. R. Hubbard Co., Inc., San Diego 374,931.43
6. Basile Construction Co., San Diego 377,652.73
7. Granite Construction Co., San Diego 391,305.00
8. Carolyn E. Scheidel Construction Co., La Mesa 397,530.00
WHEREAS, the low bid by Heffler Company, Inc. is below
the Engineer's estimate of $349,618.50 by $21,914.25 or 6.3% and
staff recommends awarding contract to Heffler Company, Inc. in that
Heffler Company performed satisfactory work when they constructed
Landis Street parking lot in the City of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, in order to award the contract to the apparent
low bidder, it is necessary that Council appropriate $131,000 from
the unappropriated balance of the TransNet Fund; and
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has
reviewed the project and determined that it is categorically exempt
under section 15301, Class I Type (C), "Existing facilities" of the
California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, prevailing wage scales as those determined by
the Director of Industrial Relations, State of California were
determined to be applicable to the work to be done, however, no
1
7-'
special minority or women-owned business requirements were
necessary or part of the bid documents; and
WHEREAS, the low bid received from Heffler Company, Inc.
did include a bidder bond executed on a different form than what is
provided for by the contract documents; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that Council waive this
irregularity and find that this irregularity is immaterial based on
the following:
1. The lack of use of the City's bidder bond form did
not provide an advantage to the low bidder.
Additionally, Heffler Company, Inc. did execute the
bidder bond on the City form at a later date.
2. Council has the right to waive immaterial defects
in the bid documents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby waive the immaterial defect,
accept said eight bids and awards the contract for Fourth Avenue
widening between Kittiwake Lane and Chula Vista Adult School to
Heffler Company, Inc., who has assured the City that they are a
licensed contractor that can produce an acceptable performance
bond.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to execute
said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
appropriate $131,000.00 from the unappropriated balance of the
TransNet Fund to ST 506.
Presented by
~
bJ)
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
F: \homelattomey\kittwake
2
7"/P
.
MEMORANDUM
June 8, 1993
TO:
Tim Nader, Mayor
~
FROM:
John Lippitt, Dir. of Public Works
SUBJECT: Contracts on Agenda for Tonight Items #6 & #7
Per our telephone call this morning, I am inclosing a copy of Council Resolution #12493. and
Ordinance 2504, which deals with policy of City's practice on paying Prevailing wages for
Public Works Contracts.
As I indicated, we only require MBE/DBE/WBE provisions for all Federally funded
Transportation projects and Community Development Block Grant Projects. Or if required for
special projects or programs required by the program.
The Fourth Ave. Project is paying prevailing wages, as required, and the fIrm is a qualified
MBE and WBE firm, although not required.
The Sewer Contractor is not an MBE or WBE. They are not paying prevailing wages but
definately much more than minimum wages. We have been told that prevailing wages would
average $23 per hour while their employees earn between $16 - $20 per hour. Minimun wage
is around $5 per hour.
I do not have copies of Resolutions regarding MBE on Federally funded projects, however, if
you'd like to see them, the Clerks office or I can assist you.
cc: Admin.
7 -/1
.
RESOLUTION NO. 12493
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 7532
RELATING TO THE PAYMENT OF PREVAILING WAGES
FOR CONTRACTS LET BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, Labor Code Section 1770, et seq., requires any
public entity to pay prevailing wages on public works projects,
and
WHEREAS, on November 26, 1974, the City Council of the
city of Chula Vista adopted Resolution No. 7532 which established
the prevailing wage rates as those listed in the booklet entitled
WEquipment Rental Rates and General Prevailing, Wage Rates.,
published by the State of California, and
WHEREAS, the California Court of Appeal has held that
prevailing wage requirements of the Labor Code do not pertain to
public works of a chartered ci ty, when the City is contracting
for projects which are limited ,to .municipal affairs., and
WHEREAS, the rescission
allow the City to contract for
reduced rate, and
of Resolution No. 7532 will
services at a substantially
WHEREAS, the rescission of Resolution No. 7532 will
allow smaller companies to bid on City projects due to the lower
wage scales used by said companies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista hereby rescinds Resolution No. 7532.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that projects which are required
to have the prevailing wage schedule due to their funding by
State or Federal programs, the booklet entitled .Equipment Rental
Rates and General Prevailing Wage Rates., published by the State
of California shall be used for said projects.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
r~-
a;.+~i;f 'Afsi~
Attorney
City
hn P. Lippi t, Director of
ublic Works/City Engineer
1527a
7-/~
/ c9b-5
ADOPTED AND APPROVED sy THE CITY COUNCIL Of THE CITU Of CHULA
~J., CALIfORNIA. th i s 20th day of
May
19 86
-'
the following vote, to-wit:
~.. : Councilmember McCandl; ss, Cox, Malcolm, Moore, Campbell
:5 : Councilmember None
~.tIN: Councilmember None
::~r : Councilmember None
R. ~
Mayor
"EST //t{l'!t. ri ..,kU)1jltJrltr
eputy City Clerk
ty of Chuta Vista
:,TE Of CALIfORNIA
.\TY Of SAN DIEGO
~J Of CHULA VISTA
)
) ss.
)
I, ADELE A. SARMIENTO, DEPUTY CITY CLERK of the City of Chuta Vista,
.:ifornia, tJo HERESy CERTIfY that the above and foregoing is a fut t,
.c and correct copy of RESOLUTION NO.
12493
, and that the same
.' not been amended or repeated.
~Et.>
~Vt-
~
~~-~.......-
- "'"
tJeputy City Clerk
CllY OF
HULA VISTA
7-/)
DCC-660
/ /]d,/~.
C7 'J
.. '
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 8
SUBMITTED BY:
Meeting Date 5/20/86
Resolution j;.t.fI3 Establishing the minimum wage as the
prevail ing wage scale for construction and maintenance
projects involving City funds
Director of Public Works/City Engineer ~
City ManagerfJ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No....!...)
Per Resolution 7532 adopted November 26, 1974, the City Council established as
the prevailing wage rates those listed in the booklet entitled, "Equipment
Rental Rates and General Prevailing Wage Rates," pUblished by the State 'of
California be used for all public works construction contracts 'let by the City
of Chu1a Vista.
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council rescind the use of the booklet entitled,
"Equipment Rates and General Prevail ing Wage Rates" as the basis of pay for
projects not involving the use of Federal or State monies.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
" .: .I
. ' .
~.
.
Recently, it has come to our attention that the City cou1 d save a substanti a1
amount of money if it were able to pay less than the prevailing wage rates on
certain pub1 ic works projects. For example, the City recently received bids
for the construction of the Library water feature. The bid received for this
project was consi derab1y higher than the engineerl s estimate. Upon
conversations with the low bidder, it was apparent that the wages required to
be paid utilizing the prevailing wage scales listed in the booklet entitled,
"Equipment Rental Rates and General Prevail ing Wage Rates, II were much greater
than what he paid his employees for doing similar type work. This resulted in
a bid price considerably greater than what was expected. In addition, the
requirement of paying prevailing wage scale probably discourages many smaller
finns from bidding City projects because the wages they pay their employees
are consi derab1y less than those 1 i sted in the sai d book1 et.
A second project for the installation of sewer laterals in the Country Club
area is now out to bid. These plans were prepared by Fuller Plumbing under
City contract. As part of his contract, Mr. Fuller provided the City with
guaranteed prices for which he would construct the individual house laterals
to the various homes. Mr. Fuller, who is. now reviewing the plans and
specifications for the project, now indicates that his bidding of the project
util ;zing the prevail ing wage scale, he wou1 d not be able to match the prices
he has guaranteed to us as part of hi s consul tant contract. The reasons for
this is strictly the prevailing wages required to be paid to perfonn the work.
;.~
. - ~. ~....
7-/1
/,:::Jd/
--
Page 2, Item 8
Meeting Date 5/20/86
Recently, Gene Grady, Director of Building and Housing, requested from Charles
Gill, Assi stant Ci ty Attorney, an opi ni on concerni ng prevail i ng wages.
Attached is a memo to Gene Grady concerni ng thi s matter. It is apparent that
the recent court case in the City of San Diego has clearly established that
charter cities are not required to pay prevailing wages as outlined in the
Labor Code, Section 1770, et seq., as long as the projects in question are
within the realm of municipal affairs.
Since the City of Chu1a Vista is a charter city and it is in the best interest
of the City and its citizens to extend the purchasing power of its CIP
dollars, it is appropriate for the City to not pay prevailing wage scale for
projects funded with other than State of Fe<Jera1 monies. For projects not
funded with State of Federal funds and are within the realm of municipal
affairs, wage scale would not be less than minimum wage.
FISCAL IMPACT: Unknown, but it is expected that the City could save several
thousand dollars a year.
WPC 2072E
I~
t:y tl,0 ity Council of
Chula ViSt3, California
Dated
~/ 19f6
(
'7~1/
/ r'.J. .'
, C"~-
April 9, 1985
TO:
Gene Grady, Director of Building and Housing
Charles Gill, Assistant City Attorneyt~
Prevailinc;1 Wages
FRON :
SUBJECT:
You have requested that this office provide its advice relating
to the state requirements for the payment of "prevailing wages"
00 public works projects.
Your request for our advice indicated that the City could save a
substantial amount of money if it were able to pay less than
prevailing wages on certain public works projects. You
specifically referenced a recent City of San Diego opinion
relating to this subject which concluded that the Ci ty of San
Diego need not pay prevailing wages.
Labor Code ~1770, et. seq. requires any public enti ty to pay
prevailing wages on Public Works projects. However, in the case
of Vial v. City of San Diego (1981) 121 C.A.3d 346, 175 Cal.Rptr.
647, the Court of Appeals held that the prevailing wage
requirements of the Labor Code do not pertain to public works of
a chartered ci ty, when the city is contracting for projects which
are limi ted in scope to "municipal affairs".
In Vial, the Ci ty of San Diego adopted a resolution rescinding
the wage schedule and declaring payment of prevailing wages to be
appropriate "only when required by federal or state grants and on
other jobs considered to be of state concern...." (Vial, at page
347). Section 5 of Article 11 of. the Cali fornia Constitution
provides a definition for municipal affairs. A chartered city I s
ordinances which deal wi th purely municipal affairs are valid
even if they conflict wi th general laws. The prevailing wage
. law, a general law, does not apply to the publi c works projects
of a chartered ci ty; as long as the projects in question are
within the realm of municipal affairs. (City of Pasadena v.
Qlarleville [1932] 215 C. 384, 10 P.2d 745). Accordingly, the
City of Chula Vista should adopt a resolution which substantially
comports wi th the terms of the resolution adopted by the Ci ty
Council of the Ci ty of San Diego rescinding the prevailing wage
schedule and declaring that prevailing wages will only be paid
when the job is of a statewide concern or involves federal or
state monies.
Should you have any further questions
please do not hes ita te to call.
relating to this matter,
CRG: clb
C298a
RECEIVED
!' PH 0 9 1985
7-/~
By .
BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION
CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA
ORDINANCE NO. 2504
AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 2.58.070 TO THE CHULA
VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING THE PAYMENT OF
PREVAILING WAGES FOR CONTRACTS LET BY THE CITY
WHEREAS, Labor Code Section 1770 et seq. requires a public entity to pay
prevailing wages on public works projects;
WHEREAS, on May 20, 1986, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
adopted Resolution No. 12493 rescinding Resolution No. 7532 which established
the prevailing wage rates as those listed in the published book entitled
UEquipment Rental 'Rates and General Prevailing Wage Rates,- published by the
State of California;
WHEREAS, Resolution 12493 limited payment of the prevailing wage to
"projects which are required to have the prevailing wage schedule due to their
funding by State or Federal programs, the booklet entitled IEquipment Rental
Rates and General Prevailing Rates,' published by the State of California
shall be used for said projects";
WHEREAS, the City Council has consulted its City Attorney who has
determined that the prevailing wage requirements of the Labor Code do not
pertain to local public works projects of a chartered city, when the City is
contracting for projects which are limited to "municipal affairs,- and State
or Federal funding do not otherwise require the payment of the prevailing
wage;
WHEREAS, this Ordinance codifies the policy incorporated in Resolution
No. 12493 by limiting payment of the prevailing wage requirements to public
works projects which involve "statewide concerns," or where required by State
or Federal programs;
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain
as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 2.58.070 is hereby added to the Municipal Code, and
said Section shall read as follows:
2.58.070
Payment of Prevailing Wages
No contract shall require payment of the prevailing wage schedule
unless:
A. The prevailing wage is legally required, and
constitutionally permitted to be imposed, by Federal or
State grants; or
B. The project is considered by the City Council not to be a
municipal affair of the City; or
r7-/?
Ordinance No. 2504
Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, this 21th day of April, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Grasser Horton, Malcolm, Moore,
Rindone
NOES: Councilmembers: Nader
ABSENT: Counei 1 members: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
/aJ ~it":/
David Malcolm
Mayor Pro-Tempore
ATTEST:
/, ..
~);/l; ~ /' ,/ .I'
. . "J.
'-,.... '....,'. ~f i... ..'~." ,"t /
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2504 had its first reading on
April 7, 1992, and its second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of
said City Council held on the 21th day of April, 1992.
Executed this 21th day of April, 1992.
/'
c.-:A~/ /J./7 /Z .
Wt~,j{ [II (/~df;.{c/
Beverly ~: Authelet, City Clerk
?~/?f
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM r
MEETING DATE 6/8/93
ITEM TITLE: Report on the application of the Chula Vista Literacy
Team for California State Library - California Library
Services Act Families For Literacy grant funds for FY 1993-
94.
SUBMITIED BY: Acting Library Directo!\:U ff?
REVIEWED BY: City Manage\.l~ ~~\ (4/5ths Vote: YES _ NO L)
On May I, 1993 the Chula Vista Public Library applied to the California State
Library for $27,511 in Families For Literacy grant funds for FY 1993-94 to
continue special family literacy services and programming for adult learners
and their young children.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept the report and ratify the
application.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On May 26, 1993 the Library
Board of Trustees voted to support the Library's application for CLSA
Families For Literacy grant funds.
DISCUSSION:
The Chula Vista Literacy Team has offered family literacy programming for
the past two years. The Family Reading Program was developed to break the
intergenerational cycle of illiteracy by providing in-service training for
volunteer tutors whose learners are parents of young children, special library
programming for those learners and their families, and a home collection of
quality children's books and magazines for each participating family. The
program is directed by a family literacy coordinator and involves partnerships
with South Bay Head Start, Chula Vista Elementary School District's Even
Start program, and with the Parent Education Department of Sweetwater
Union High School District.
FISCAL IMPACT: If the grant funds are awarded, $27,511 will be received to
implement this program through the Chula Vista Literacy Team. These funds
will be appropriated into fund 216-2163.
~~I
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 9
Meeting Date 6/8/93
Public Hearing: PCA 93-02 Modifications to the Floor Area Ratio
(F AR) requirements in single-family residential zones - City initiated
Ordinance .2..5...5', 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 dwellings on lots
of less than 7,000 square feet and provide an exemption for patio covers
and porches of 300 square feet or less
Director of Planning J!li t
City Manager,J<i ~ ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
COUNCIL REFERRAL NO. 2714
1. 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
exemptiOIl 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-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.
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
9-/
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-1 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 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 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-l 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
9..2.
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-1 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-1-5. Therefore, although the normal expectation would be to have the smallest lots
distributed throughout an area (the R-1 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.
For 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 -1 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 generally 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 q
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:lhomelplanningI937.93
'1-r
ORDINANCE NO.
.:<5'f/
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 19.26.180 IN
ORDER TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING AREA
FOR SINGLE-F AMIL Y DWELLINGS ON LOTS OF LESS
THAN 7,000 SQUARE FEET AND PROVIDE AN
EXEMPTION FOR PATIO COVERS 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-1 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:
9,5
Ordinance No.
Page 2
Section 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 greater and 50% of the lot area or 3.150 square feet.
whichever is less. for single family dwellings on lots of less than 7.000 square feet. and 55% of the
lot area for duplexes. The floor area ratio calculation shall also include the square footage of patios,
garages and other accessory structures present on the lot, but excluding covered patios open on at least
two sides and covered porches open on at least one side with a total combined area of 300 square feet
or less. For these purposes, an accessory structure is defined as any structure which rises 4 or more
feet above finished grade.
SECTION IV. That Section 19.24.180 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended to read
as follows:
Section 19.24.180
Floor Area Ratio
See Section 19.22.160 for Floor :\reu Ratio requirements in the R 1 zones. (Ord. 2111 ~3
(part), 1986)
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 greater and 50% of the lot area or 3.150 square feet.
whichever is less. for single family dwellings on lots of less than 7.000 square feet. and 55% of the
lot area for duplexes. The floor area ratio calculation shall also include the square footage of patios,
garages and other accessory structures present on the lot, but excluding covered patios open on at least
two sides and covered porches open on at least one side with a total combined area of 300 square feet
or less. For these purposes, an accessory structure is defined as any structure which rises 4 or more
feet above finished grade.
SECTION V. That Section 19.26.180 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended to read
as follows:
Section 19.26.180
Floor Area Ratio.
See Section 19.22.160 for Floor .^..rea Ratio requirements ill the R 2 zones. (Ord. 2111 ~4
(part), 1986)
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 55% of the lot. The floor area ratio
calculation shall also include the square footage of patios. garages and other accessory structures
present on the lot. F or these purposes. an accessorv structure is defined as any structure which rises
4 or more feet above finished grade.
9-;"
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
Approved as to form
~~
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
WPC F:\home\planning\876.93
l' 7 ( q - 8
(~~ /'v
~/
N
~t Area ..!SjL 50% 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 ,000 2,250 2,500 2,751
7-9
-/-
....
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 15, 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, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., May 12, ] 993.
in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter
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~f
'/
j~///( .X(~~
Susan Fuller, Chair
WPC F:lhomeIp1uminI1l67.93
.- ;2--
q.. \0
negative declaration
PROJECT r\A.\IE: FAR Amendment
PROJECT LOCATIOS:
City-wide
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: N/A
PROJECT APPLICAJ\j: Cit)' of Chu1a Vista
CASE NO: IS-93-31
DATE: April S, 1993
A. ProieCT Senini
The proposed Cit)'-iniated project would be applied city-wide, as an amendment to the Chula
Vista Municipal Code (Section 19.22.160). The proposed zoning text amendment regarding
the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) could be applied to small lot single-family dwelling units (less
than 7,000 square feet) throughout the Cit)' 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 45 ~, which limits the maximum building area to 45 % 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 feet.
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 Attachment A).
~
,
Although the presenT FAR for all R-l zoned areas and single-family developments within
older planned communities is 45 %, the FAR for newer planned communities such as
EastLake. Rancho del Rey, and Sunbow varies based upon a sliding scale which allows a
proponionate1y 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 Chu1a Vista
to expand consistent with the size of the Jot and with homes available in the newer planned
communities (See Attachment B).
C. Compatibilit\' with Zonini and Plans
The proposed project is an amendment to the Chu1a Vista Zoning Ordmance altering the
required FAR for smaller lots. The project would Dot effect the underlying zoning or.
General Plan designation 00 a parcel. Therefore, the proposed project is compatible with
zoning and land use designations.
~{~
-.-
r..... ~ _
~~~~
clt)' Of ChYI. yilt. ptanning "Iplrtmlnt C1Tr OF
envlronmlntll ,.vll. Hctlo" OiULA VISTA
- 3-
~-\ \
D. Identification of Envirorirnental Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project
will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report will not be required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in
accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQAGuidelines.
The following impacts have been determined to be less than significant.
Visuallmoacts
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 Attachment 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 environment.
E. Mitil:!ation necessary to avoid sil:!nificant effects
The proposed project is not associated with any significant or potentially significant
environmental impacts, therefore, no project specific mitigation will be required.
F. Consultation
1. Individuals and Orl:!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
- J/-
q-\"2-
Page 2
"''PC NDCHECK.L5T
Al--plicant's Agent: Steve Griffm, City of Chula Vista
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
3. Initial Stud\'
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any
comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public
review period for this Negative Declaration. The repon 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
Deparonent, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
OJ":' } ", t (I' (,
Et\VIR01\MEJ'\T AL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. ]2'90)
-5'-
"'PC "DCHECK.l.ST
9- ,~
Page 3
APPENDIX I
Case No. 15-93-31
Background
E!\"'\1RO~~IE!\" AL CHECKLIST FOR\f
(To Be Completed By Lead Agency)
] . Name of Proponent: City of Chula VisL'i
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
S. Initial 5tudy Number: 15-93-31
Em'ironmental Impacts
1. Earth. Wi)) the proposal result in: YES MAYBE ~
a. UnsL'ible earth conditions or changes in
geologic substructures? 0 0 .
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
oyercovering 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 or physical features? D. 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 silL'ition, deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream 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 NDCHECKLST
-~-
C1-\~
.
.
COIIUD"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: YES MA YBE &!
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 .
COIIUDents:
The proposed revisions to the FAR will not impact air quality. No air emissions
would be created by implementation of the project.
3. "'ater. 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 .
"''PC NDCHECK.1.5T
Page S
q -is
_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: ill MAYBE .lill
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 .
.
Introduction of new species of plants into .
c.
into an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species? 0 0 .
.
d. Reductic-n in acreage of any agricultural
crop? 0 0 .
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 plant species or habitat.
s.
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
m MAYBE .lill
a. Ch:mge in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
\lo'PC t\I>CHECK.l.ST Page 6
~-\~
- '1-
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 naruralland.
Thus, the amendment to the zoning code will not impact any animal species or habitats.
6.
l'oise. Will the proposal result in:
~ MAYBE ~
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?
ill MAYBE NO
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?
ill MAYBE HQ
o
o
.
Comments: .
The proposed project in .'olves 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 "'DCHECrLST
Page 7
q --\,
- 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:
n.s MAYBE lill
a.
Increase in the rate of use of any natural
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:
ill MAYBE lill
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 lill
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR would not allow an increase in units or densit)' on a site,
but only increase the amount of building coverage on particular Jots. 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 lill
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.l.ST
Page 8
ct- ,~
_10 -
.
13.
Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal re~Jlt in:
ill MAYBE NO
a.
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
.
o
o
b.
Effects on existing parking facilities.
or demand for new parking?
.
o
o
c.
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
.
o
o
d.
Alterations to present panerns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
.
o
o
e.
Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic?
.
o
o
f.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
.
o
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
o
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR would not have any impact on circulation or
transportation systems.
14. Public Ser"ices. Will the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the following areas:
ill MAYBE till
a. Fire protection? 0 0 .
b. Police protection? 0 0 .
c. Schools? 0 0 .
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? 0 0 .
e. Libraries? 0 0 .
f. Maintenance of public facilities. inc~uding
'"'PC NDCHECKl.ST
Page 9
Cf- \9
-/1-
..
roads?
o
o
o
.
.
g.
Other governmental services?
o
.
City routing forms indicated that the proposed revisions to the FAR will not have any impact
on or require any Public Services.
15.
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
ns MAYBE ~
a.
Use of substantial amount of fuel or
energy?
o
o
.
b.
Substantial 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?
m MAYBE !ill
.0 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 flTe 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
755t 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
J calls of 4.5 minutes or less. . Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priorit)' 2
calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority
2 calls of 7 minutes or Jess. 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 ~DCHECK.l.ST
Page 10
9-2,..0
_/;L-
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate "'t a Level of
Serdce (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 I-80S 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 Dot 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 not 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 Planes) 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 Planes) 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, treatment, 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:
m MAYBE ~
a.
Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health?
o
o
.
b.
Exposure of people to potential health
\llPC "DCHECK.l.ST
Page 11
9. 2...,
-/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.
18.
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
.ns MAYBE HQ
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
'0
.
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 feet. 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?
YES MAYBE HQ
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.
liS MAYBE ~
a.
Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction or a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
.
o
o
b.
W ill 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.I.ST
Page 12
C1 . 2.. 2...
- /'1-
-.
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 ar'ea 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 ir} the
alteration of or the destruction of a paleontological
resource?
YES MAYBE lill
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.
ns ~1A YBE 1SQ
"
a.
Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reguce the habitat of a fish
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate 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.
WPC I'iDCHECK,l.ST
Page 13
q - '2. ~'
.....
-/J :..
:
-;.
b.
Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term goals to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A sport-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, defmitive period of time,
while long-term impacts will endure weU
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 wilJ allow a
greater flexibility of design and construction. In the long-term, the project will an ow houses
in the older areas of Chula Vista the opportunit)' to expand in a manner consistent with the
houses in the newer planned communities.
c.
Does the project have impacts which are
individuaUy limited. but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may impact t\J.'o
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 densit)' or intensity of use. The project will allow houses in the older areas of
Chula Vista to expand to a size and bulk consistent ,,'ith housing available in the newer
planned communities of the City.
d.
Does the project have environmental
effects which wilJ 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 hanD human beings either
directly or indirectly. No impacts to human health were identified in the initial study.
"'PC NDCHEC~.l.ST
Page 14
'1-2..'-1
-It -
-
-
Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency. Check one box only.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
. I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGA TJVE 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
MITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARA nON will be prepared.
o I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is 'required. .
\,
J ....' t t . I'. . 1 (- )) I" "
Environmental Review Coordinator
llI7'~3
Date
q-2.S
Page 15
_/1-
WPC "DCHECK.l.ST
Case No.
APPE~~IX II
DE ML'\ThfiS FEE DETERJ\ffi'A TION
(Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990 - AB 3158)
lit. 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.
) .' ,-'( {/ . ( i' (( r- ) I. . l~. I
En\"ironmentaJ Re\"iew Coordinator
l( I 'i '/_$
.
Date
""PC NDCHEctd.'sr
Page 16
C1-2..6
-19-
1\
. .
Attachment A
19.22.160
Floor Area Ratio.
. ConstrUction of dwellings or any remodeling or additions to existing dwellings shall have
I floor area ratio (FAR) which limits the maximum building area to 45 % of the Jot area for
single family dwellings on lots of 7.000 square feet or Jreater: SO % of the lot area or 3.150
sQuare feet. whichever is less. for smile family dwellinis on lots of less than 7.000 square feet:
and 55 % of the Jot area for duplexes. The floor area ratio caI"'ulation shall also include the
square footage of patios, garages and other accessory structures present on the Jot, ex~ot that
covered patios and porches up to a total combined area of 300 square feet or Jess are exemot
from the FAR limit. For these purposes, an accessory structure is defmed as any structure
which rises 4 or more feet above flIlished grade. (Ord. 2144 12 (part), 1986).
(~erc' (I,;)
'1-2.1
_ /1-
c:
"
Attachment B
"
COUNCn.. AGE!'\1>A STATEMENT
Item _
Meetin& Date 3/9/93
ITEM TITLE: Report: PCA-93-Ol; Modification to Floor Area Ratio requirements for
. single-family residential zones
SlJB~IITTED BY: Director of Planning ~t
REVIE\\'ED BY: Cit)' Manager (4/Sths Vote: Yes_No..xJ
.
On January 12, ] 993, Council considered a' report on various alternatives to the present Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) requirements and directed staff to return with a report on an alternative which
\\'ould:
1) use a sliding scale ~'ith a minimum FAR of O.SO for smaller lots; and
2)
provide an exemption for open patio covers and porches.
~
RECO~L\fI~-nA TIOS: That Council direct staff to return with an ordinance to revise the
floor area ratio requirements in all R-] zones, based on I 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 Dot more than 300 square feet.
,
.
BOA.RDS/CO~L\nSSJOSS RECO~1\IE!\1>A nos: On .February 10, 1993, the Planning
Commission was asked for input on the earlier report and the alternatives selected by Council
for funher consideration. None of the Commission members expressed any concerns regarding
the altemath'es outlined by the City Council.
DlSCUSSIOS:
The FAR modifications selected by Council for further consideration appear workable to staff
with cenain qualifications. The stated desire of Council is to provide smaller Jots of less than
7,000 square feet in the older, established portions of the City with a IJUter opponunity to
expand their dwellings in I manner more consistent with that which is provided for ill the Dewer
planned COInml'nities to the east. .
.SJidini Scale" FAR
The present FAR for all R.I zoned areas and singte-family developments within older planned
communities is 0.45. The FAR for newer planned communities such as EastI...ake, Rancho del
Rey. and Sunbow varies, but is aenerally based on I sliding scale which allows a proportionately
'1-2.9
- /tJ.-
.
.
Pqe 2, Item
Meetin& Date 3/9/93
pater FAR on smaller lots. sucb as 0.45 for lots 7,000 sq. ft. or pater, 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 UDder 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 witll tlle size
of the lot and with homes available in the newer planoed 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 0.45 FAR. This inequity can be addressed b)' 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.
Jt 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. Jots (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 funher
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
existins. developed areas for the following reasons.
First, developments of less than 6,000 sq. ft. in planned communities are planned and developed.
as a toul package, including the siting and interrelationship am'ong 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-J areas. Additions of any son can
be added as long IS they meet the bulle 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-J zone provides that 70% of the lots shall be7 ,000 SQ. ft. or greater,
20% between 6,000-7,000 sq. ft., and no more th.an 10% between S,Q00.-6,OOO SQ. ft.).. these
areas in MontgomeJj' would involve entire neighborhoods with the 0.55 FAR allowance and no
design control.
For these reasons, we are not recommending that the FAR be funher increased for the lots
between S.OOO-C.OOO sq. ft.
ct - 2.. <1
-- )-( -
hae 3, Item
Meetin& Date 3/9/93
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 Dot more than 300 sq. ft. For purposes of this exemption, an open
patio cover is defmed as ODe that is open on at least two sides, with I lattice-type roof DO more
than SO % covered, Tbis type of structure represents more of an open element ~ther than
building mass, and in staffs opinion could be exempted in all R-l 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 aU
patio covers would be less difficult to administer than one which distinguishes between a solid
roof and an open-lanice roof, and staff would Dot be opposed to such an exemption,
Finally. Coun:il asked staff to consider whether or not covered porches should be exempt from
the FAR. Porches, which generall)' have a solid covering, are usually 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 L\IPACT: Not applicable.
CPO, ;).{:: A;: ~)
..
..
,,-~O
-)..;1..-
.
.,
,
~
J.,ot Area .Aa. SO% S5%
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 2,320 2,800 3,080
5,400 2,430 .2.700 2,970
5,200 2,340 2,600 2,860
5,000 2,250 2,500 2,751
Pany\farcomp.l&
9-~\
_ )..3-
.
.
ROUTI NG FORM
RECEIVED
MAR 1 6 1993
.
....
. CITY OF CHULA VIS;;'
BUILDING & HOUSING DEPT.
DATE:
arch 15, 1993
. I.
.. I. \
\ \
ken Larson. Building I Housing
John L1~pitt. Engineering lEIR o~'y)
Cliff Swanson. Engineering EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg. Engineering EIR only)
Roger Daoust. Engineering (IS/3. EIR/2)
Richard Rudo'f. Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove. Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks I Recreation .
keith Hawkins. Police Department IDiosdado, 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
FROI '
SUSJECT:
.
Maryann Miller
Environmental Section
(l]J Application for Initial Study (IS-93-31
E::] Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR-
D Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-
E::] Review of Environmenta' Review Record
IDP N/A )
IDP )
IDP ) .
IERR- )
/FA_618
IFS-
IFS-
FC-
.
The project cons~sts of:
Amend FAR to 50% for smaller lots and provide
e(emption fo\ patio c~vers an.d po~ches (see attached)
Location:
City Wide
Please review the document and forward to ~ any comments you have by
3/22/93
.
COtmlents:
.'
N~'.
( '(~i" I.,
l.. \" \ ", \~ . \.... (
C1-KCL{ J' ~.I?-: 1/ ;,
;;.4 -
Ys-co I
ROUTI NG FORM
,...~-';~",~-
_ ,;';i!/.. ~,~_ ~ ;~~ ~~~-:~ ~:~ ~~ L
.
18
DATE: March%. 1993
r..s3 "'IS{ 'S PM 3: \ 8
,-,"
FROfA.. ;ur:
Ken Larson. Building I Housing
John Lippitt. EnQ~neering (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 IDiosdado. 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
.
7T>: ERO'M :
SU6JECT:
Maryann Miller
Environmental Section
[II] Application for Initial Study (IS_93-31
c::J Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days){EIR-
o Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-
r::J Review of Environmental Review Record
IFA-6l8
IFS-
IFS-
FC-
fOP N/A )
lOP )
lOP ) ,
IERR- )
.
The project cons~sts of:
Amend FAR to 50% for smaller lots and provide
exemption fo~ patio c9vers and P9~ches (see attached)
Location:
City Wide
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by
Comments :
3/22/93
N(;) Cc~ M CJ../T:>
,~~
..
;~1
q-3~
_ ;;s--
.
.
.
.
ROUTING fORM
.
March 15, 1993
II ~. ~J
IW..... '.
.....,. -
DATE:
J- - .
~.
t'.e.:
Frc f"l
ken Larson, Building I Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR o~ly)
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 Landstape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District. Tom Silva (IS I EIR)
~aureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
.
--
./ Maryann Miller /
01.~~; (0 : [nviron~ntal S~ r' ti-&n
SUBJECT: [ill Application for Initial Study (IS_93-3l IFA-6l8 /DP N/A )
D Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR- IFS- lOP )
0 Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- IFS- lOP )
D Review of Environmental Review Record Fe- IERR- )
.
.
The project consJsts of:
Amend FAR to 50% for smaller lots and provide
e~emption fo~ patio c9vers and po~ches (see attached)
Location:
City Wide
Please review the document and forward to ~ any comments you have by
Comments: /jo~
3/22/93
.
.'
Q..34
_ :;./0-
-
-
Case No. ~- ?J-d'/
H. FIRE DEPARTMENT
1.
What is the distance to the nearest fire station7 ~ what is the
Fire Department's estimated reaction time? tJ A
2.
Will the Fire Department b~ able to provide an adequate level of fire
protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment
or personnel? V / A
3. Remarks ~~V€.
,J. U1i&1L
Fir,! Marshal
v
03!:23/Q3
Date
.
.
- ;21-
WPC 0413p/94S9P
-12- 9 -~S
..
..
ROUTI NG FORM
.
DATE: March 15. 1~93
".
TO:
ken larson. Building I Housing
John lippitt. Engineering lEIR o~ly)
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
Sob 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
.
fROM:
SUSJECT:
Maryann Miller
Environmental Section
CEKJ Application for Initial Study (IS_93-31
r::J Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR-
o Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-
r::J Review of Environmental Review Record
IFA-518
IFB-
IFB-
FC-
lOP N/A )
lOP )
lOP ) ..
IERR.. )
.
The project consJsts of:
Amend FAR to 50% for smaller lots and provide
e(emption fo\ patio covers and po~ches (see attached)
location:
City Wide
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by, 3/22/93
COlm'lents:
.
~~ tf
fee. ~ t-D ~f<~~ .
__ )l-
q-3Jc
Case No. .::r:s - 9 ~_. ~ /
H-l. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
1. Is project subject to Parks 1 Recreation.Th~sho'd requirements?
If not, please explain. ~.
/ .
/
2. How any acres of parkl and are n,eessary to serve the proposed
projec L
/
3. Are exist; neighborhood an~ community parks near the project
adequate to se ethe populati increase resulting from this project?
Neighborhood
Conununity Parks
4.
If not, are parkland dicat'~~s or other mitigation proposed as part
of the project adequ e to Serve ~he population increase?
.'" .
Neighborhood
Community B rks
,
s.
will
applicant ~~uired to:
".~
'"
6.
~
"
~'f,~.
1'\b:<\? .
Date
Parks and Recreation Director or Representative
--)..~-
WPC 0413p/9459P
-13- 9 _ ~ ')
.
.
.
.
DATE: March 15, 1993
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ROUTING FORM
....
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR o~'y)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roge~ Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt. Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department IOiosdado, Crime Prevention
Current Planning
Frank Herrera, Advance ~lanning
. Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Phnning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
Ma ryann Mi 11 er
Environmental Section
[!]] Application for Initia' Study (IS_93-31
E::] Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR-
D Review of a Draft. EIR (EIR-
E::] Review of Environmenta' Review Record
The project cons~sts of:
Location:
..
.
IFA-618
IFS-
IFS-
FC-
lOP N/A )
lOP ) ,
lOP )
IERR- )
Amend FAR to 50% for smaller lots and provide
e(emption fo\ patio c~vers and po~ches (see attached)
City Wide
Please review the document and forward to .e any comments you hive by 3/22/93
COlT'aTle n ts :
~c,
."
fLcm:! b ~.
9 _ ~<g 7...-
.
\ '3b./'
,.
-
.
I
RO~TING FORM
.
DATE: March 15, 1993
.-.'
TO:
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR O~'Yl
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 & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department IOiosdado, 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:
SUBJECT:
Maryann Miller
Environmental Section
ill]
D
D
D
Application for Initial Study (IS-93-31
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR-
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-
Review of Environmenta' Review Record
lOP NI A
lOP
lOP
IERR-
)
)
)
)
..
lFA-6l8
IFS-
IFS-
FC-
.
I
The project cons~sts of:
Amend FAR to 50% for smaller lots and provide
exemption 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
.
COTmlents:
/It (c. ~~/ /;;J:'~
;4;1' 3 - 2093
?
p'
--3/-
q-~9
CITY DATA
ClSe No. .:::T<.- 9'2- .</
F. PLANNING OEPARTMENT
1. Current Zon i n9 on site: (':I.4,~ - wi ti.e.
North ~
South
East
West
Does the project conform to the current zoning? .~/A
2.
General Plan land use
designation on site: c.:-h4-~cLt..
North --,
South
East
West
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? 1J/~
,
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent
to an area so designated? c.:.~ ..~d...t-
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~~ ~~.~
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to pro ect or enhance
the scenic quality of the route.) ~J~
. "
3. Schools
".
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Students
Generated
From Proiect
School
Permanent
Caoacitv
Temporary
Caoac1tv
Current
Enrollment
Elementary
Jr. High
Sr. High
4. Remarks:
~/A
.3h ~~ ..i'
, Da te
0.-
-
WPC 0413p/9459P
. -8-
- 3)"
9-'-ID
Excerpt 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-l lots 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.
~38..
'1-41
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 pro~rty 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
-- 3J/- -
'1..42..
~
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.
_ 3J
Cl-~~
-- ---... '-
Excerpt from City Council Minutes of 1/12/93
MSUC (NaderlFox) direct the City Attorney to communicate with the rrc, on behalf of the City, that the
City was looking at the matter to detennine whether any facilities capable of serving O1ula VISta and
affecting the City were involved. The representation had been made to the City by Cox that there were no
facilities capable of serving O1ula VISta involved, pending verification 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 be receives any information that would indicate
that competition in O1ula VISta could be affected by the Jones/Cox transaction, to prompdy communicate
the Council's concerns to the rrc.
18. RESOLtmON 16962 RESONDING RESOLUTION 15591 WHICi PROHIBIlS ON-STREET
PARKING IN 1liE 400 BLOCK OF ,.. STREET - On 3/17/92, Council requested a six month evaluation report
regarding the effectiveness of the painted median island in place on ,.. 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 WLW Street was with the buses
or parents dropping off children. The major objection was from the school district.
)LUTION 16962 OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MOORE, reading of the text was waived. .
Charles Schrieder, 440 wLw Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated he represented the property owners on the 400
block of WLW 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 FLOOR AREA RATIO REQtnREMENTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILYRESIDEN11AL
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-
scalew FAR requirement in certain Planned Communities. (Director of Planning)
Councilman Fox stated his neighborhood, off the end of east..1" 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. It had been proposed as a generalized approach and staff would come back with an ordinance
..h specific boundaries.
9-~~
36/
-
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 suppon the first part 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 inaeasing the FAR standard
from 45% to 50%, exempt open patio and open porches.
Councilwoman Honon 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 comfonable 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 Honon felt the change could generate interest in rehabilitating homes in the older
neighborhoods.
Mr. Leiter stated staff could review the recommendation and repon 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 FOI abstaining.
Mr. Leiter stated staff could get back to the Planning Commission within the next thiny 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 repon could be
worked on. Concurrent recommendations from the Planning Commission and staff was acceptable.
'* '* '* Council recessed at 8:36 p.m. and reconvened at 8:46 p.m. '* '* '*
,
31'
-
9-'4.5
Excerpt From City Council Minutes of 3/9/93
19. REPORT PCA-93.()2: MODIFICA110NTOPLOORAREARA110REQUIR.EMENTSPOR
SINGLE PAMlLYRESIDFNIlAL ZoNES. On 1/12/93, Council considered a repon on Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
requirements and directed staff to rerum with a repo" on using a sliding scale with a minimum FAR of 0.50
(or smaller lots which would provide an exemption for open patio coven 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 coven of ~ot more than 300 square feet. (Director
of P1anninS)
Councilman Pox stated he had abstained from participating on the item in the past and questioned whether
be needed to continue to abstain.
Roben Leiter, Director of Planning, infonned Council that the current proposal affected all Rl zoned
propenies within the City. The previous item only affected one area which included Councilman Pox's
property.
City Attorney Boogaard stated it was a matter 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 (Rindone/Pox) to accept the staff recommendation to return with an ordinance to establish I slidingƒxaJe with an PAR of 0.50 for loti under 7,000 sq\W'"e feet and an eumption for open patio COftl"l of not
r .. ~ than 300 aqu.u-e feeL
~g.,
.,.,/
q-~b
. .
Excerpt From City Council Minutes of 9/15/92
(
15. COUNCL COMMENiS
Councilman 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.
ADJOURNMEm'
ADJOURNMENT AT 7:45 p.m. to a Special City Council Meetirig 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 CouncillRedevelopment Agency convened at 7:46 P.M. and adjourned
at 8:28 P .M..
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk
"\ ~ t'
\ r\ , ,
) , I '.-1..
by: "'---. "'~ ,,\ '-..~)~, L/) ( j l.l.....~ :
Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy fGity Clerk
. ,
;
__ 31"
C1-,-\,
-
""17.1112
,.. Hanol'II* JiIfr'I ....,.
CcIn:A'nan. CIIr aI QUa VIlla
271 .. A.....
CIIlM va.. CA ""0
0. CIuIcIrMn .......
. . would at ID ... . IIIDI'I*I fII JCU ... _tiling ID JCU ..~. .... ......ID .. . -- .
-....,. .., ... CIIr Ccan:II _ ... PIIf.lIIiQ ~Wild.
.~1:'.."- ". _..~-..
; ~:. ~.Jr.. '.. ::..' to '} r;-;'
.. . . '.
. .. :'0 .
'L _ 1:.J: 3 I ~. . .
i
t
~-:-'.J- .-
-.,
--..-- ..
"'-'----
IevnJ ,..,. . '" CIIr CauncI ...., .. ""lflioQ ~ ID dIwIIap . .,..ID
-.raI '" IIl'UCI\n 0CHn0t aI CIIr ...,.... IcIa. I MIiIvI Ie . .. time ... .. .
_Ie upr'OIT cauMd by '" gaa 0. bullcI"O fII . "- Itcry II:lmt an one ~ Iat In
0\uIa VIm . .. NTO&nSId by one IIOfy hclma M.,.... ....,..lQ DIpe:l,.n..ra
~ . IftIIhod I'lIlIftI)' be IftCI'IIMbtcItwI '*' .. ~ ... fII.. CIy CcuIcIL
'!M "-''*'0 ~ra *.n~~"1I CIIIIICS. F.AJl CFIocr A-. "-10). T~II
~nQ hu rwwuIId to ""1111 1mpenal1uctI. II CI;:ln. NIIklnIJ CIry. _ '" CllurIy fIty an
.. bD ~r.ntrD ani)' ..."., tarrn aI earIrd. ... Diego CIry doll UN . FAR. . .
lat. allO%. CorcInado __ . ... al75~ ftCIl h:iIudhCl .... _ IRQIII. wtic:tI II .,..er
hn ChlAa v.ta'l .., a rII. aI two ID one.
. ...". IhIlIhIIl'llll'l calli aI 0CII'ICIm II wIlfl '" ImIIer .. allOOO IQ. .. _ ..... .., also
It')' ccumin; the 1ICCInCl1lary. .,.., ~ Ind CIOWII'ICl"IlIlli1_.'~ --.ad ala...
rII. of ~ or ~
Many Mw ~ being bullllElday .. buill to '" IMlII7uft 1IIonbI. IIzI _ ., IIIlIn the
II.rndrlCls allhcllaards aI CIalIarl. Many aI ... bomt ... .. In b . NptM when "-Y
~ N 1t\Il1hey CIn' ~ .,.., . ItgII pmIO ClOWIf nu:tI ... a ...., bDoom.
Ua~ a IIgurt aI 20 room IdcSItIoN a ,.. . an .... DaIl fIIl25.000.00 IIIICtI _ ao C*Io
C*WI . ." .....ra;e COlt alUOOO.OO wtItI a IilUI COlt fII ClIoN ID MOO,OOO.OO WOl'ltl 01
ClClnItrUC:tiOn work being dtnIId ~I.' aI the F.A.R. ". CIry aI CIUa ~ II DIn; Income
tom _ permit.... III. taxa not ClCII*'-d, .... till. not h::I'aMld. ClIry If'/'lpAorHl
not needed (lnaudlng bullcllng ancf panning dtpII'ImInt "',..). AIt ~ .............
may 19ure 10 IIClJO warura ~ In" ,o..,,-Ifntra _ CIClfWIr\IClIiO.-a.d
IndUltn...
",.. rnaII.. II ..",.,. ID IIfI ~ ""'" aI CtUa YlI1I nac 0fIIy tar CIbwIouIlCCllOINcIf and
Iwl2shlll fUION till . ~ IDe. I:lur ~ ~ IftCn ~. .. _1IIon 01
~ ...nctlClnI1II1 .. tnMinO cu bMutN CtUa YlI1I .... .~ ID Ivt In.
-.n ID" patra INK peap6t .. IndIId ~ '" _ f - WIld.
f -" ..dclItllQ . ~ 1*1 _ aI. hcImI hi C*lftCIbe adl:IId arID en, .....- alt.
....a. ~. aI '" F.AJIL ...... ncIIct '" IItgt ... prd ... In "'" CIIhIr )I1dC:IIon -*'
... buill ID "'.. be:*1InI. MInJ MrM 0IlnIII..... JI'CIPI'f1......,.. prd.......
Maybe leu gcMiI'MWlI -' .., .. . " CIUI VIlla .., .... ... .., ID ....~.... _
~ III '" _ID w~.. I. C8\" aI.w.. ......a.
~.., ,.....
~~~a7~
C.W"
.o5Cl Palm DrIft
IklnIta. CA ".
471-tt01 .
_if!)-
. ~-'-t "
.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item IIJ
Meeting Date 6/8/93
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing To consider adoption of an interim pre-SR-
125 Development Impact Fee and to consider modification of the existing
Transportation Development Impact Fee
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager0~ 1;s'1J (4/Sths Vote: Yes_NoX)
Staff is recommending continuance of the hearing for at least 60 days. This item will be re-
noticed prior to the public hearing date. Local developers are meeting with the Construction
Industry Federation to try and reach consensus regarding this item. Staff will distribute the
packet and consultant report one week earlier than normal distribution in order to allow adequate
time for Council review.
CST: HX-022
WPC F:\HOME\ENGlNEER\AGENDA\CONTINUE.125
/t'), /
FEB 06 '87 13:33
!~~k~V€~iM
'1" N"~D~iii;~~::.:T;~..v:~;y'
0' t'.. ..J.y....~. ..;J~l..-t
':f.;!i1>::e;If~~r:J:~~?s::
: c :'.~:: :~ . .~~}:~t: .~~~",' ',:'~.:"~;~:~:' ~~..
~~~f-' ~~:::~~~ .'-~~~~;~: ~~':;.~~#'~~~:..
,,:;-,,::',,~'~".:~' "~::li.;'-.:?:~~ ...... -'-,
...:........: :c:..,-: .:"
lil~;'
P.2/2
June 3. 1993
Mr. Georgo Krcmpl
Doputy City Manager
City ofCbula v.
276 Fourth Aveaue
CbuIa Y1s1a. CA 91910
0: Request Q)..lla1 Delay of ,.bie IIeariD8 OR PropGSed IateriID SR-125 Fees
Dear George:
Tho ColUlttUCtionlndustry PederadoD IIpJmldates this OppOl~ to reapecIfuJly request a ~y
delay of tho pobJie heariDg schcduJed for June 8 on me proposed SR.125 fees. We would ask d1a1
tho pubtic btaring to tc>o8Chcdulecl to Ibc fbat Council aneotiog in August.
CJF. tho jmpac1Cd.PCOPCrtY owners and dovc1opcrs aro striviDg to fonnuIaJc a finAlnoiPg scmrc:gy
~ to 1be City Q,uncil. Our goal is to C$liIbIbb a worbblc and equitable solution in wbic:b
the Chula. VIsra pmpeay owners and developers can JeaS(lllllblJ agree upoa aDd supJDllD assm in
construeting the iDteriIn SR-l2S mad segments.
We ate hopeful an agreement am be accomp1isbed in 6O-days (I' less 8Pd ask your support IIld 1be
Council's support in this dOlt.
Thank you for your COIlSide1atioO on this important mallet.
/tP-:J
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / /
Meeting Date 6/8/93
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Formation of Assessment District No. 92-2 (Autopark)
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works AJVV
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ ~~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X )
On March 23, 1993, Council adopted the resolution of intention to order the acquisition and
financing of certain infrastructure serving the Autopark development pursuant to the Municipal
Improvement Act of 1913. Later, on May 4, 1993, Council adopted Resolution No. 17102
giving preliminary approval to the Engineer's Report for Assessment District No. 92-2
(Autopark) and setting public hearings for June 8 and 22, 1993 for the purpose of hearing public
testimony.
All owners of property within the proposed assessment district have been mailed their notice of
the public hearings including the proposed assessment to their land.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1) Hold the public hearing;
2) Receive testimony;
3) Close the public hearing; and
4) Notify the public that a second public hearing will be held on June 22, 1993 at 6:00 pm.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 is a financing mechanism which allows the future
owners to finance infrastructure improvements through assessment district bonds with payments
collected with their property taxes. This is an acquisition assessment district wherein the
developer is constructing the public improvements and the City will acquire them upon
completion with funds derived from the sale of bonds. The estimated cost of the improvements
can be discharged in full at any time or paid off by the property owners over a 25-year period.
The public improvements proposed to be financed through the Assessment District No. 92-2
include pavement, drainage facilities, curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, street lighting, sewer
mains, sewer pump station, storm drain system and miscellaneous appurtenant structures. The
acquisition of right-of-way for Otay Valley Road widening and Brandywine Avenue and Auto
Park Drive construction within the proposed district is also included.
Construction of the Assessment District improvements is projected to be completed by the end
of 1993. The developer will front the funds required for construction. Once the improvements
11'/
Page 2, Item I J
Meeting Date 6/8/93
are completed and accepted by the City, they will be purchased using bond sale proceeds. The
bond sale is proposed to take effect by mid-July 1993.
The total amount proposed to be assessed to the parcels in the assessment district is $1,985,683.
This includes construction, engineering design, inspection and administration costs, and other
incidental costs. Also included is the acquisition of the underlying Otay Valley Road Assessment
($365,939) to eliminate the overlapping of liens for the proposed Autopark district. Table 1
shows a detailed cost estimate.
The amount proposed to be assessed to the district is approximately $1.5 million less than was
proposed at the time the resolution of intention was adopted on March 3, 1993. . This is due to
adjustments required to lower the assessment to comply with the City standard of 3: 1 value to
lien ratio. A recent appraisal by Kibbey and Samppala Group estimates a prospective value "as
if" fully improved of $9.00 per square foot or $5,957,048 for the total 15.195 acres to be
included in the district. The value to Lien ratio is calculated as follows:
Value
Lien
$5.957.048
$1,985,683
1
1
Initially, the total assessment, $1,985,683, will be levied on one parcel containing all the land
included in the Auto Park Assessment District. A parcel Map to subdivide the property into four
parcels is currently being processed. After approval and recordation of the map, the total
assessment will be reapportioned among the new parcels.
The second public hearing has been set for June 22, 1993. At that time, staff will request
Council approval of resolutions approving the acquisition agreements, the Engineer's Report
confirming the assessments, and ordering the improvements.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. The developer has already signed a Reimbursement Agreement with
the City, in which he agrees to advance all City expenses related to the proposed assessment
district formation.
Attachment: Final Engineer's Report
LdeT/AY-081
WPC F:\home\engineer\agenda\autopark.ph
/I;~
TABLE 1
COST ESTIMATE
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 92-2
CONSTRUCTION COST COST ESTIMATE
Streets $602,254
Water 117,054
Sewer 150,704
Storm Drain 170,586
Subtotal Construction Cost $1,040,598
Contingency (10%) 104,060
Total Construction Cost $1,144,658
INCIDENTAL EXPENSES
1. Right-of-Way Acquisition $738,230
2. Outstanding Lien (Otay Valley Road 365,939
Assessment District 90-2)
3. Surveying 23,000
4. Landscape Architect 8,100
5. Civil Engineering 79,200
6. Soils Engineering 35,000
7. Construction Administration 20,000
8. Public Agency (Project Management & 20,000
Assessment Engineering)
9. Bond Counsel 17,428
10. Appraiser 6,000
11. Permit Fees
Otay Water District 9,000
City of Chula Vista 22,000
12. Printing & Advertising 1,000
13. Bond Printing, Servicing & Registration 10,000
Total Incidentals $1,354,897
Developer Contribution (774,791)
Subtotal Construction Expenses $1,724,764
COST OF ISSUANCE
Capitalized Interest (1.14%) $22,637
Bond Discount (2%) 39,714
Reserve Fund (10%) 198,568
Subtotal Cost of Issuance $260,919
Balance to Assessment $1,985,683
LdeT/AY-081
WPC F:\home\engineer\agenda\autopark.ph
/1-- ;J
AGENCY: CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PROJECT: ASSESSMENT DISTRICf NO. 92-2 (AUTO PARK)
TO: CITY COUNCIL
ENGINEER'S "REPORT"
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 10204 OF THE
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE .
Pursuant to the provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", being Division 12 of
the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and in accordance with the Resolution
of Intention, being Resolution No. 17045, adopted by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
State of California, in connection with the proceedings for Assessment District No. 92-2 (J\uto
Park) (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District"), I, the appointed Superintendent of
Streets, submit herewith the "Report" for the Assessment District, consisting of six (6) parts as
follows:
PART I
Plans and specifications for the proposed improvements are filled herewith and made a part
hereof. Said plans and specifications are on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
PART II
An estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements, including incidental costs and expenses
in connection therewith, is as set forth on the lists thereof, attached hereto, and are on fIle in the
Office of the City Clerk.
PART III
A proposed assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of the proposed
improvements upon the several subdivisions of land within the Assessment District, in proportion
to the estimated benefits to be received by such subdivisions, from said improvements, is set
forth upon the assessment roll fIled herewith and made a part hereof.
PART IV
The proposed maximum annual assessment to be levied upon any subdivision or parcel of land
within the Assessment District to pay the costs incurred, and not otherwise reimbursed, resulting
from the administration and collection of assessmen~ and/or administration and registration. of
bonds and other funds.
Page 4
WPC F:'lHO~GlNEER\770.93
~, 1'''''/
-"")
I
PART V
A diagram showing the Assessment District, the boundaries and the dimensions of the
subdivisions of land within said Assessment District, as the same existed at the time of the
passage of the Resolution of Intention, is filed herewith and made a part hereof, and part of the
assessment
P ART VI
A. Description of the work for the proposed improvements;
B. Description of all rights-of-way, easementS and lands to be acquired, if necessary;
C. Environmental certification.
This Preliminary Report dated this J.)
day of A-; rL / . 1993.
~!t.~
Aohn P. Lippitt .:!::f4
Superintendent of Street
City of Chula Vista
State of California
This Final Report dated this .~ 7
day of h 0..'-1
. 1993.
J n P. Lippitt
uperintendent of Streets
City of Chula Vista
State of California
WPC F:\HO~GINEER\770.93
Page 5
II'~
..._..~..~_~_,__..__._..,._,.^_~'m_',^~____~__"..~."" ~- ---
---,.._--"">._,_.~,~_.,~._..,-_._-_..,,~---
ENGINEER'S REPORT
PART I
. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 92-2
The plans and specifications for this Assessment District are referenced herein and incorporated
as if attached and a part of this "Report". Said plans and specifications are on fIle in the Offices
of the City Clerk and the Superintendent of Streets.
Page 6
WPC F:\HOME'ENGINEER\770.93
............. "-,,
ENGINEER'S REPORT
PART II
COST ESTIMATE
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 92-2
CONSTRUCTION COST (See Pages 8a-8d) PREUMINARY CONFIRMED
Streets $602,254 $602,254
Water 117,054 117,054
Sewer 150,704 150,704
Storm Drain 170,586 170,586
Subtotal Construction Cost $1,040,598 $1,040,598
Contingency (10%) 104,060 104,060
Total Construction Cost $1,144,658 $1,144,658
INCIDENTAL EXPENSES
1. Right-of-Way Acquisition $738,230 $738,230
2. Outstanding Lien (Otay Valley Road 341,312 365,939
Assessment District 90-2)
3. SUlVeying 23,000 23,000
4. Landscape Architect 8,100 8,100
5. Civil Engineering 79,200 79,200
6. Soils Engineering 35,000 35,000
7. Construction Administration 20,000 20,000
8. Public Agency (Project Management & 20,000 20,000
Assessment Engineering)
9. Bond Counsel 17,428 17,428
10. Appraiser 6,000 6,000
11. Permit Fees
Otay Water District 9,000 9,000
City of Chula Vista 22,000 22,000
12. Printing & Advertising 1,000 1,000
13. Bond Printing, SelVicing & Registration 10,000 10,000
Total Incidentals $1,330,270 $1,354,897
Developer Contribution (770,021) (774,791)
Subtotal Construction Expenses $1,704,907 $1,724,764
Page 7
WPC F:\HOME'ENGINEER\770.93
\ \... 7
COST OF ISSUANCE PRELIMINARY CONFIRMED
Capitalized Interest (1.14%) $22,638 $22,637
Bond Discount (3%)(2%)* 59,570 39,714
Reserve Fund (10%) 198,568 198,568
Subtotal Cost of Issuance $280,776 $260,919
Balance to Assessment $1,985,683 $1,985,683
*Bond discount is calculated at 3% for the preliminary estimate and 2% for the confinned estimate.
WPC F:\HOME'CNGINEER\770.93
Page 8
~ \\--8
I. STREET IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM No. DESCRIFTION ESTIMATE
1 A. C. BERM $17,948
2 CURB MEDIAN 3,427
3 CURB AND GUTI'ER 54,240
4 SIDEWALK 38,251
5 PEDESTRIAN RAMP 3,780
6 CONCRETE PAVEMENT(8" ON 5") 32,886
7 A. C. PAVEMENT(3" ON 11") 268,951
8 A. C. PAVEMENT(3" ON 8") 17,646
9 A. C. OVERLAY 1,170
10 STREET SURVEY MONUMENTS 2,970
11 REWCATE STREET LIGHT 2,000
12 NEW STREET LIGHTS 22,050
13 CHAINLINK FENCE 6~ 1 ,034
14 M. B. GUARD RAIL 1,496
15 GUARD POST 420
16 BARR I CADE 760
17 SIGNS 2 , 160
18 STRIPPING 600
19 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM 95,000
20 CUTOFF WALL(G-22) 665
21 LANDSCAPING 34,800
-----------
TOTAL $602,254
, 1-- 1
?'d
WATER IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM No. DESCRIPTION ESTIMATE
1 WATERMAIN 10" (CUSS 150) $81,144
2 12" GATE VALVE 4,080
3 10" GATE VALVE 3,780
4 FIRE HYDRANT, 3 WAY 19,110
5 2" BLOWOFF ASSEMBLY 4,320
6 2" AIR RELEASE VALVE 4,620
---------
TOTAL $117,054
~ 11...0
<i'b
I I I. SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM No.
DESCRIPl'ION
8" PVC SEWER
4" PVC FORCEMAIN
CONCRETE ENCASEMENT
SEWER MANHOLE
CHAINLINK FENCE 6'
CUTOFF WALL (S-9)
PUMP STATION
TOTAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 *
ESTIMATE
$36,518
34,182
740
12,000
1 , 034
260
65,970
.v
$150,704
* PUMP. STATION COST WAS ALLOCATED USING BENEFIT FACTORS(SEE APPENDIX)
COST ALWCATION A.D. COST
PUMP EQUIPMENT & $143,000 27% $38,610
INSTALLATION
WET WELL & $57,000 48% $27,360
HOLDING TANKS ---------
TOTAL $65,970
, 1-- 11-
~c.
..=t~ STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM No.
DESCRIPTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
18" STORM DRAIN
CLEANOUT TYPE A
CURB INLET TYPE A
CURB INLET TYPE B
CURB INLET TYPE F
ENERGY DISSIPATOR
RI P RAP
TOTAL
ESTIMATE
$106,726
20,880
3,150
22,890
3,270
13,220
450
$170,586
......... 11..13
fd
ENGINEER'S REPORT
PART ill
ASSESSMENT ROLL
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 92-2
WHEREAS, on March 23, 1993, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, did, pursuant
to the provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", being Division 12 of the Streets and
Highways Code of the State of California, and as amended, adopt its Resolution of Intention No. 17045,
for the construction of certain public improvements, together with appurtenances and appurtenant work
in connection therewith, in a special assessment district known and designated as Assessment District No.
92-2 (Auto Park) (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District"); and,
WHEREAS, said Resolution of Intention, as required by law, did direct the appointed Superintendent of
Streets to make and file a "Report", consisting of the following:
a. Plans;
b. Specifications;
c. Cost estimate;
d. Assessment diagram showing the Assessment District and the subdivisions of land
contained therein;
e. A proposed assessment of the costs and expenses of the works of improvement levied
upon the parcels and lots of land within the boundaries of the Assessment District.
For particulars, reference is made to the Resolution of Intention as previously adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, pursuant to the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", does
hereby submit the following:
1. I, pursuant to the provisions of the law and the Resolution of Intention, have assessed the costs
and expenses of the works of improvement to be performed in the Assessment District upon the
parcels of land in the Assessment District benefitted thereby in direct proportion and relation to
the estimated benefits to be received by each of said parcels. For particulars as to the
identification of said parcels, reference is made to the Assessment Diagram, a copy of which is
attached hereto.
2. As required by law, a Diagram is hereto attached, showing the Assessment District, as well as the
boundaries and dimensions of the respective parcels and subdivisions of land within said District
as the same existed at the time of the passage of said Resolution of Intention, each of which
subdivisions of land or parcels or lots respectively have been given a separate number upon said
Diagram and in said Assessment Roll.
Page 9
WPC F:\HOMIN:NGINEER\770.93
"....1'/
~^_.._-~_.--_.~-~"..~-
3. The subdivisions and parcels of land the numbers therein as shown on the respective Assessment
Diagram as attached hereto correspond with the numbers as appearing on the Assessment Roll as
contained herein.
4. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that bonds will be issued in accordance with Division 10 of the
Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915"), to
represent all unpaid assessments, and the last installment of said bonds shall mature a maximum
of nineteen (19) years from the 2nd day of September next succeeding twelve (12) months from
their date. Said bonds shall bear interest at a rate not to exceed the current legal maximum rate
of 12% per annum.
5. By virtue of the authority contained in said "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", and by further
direction and order of the legislative body, I hereby make the following Assessment to cover the
costs and expenses of the works of improvement for the Assessment District based on the costs
and expenses as set forth below:
As Preliminarily
Approved As Confirmed
Estimated Cost of Construction $1,144,658 $1,144,648
Estimated Incidental Costs and Expenses 1,330,270 1,354,897
Estimated Developer Contribution (770,021) (774,791)
Estimated Cost of Issuance 280,776 260,919
Balance to Assessment 1,985,683 1,985,683
For particulars as to the individual assessments and their descriptions, reference is. made
to the Exhibit attached hereto.
6. The Method of Spread of Assessment is as set forth in Exhibit "A", which is attached
hereto, referenced and so incorporated.
Dated:
f1~7
cR7
, 1993
S erintendent of Streets
City of Chula Vista
State of California
Page 10
WPC F:\HOME'ENGINEER\770.93
I~ It..,r
I
:..~)
ASSESSMENTS
Assessment Legal Preliminary Confinned
Number APN Description Owner Assessment Assessment
1 (See below) Jimmie and Judy $1,985,683
Shinohara
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 OF SECfION 19, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANGE I WEST SAN
BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN TIfE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT OF TIfE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2, SAID
POINT BEARS SOUTIf 00025'58" WEST 567.97 FEET FROM THE
NORTHWEST CORNER TIfEREOF; TIfENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY
LINE SOUTIf 88057'04" EAST 254.70 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01002'56"
WEST 226.85 FEET; TIfENCE NORTH 77006'27" EAST 147.24 FEET;
THENCE NORTIf 81021 '50" EAST 304.94 FEET; THENCE NORTH 77040'47"
EAST 190.19 FEET; THENCE NORTIf 72026'47" EAST 174.50 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 66007'54" EAST 334.07 FEET; TIfENCE NORTH 00018'44" EAST
392.66 FEET; THENCE NORTIf 88057'04" WEST 1351.85 FEET; THENCE
ALONG TIfE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2 SOUTH 00025'58" WEST
492.97 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL TIfA T PROPERTY OWNED BY TIfE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA. .
Page 11
WPC F:\HOMIN:.NGINEER\770.93
JI... J (-
EXHffiIT "A"
METHOD AND FORMULA OF ASSESSMENT SPREAD
The law requires and the statutes provide that assessments, as levied pursuant to the provisions
of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", must be based on the benefit that the properties
receive from the works of improvement The statute does not specify the method or formula that
should be used in any special assessment district proceedings. The responsibility rests with the
Assessment Engineer, who is appointed for the pwpose of making an analysis of the facts and
determining the correct apportionment of the assessment obligation. .
The Assessment Engineer makes his recommendation at the public hearing on the Assessment
District, and the final authority and action rests with the City Council after hearing all testimony
and evidence presented at the public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City
Council must take the final action in determining whether or not the assessment spread has been
made in direct proportion to the benefits received.
First of all, it is necessary to identify the benefit that the public improvement will render to the
properties within the boundaries of the Assessment District. The overall benefit derived by the
properties within the proposed boundary of the assessment district is the construction of the
public improvement which will enable the property to develop. The public improvements have
been previously itemized within Part II, Estimate of Cost, and relate to the following:
1. Brandywine Avenue from Otay Valley Road to the south boundary of Assessment District
No. 92-2. Includes right-of-way acquisition.
2. Auto Park Drive within the boundary of Assessment District No. 92-2. Includes right-of-
way acquisition.
3. Otay Valley Road widening to provide an eastbound right turn lane to Brandywine
Avenue. Includes right-of-way acquisition.
4. Sewer lines and pump station within the boundaries of Assessment District No. 92-2.
5. Main infrastructure, water, sewer, and storm drains transversing and serving commercial
lots within the boundaries of the proposed district.
The properties within the Assessment District boundary are currently undeveloped. Because of
the interrelationship of the various public improvements needed for public development, the
assessment district funding and construction mechanism is an efficient way to fund and construct
the improvements.
The Assessment method and formula is based on tht, ultimate land use contained in the Land Use
Element of the City of Chula Vista General Plan and approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 92-05
for the Autopark development. Current Zoning is I-L-P (Limited Industrial) which allows auto
dealer activities under a conditional use permit.
WPC F:\HOMElENGINEER\770.93
Page 12
.-.= \\.. \1
"._-,~~_.,."~--,_.,...,-,..-----"----
.- ~._-"._~-,._~._-~~._---~". .
In further making the analysis, it is necessary that the property owners receive a special and
direct benefit distinguished from that of the general public. In this case, an in-depth analysis was
made, and several factors are being used in the final method and spread and assessment.
.........
SPREAD METHODOLOGY
Initially, the total assessment will be levied on the existing one parcel containing all the land
included in the District. A parcel map to subdivide the property into four parcels is currently
being processed. Mter approval and recordation of the map, the total assessment will be
reapportioned among the new parcels in direct proportion to the benefit received. The benefit
factor to be used in this determination are discussed below:
1. Street Improvements
The street improvements outlined in Part VI - Description of Work provide a safe corridor
for traffic to enter, exit, and travel within the proposed autopark development. . The
average daily trip (ADT) generation factor for auto dealer uses is 300 trips per acre.
2. Sewer Facilities
The sewer system includes the 8" gravity sewer line, pump station and 2-4" force mains.
The pump station including wet well and holding tanks has been sized to handle the
sewage generated by the autopark (17.9 acres) and the adjacent property to the east (19.3
acres). The sewer facilities to be acquired through Assessment District No. 92-2, has
been allocated as they serve and benefit the District (see Appendix A). The Chula Vista
Sewage generation factor for auto dealer use is 1,000 gallons/acre/day.
-
3. Water System
The water facilities funded in Assessment District 92-2 will provide service to all areas
within the autopark development. The average water usage rate for auto-dealer use is
2,000 gallons/acre/day.
4. Outstanding Existing Lien for Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road)
The incidental expenses (Part IT - Cost Estimate) includes a line item for the acquisition
of the underlying Otay Valley Road previously confirmed special assessment. This will
eliminate the overlapping of liens for the new district. This amount ($365,939) does not
include the penalty for early bond redemption.
-
wPC F:\HOME\ENGlNEER\770.93
11-18
Page 13
5. Incidentals
The cost of incidentals has been spread proportionately over the various improvements
in direct accordance with the benefits that the land within district boundary receives from
the work of improvements.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the assessments for the above-referenced Assessment District
have been spread in direct accordance with the benefits that each parcel receives from the works
of improvement.
DATED:
M o...y' ;< J
. 1993.
J HN P. LIPPITI
UPERINTENDENT OF STREETS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WPC F:\HOME'ENGINEER\770.93
Page 14
~ 'I--,'i
-
I, BEVERLY, A. AUTHELET, as CITY CLERK of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, do hereby certify that the foregoing Assessment, together with the Diagram
attached thereto, was filed in my office on the day of , 1993.
Ii"
/'
/
/'
I, BEVERLY, A. A UTHE LET, s CITY CLERK of the a/OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, do hereby certify ill t the foregoing Assessmen together with the Diagram
attached thereto, was approved and con ed by the City Counc. of said City on the _ day
of , 1993.
'\
\
CITY CLERK
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
/
.......".
CLERK
OF CHULA VISTA
OF CALIFORNIA
/
1/' \
I, JOHN P. LIPPITT, as SUPERINTE~ENT OF STREETS of thek OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, do hereby certify th,al the foregoing Assessment, tog~r with the Diagram
attached thereto, was filed in my office on the day of " , 1993.
/ ~,
II SUPERINTENDENT OF S~ETS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
-.
WPC F:\HOMBENGINEER\770.93
Page 15
ENGINEER'S REPORT
PART IV
ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT
A proposed maximum annual assessment shall be levied on each parcel of land and subdivision
of land within the Assessment District to pay for the necessary costs and expenses incurred and
not otherwise reimbursed, resulting from the administration and collection of assessments and/or
from the administration or registration of any bonds and reserve or other related funds. This
maximum assessment hereinafter set forth is authorized pursuant to the provisions of Section
10204 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. Said annual assessment shall
not exceed 5% of annual installment per individual assessment, and said sum shall only be
collected to the extent monies are not available for these services from the sale ~f bonds, or from
any other source.
WPC F:'HOME'ENGINEER\770.93
Page 16
t-L- L ~ \\ -Zo
~
ENGINEER'S REPORT
PART V
DIAGRAM OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
-
A full-size copy of the Assessment Diagram (18 inches x 26 inches) should be attached and
become a part of the Engineer's Report.
-
-.
. WPC F:\HOME\ENGINEER\770.93
Page 17
II,Z.,
ASSESSMENT~AGRAM
ACQUISITION .
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 00. 92-2
lAUTOPARK)
FOR THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COUNTY Of SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SHEET I OF I
-.
---,--
.
.
.
.
OTA\'
VALLE'
il
.-m-h-
___ .... ,,.... ...,...Ift.. ... ___.. YT I
:-ce:.aI,:-:::'; ~:-' ". tXISTJMG t CI" OTA\' V.&LLt"Y IIIOAO
. _TH LIOj( OF LOT 2
1",.Il!l'
.
. ;..
~ ~
'~ .
!..
i;
i
l-
I
I
.......
CD
..:..te .
....
~'It
.
.
~
%
t
\I ':
~ !
~ :
% ,
N I
--<"f!
....:
Ill,
.,
"',
~i
:
. } ~~::.~ _ _ L' ..'...
_~L--=_~-'I"o
,
- '.
~-
fiAAP...c SCAL.l
.". '.0'
2~4 70
"8ll'~1'04'..
.
.
.......... .. .- ....u....
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
. .
.. .
t. ,
~~. i-ft_...." "'.,....
~.. " -
~~. ...-------
",:~I _--.-
.. --- )O"~.t
:: . ." ,.. .... "e1"' 2\->;
~ ' . ',~.'TJ; 2"- E
. "
.
.
.
.
LEGAL DUCIII'TION
1
1
-
,
TMAT "MTtON or LOT I 0' KCTIIC)llI '" T()WWtMIP. SOUTH, ....ti( I WlST,
SAN ..N&~ _"'016_," TM[ CfTY OF (........ Y1STA. ((UlITT f1I ... DCGO,
STAll" CAl"(JIItMA, O(~D ., 'Of.. LOWS: ·
.~C; aT.. "0tN' 01 TIC. W(ST[ltLY.... 011 SAlOlOT I, S.&IC~ ..ltS
.:JUT'" 00" l'!l''''- W(5T ",,1 '[[1 ,~ TMr ""MW[ST CGlltt<<" TMfIIICW. TM[lC(
\.lav"v utO wrSTE""" La<< SClUTM .,,'~.t.ST Z&4 ?ornl, 1'Ml'NCt IOUnt
oP'O?,''''.WU1 n6'~'nT.l"'NCt NOItn4 """0I'2,"rI.ST~'l.II'f('; 'Mr'NCf
~Ttol .. 7t'~(A5" 30" ,.. ,"UT. '....Na lIIO'I"'" U--.O .'''laST fI6.. 'UT. TM[Ntt
fIClIItT" .,,. "'$1'~['S' In $0 'UT. TM[N(( NOIltTM aro" ~."("ST S~ 0' 'ElT. TMl'NCt
....TH ~.'.."t.5T WZ M rn'. ",..WC( .,.TM W.7'04""", ," e!~[r". '''-NeE
A&.CIIlIfG 'M( -rST[.... Y Lei( OF ~ LOT , IOU'" 00""....Wl'5T "I.' 'I(T 10 TM(
....' 0/1 .~"G
~
.....
I. ,..10. _ _ . _ cn-. ~ '" _ an., _- WIn_ TMI_
eAT OF _ ...~ . ...,
LI G( ND
~a~ ~~~. 'lfST.
IT'Tl OF t.aL"OM\IIA
I II(C_D" TMI ",Olea '" _ __fE_.' ", ..lIflTl ", T" CITY ", CMI.L_
VISTA '''S _DA'f or ...,
____ ....11<"..........
o MIt....' -.
~TIIllJ(NT OF ST~'S
CITy 01 (.u." VlST A
,TaTt 01 (aLWOW",A
I. All .SSfSSIlI[T .as LlvllO IT 'HI ('''' fJI (:MU\.A VIITA ON ,.. LOTI. ""crs "'0
.........ns 0/1 LA"'''''''' OW'MS ASSlSSN(NT ...~&.. $AIO AS.S~NT .'S LlvCO ON
1M( _OIY OJ ....s. salO AS$(S$IIll(NT OI&GIIt... aND 1M( .
a..5SWIIIT 1t000L W(III(: IIIcOltllfD .. THI: ..'tCl Of' ,.. "",IItWifTrworN' f1I STItltT'
fII SAID Cl'Y ON TME' _oaf 0/1 ...., IIfrrJllMCIISMaDl '0
,.. 'S$l.s...n.o..L ttlCClllD(O" ,.- fIIFa Of' TIC -..r....n.....T OF STfIItT$ """
TtC' II.a.C T MIOUNf OF' l.eM assnlMl"T LlVIftI AGMfST IAtM MII"L OF LAIC) SMOWtril
_ '''$ 'S.SSMOI' DlAGIt...
elT., CLI[ItI(
OTT 01 tMULA YI,"a
.,..TI Of t.lLW OMftA
. '''10 TIllS _ DAT 01' ,"J, aT TIC""'" Of' -
o'CLOCK _ .. .. IIOC* f11 ..a"" f'I A'.""'" aND
'."UNlITT f'A(ILtTtfS IN 1M( f11F'(Z 01 ,.. COUll'''' ItlcCltD(a 011 TN[ COUNTY Of
Utrri OIl'c.c. S'ATE 0' CAL'''OfttrriIA
fDt., Y ",C.OItDER
CX)UNT't' or 5oa.. DIEGO
'TAT( Of' eAL"a.U.
,~
--
,\- ~2...
\Id
ENGINEER'S REPORT
PART VI
~"
DESCRIPTION OF WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT
The proposed works of improvement are generally described as follows:
1. Brandywine Avenue: (Proposed right-of-way to vary from 56 feet to 80 feet) from Otay
Valley Road to the south boundary of Assessment District ~o. 92-2; including but not
limited to asphalt, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, medians, water, sewer, storm drain,
fencing, signing and striping, landscaping. Right-of-way acquisition is also included.
2. Auto Park Drive: (Proposed right-of-way 40 feet) within the boundaries of Assessment
District No. 92-2 including but not limited to asphalt, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights,
medians, water, sewer, storm drain, fencing, signing and striping, landscaping. Right-of-
way acquisition is also included.
3. Otay Valley Road: Widening to provide an eastbound right turn lane to Brandywine
A venue, including, but not limited to asphalt, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street light,
landscaping, signing and striping, fencing. Right-of-way acquisition is also included.
4.
Sewer line and pump station: Along the south boundary of Assessment District No. 92-2.
The gravity sewer line is 8 inches in diameter with a total length of approximately 1,100
feet. The pump station is required to pump sewer flows through 2-4" force mains to the
existing sewer line in Otay Valley Road.
-"
5. Main infrastructure water, sewer and storm drain transversing and serving commercial lots
within the boundary of the proposed district
-
WPC F:'HOME\ENGINEER\770.93
Page 18
II ..... ~,
ENGINEER'S REPORT
.r-
DESCRIPTION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY TO BE ACQUIRED
RIGHT -OF- WAY CERTIFICATE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
The undersigned hereby CERTIFIES UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that the following is all true and
correct
At all times herein mentioned. the undersigned was. and now is. the duly appointed SUPERINTENDENT
OF STREETS of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA.
That there have now been instituted proceedings under the provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act
of 1913". being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. for the
construction of certain public improvements in a special assessment district known and designated as
ASSESSMENT DISTRICf NO. 92-2 (AUTO PARK) (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment
District").
THE UNDERSIGNED STATES AND CERTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
(CHECK ONE)
--
[] a.
That all easements. rights-of-way. or land necessary for the accomplishment of the works
of improvement for the above referenced Assessment District have been obtained and are
in the possession of the City.
[ x ] b.
That all easements. rights-of-way or land necessary for the accomplishment of the works
of improvement for the above referenced Assessment District have been obtained and are
in the possession of the City. EXCEPT FOR THOSE DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"
attached hereto. showing legal description and maps of rights-of-way and easements not
yet obtained at this time.
It is further acknowledged that works of improvement as proposed to be constructed within said
Assessment District must be constructed within public rights-of-way. land. or easements as owned by said
City at the time of the construction of the works of improvement, and the undersigned hereby further
certifies that all rights-of-way necessary for the works of improvement will be obtained and in the
possession of the City prior to the commencement of any construction.
EXECUTED this ).. 7 day of M~'f
. 1993, at Chula Vista, California.
ERINTENDENT F STREETS
ITY OF CHULA VISTA
ST ATE IF CALIFORNIA
WPC F:\HOME'ENGINEER\770.93 Page 19
~ \\'2J.I
9
-
..
'.M' ..~).
.
..
~
c
. .
I-
-
I CD
..-_.u~ %
I x
kI
ci
w
a::
. ::>
0
u
c:(
W
!Xl
0
c:i ....
e en
0 ....
a:: z
l&.I
ri ~
>- w
w a:: en
en C3 C[
~ w
e :::l z
Z :::l .........
>- ~
w 0 ~
...I .... !Xl
...I Z I
~ W t- ~
~ u 0
Z I
0 V) a:: t-
;=. W l- I
c Q en en <:>
~ en 0
0 Z C[ a::
Q. W I
11:": 2 ~O I
"
wz ;:) , . ','
>- ~w Q.~ I ' ,
;! z /t
1012 101 I
CIIW 11:2
0 .1 ~ 101101
!!?.., .0
wc
0...
101
",
C~
zz
-III
Ca
~..,
I (It.
. C
~..,
;!
f2..;
...I
"'C
Ou
Zeit
--
" -lS
/"td
APPENDIX A
CALCULATION FOR SEWER FACILITIES
The sewer system proposed to be constructed in conjunction with the Autopark development
consists of an 8" gravity sewer line, pump station, and appurtenant structures and 2-4" force
mains. The pump station including the wet well and holding tank has been sized to handle the
sewage generated by the Autopark (17.9 acres) and the adjacent property to the east (19.3 acres)
APN 644-040-40. The following table provides a summary showing the Autopark percent share
in the sewer facilities based on total sewage generation from each property.
SEW AGE GENERATION
(Gallons/Day)
Eastern Property
Autopark APN 644-040-40
Facility (17.9 acres) (19.3 acres) Autopark Share
8" gravity line(l) 100%
2-4" force mains(l) 100%
Pump equipment 17,900(2) 48,250(3) 27%
and installation
Wet well and 17,900(2) 19,300(2) 48%
holding tanks
(l%ese are minimum standards required by the City. 100% is allocated to the Autopark.
(2)Assumes auto dealer land use (1,000 gallons/acre/day)
(3) Assumes industrial land use (2,500 gallons/acre/day).
WPC F:\HOME'CNGINEER\770.93
Page 20
~ 1\...2J.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~~
Meeting Date 06/08/93
ITEM TITLE:
Report Regarding the Consideration of a New Yard Waste Recycling Service
Proposal Submitted by Laidlaw Waste Systems
SUBMITTED BY: Conservation Coordinator Aa>
REVIEWED BY: City ManagerJ4 I%O~J
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No-XJ
At the January 26th meeting, the Council rejected a Laidlaw proposal for yard waste recycling in
Chula Vista and directed staff to meet with Laidlaw to finalize the "meet and confer" process, with
the direction that the City should solicit proposals from the recycling industry. As required by the
franchise with Laidlaw, City staff needed to meet and confer with Laidlaw about our intention to go
to bid. Laidlaw contends that we have a duty to negotiate in good faith to give the franchise to
Laidlaw; the City Attorney views this provision as a mere noticing requirement. Staff and the City
Attorney met with Laidlaw on March 17th, at which time Laidlaw indicated they could offer yard
waste recycling services at a price substantially lower than that which they had previously rep-
resented to Council. Since much of the January 26 Council discussion was based on the proposed
prices and cost, it was the advice of the City Attorney that the Council be given the opportunity
to reconsider their previous decision based on the new pricing proposals from Laidlaw before
terminating the "meet and confer" process.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council direct staff to accept Laidlaw's proposal in concept and
direct staff to negotiate with Laidlaw to develop and implement a yard waste recycling program at
the preferred price as described in Proposal B contained in this report.
Alternative Action for the Council:
1. Direct staff to finalize the meet and confer process with Laidlaw Waste Systems by rejecting the
proposal and direct staff to solicit requests for proposals for yard waste collection, according to the
original direction of Council.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Resource Conservation Commission
discussed this report at their May 24th meeting and unanimously supported a motion to recommend
that Council approve staff's recommendation. Specifically, the RCC unanimously recommended that
Council adopt Proposal B contained in this report. Minutes of the meeting will be forwarded to
Council.
DISCUSSION
As directed by City Council at the January 26, 1993 Council meeting, staff has moved to finalize
the "meet and confer" process with Laidlaw Waste Systems with regard to the City's intent to go to
competitive bid for a yard waste recycling program. Minutes from this meeting are attached
1
J.J. - I
(Attachment A). This action was to satisfy the "meet and confer" conditions in the refuse and
curbside recycling franchise with Laidlaw (Ordinance 2427) required to be completed prior to going
to bid for franchising additional recycling programs. Due to scheduling conflicts and the necessary
time needed for the "meet and confer" process, staff has been unable to bring the issue forward until
this date. However, staff believes that the process resulted in movement toward a significantly
different and better proposal than was previously offered by Laidlaw.
Original proposal and follow-up
Council may recall that concerns with Laidlaw's original yard waste proposal (submitted to Council
at the January 26 meeting) centered on two principal points: 1) that the $2.00 "universal" rate charge
was too high and, 2) that the "pay as you go" sticker rate, at $1.00 to $1.25 per sticker and one can
allowed per sticker, could potentially cost residents $6 per month for one can set out per week and
$12 per month for two cans set out per week. The "universal" rate charge would be a flat fee
charged to all residents, regardless of the use of the collection services; the "pay as you go" option
would be a fee based on use, most likely affixed through the purchase of stickers.
On March 17th, the Conservation Coordinator and City Attorney met with Laidlaw staff to finalize
the "meet and confer" process. At that meeting Laidlaw indicated they could offer yard waste
recycling services at a price substantially lower than that which they previously represented to
Council. It was the City Attorney's advice that, in light of the fact that there is no existing profitable
market for recycled yard waste, and since Council made their initial decision in the first instance to
go to bid for yard waste recycling on the basis of the cost figure originally offered by Laidlaw, it
would be prudent to allow the Council the opportunity to reconsider the prior decision based on the
new price. Laidlaw was asked to provide the proposal in writing.
New proposal
Having received the (new) written proposal, staff is now submitting it to Council. Staff believes that
it is a good proposal offering a fair rate of charge and two new program proposals that are lower in
price than their initial proposal. Additionally, the new proposal clarifies some Council concerns
regarding the sticker price for families that would use the service regularly on a "pay as you go
basis. "
The new proposal is different from the original proposal in several ways. It brings four separate
"proposal options" forward for Council consideration: A) a combined "pay as you go" and "universal
rate charge" that presents a new and unique proposal option that would significantly reduce the
proposed universal rate charge from $2.00 to $1.00, and allow residents the option to use the
collection services as little or as frequent as necessary for a nominal $.30 fee per pick-up; B) a
revised "pay as you go" option that proposes a $1.00 per sticker fee and allows residents to place
up to four cans out for collection on one sticker instead of limiting the number of cans per sticker
to one; C) another new modified "pay as you go" option that would allow heavy generators of yard
waste to utilize a cart on wheels for $3.00 per month (including the cart rental and weekly
collection), while allowing residents who generate little yard waste the option to buy stickers for
$1.00 per collection (without paying the monthly fee); those residents who do not generate yard
waste would not need to pay into the system at all; and, D) a "universal rate charge," remaining at
$2.00 to be paid by all residents, regardless of need for service.
2
/,}.'.2
Laidlaw's complete revised proposal is attached (Attachment B). In their proposal, Laidlaw has
offered four separate proposal options ("Proposals A-D"), summarized as follows:
. Proposal A: This proposal would reduce the originally proposed "universal" fee from $2.00 to
$1.00 and supplement it with a "pay as you go" fee proposal of $.30 per sticker (i.e., per pick-up),
with no limit on the number of cans per pickup (i.e., per weekly set-out). However, staff would
recommend a limit of six cans per pick-up in order to maintain efficiency in collection. To clarify,
this proposal will require all residents to pay a set fee at $1.00 per month, regardless of usage, plus
a per sticker charge for service usage (i.e., per pick-up) at $.30 per sticker. That is, a resident who
uses the system once per month would pay $1.30 per month; a resident who uses the system twice
per month would pay $1.60 per month, etc. Alternatively, Laidlaw could adjust the proposed fee
to allow for a lower monthly charge (i.e., $.75 per month) with a correspondingly higher sticker
price (i. e., $.40 per sticker).
This combined "pay as you go" proposal is a new and innovative idea that, if adopted, would
potentially alleviate Council's concerns over requiring all residents to pay a universal rate charge of
$2.00, but would also address Council's concern that residents who generate a substantial amount
of yard waste might be charged a relatively high rate under the "pay as you go" option. Additionally,
it would allow residents to set out up to six cans per sticker (i.e., pick-up), unlike Laidlaw's original
proposal that would have limited the set-out to one can per sticker.
. Proposal B: Laidlaw's new rate on the exclusively "pay as you go" fee proposal remains at $1.00
per sticker (it had been originally proposed at $1. to $1.25 per sticker), however, most importantly,
they agree to allow unlimited set-outs on the $1.00 sticker charge provided that a means can be
determined to prevent neighbors from "pooling" their yard waste for collection. Staff believes that
the only way to prevent this would be to limit the number of set-outs per pick-up. Laidlaw desires
to limit pick-up to four cans per collection, at least for the first year of operation due to the
uncertainties of the number of residents who will participate in the sticker program. Although the
per sticker fee for the "pay as you go" option remains basically the same as Laidlaw's original
proposal, this new proposal addresses Council's concern that residents be allowed to place more than
one can out per sticker. Additionally, the highest possible charge under the new proposal is $4 and
with residents allowed to place up to four cans out per sticker, it is highly unlikely that any residents
would need to pay more than $2 per month under the new proposal.
. Proposal C: This is a modified proposal which also combines the "pay as you go" option with the
universal rate option. Under this proposal, any resident who desires to participate weekly in the yard
waste recycling system would be supplied a 60-gallon container on wheels for a monthly fee of $3.00
per month. This $3.00 fee would allow residents to place yard waste in the Laidlaw container at the
curb once per week, with no additional costs for the service. However, under this proposal,
residents who do not need weekly collection could, as an alternative purchase stickers at the $1.00
per sticker rate and use their own containers for yard waste collection. Residents who participate
in the system through purchasing stickers would not be charged the $3.00 per month rate.
Although the $3.00 fee is on the high end of charges, it does include the rental of a cart on wheels.
Oceanside has adopted a program that requires residents to use a cart on wheels (at $2.75 per month
for all residents) and EI Cajon is considering it (at a proposed $3.82 per month for all residents).
3
/,J. -;J
Chula Vista residents that generate a high percentage of yard waste would benefit from this option
because of the convenience of the cart. Moreover, those residents who generate little or no yard
waste would also benefit from this option, as they would be able to access the collection service for
a nominal fee ($1.00) per pick-up, as necessary. And, those residents who do not generate yard
waste would not have to pay for unused services.
. Proposal D: Laidlaw continues to offer their original Universal Rate Charge of $2.00 per
residence.
Conclusion
In summary, staff felt that it was important to provide Council the opportunity to review Laidlaw's
new proposal. It is staff's opinion that all four of Laidlaw's proposal options are viable, but would
recommend Proposal B as particularly worthy of Council's consideration. Staff feels that Council's
original concern with the "pay as you go" option has been addressed through Laidlaw's new
proposal. The average home owner sets-out approximately 68 gallons of refuse each week, including
yard waste (a "regular" size trash can is 30 gallons). Thus, with a weekly set-out allowance of four
cans, even those residents that have a significant amount of yard waste should be able to limit their
use of the yard waste collection services to twice a month, for a monthly fee of $2.00.
Staff has also included a rate survey conducted for all cities, as Attachment C. Rates around the
County range from $12.29 to $16.79 for refuse, yard waste and recycling services combined. The
average rate for yard waste in cities that have established programs is $1.90 per month; most cities
that have yard waste collection established their rates on a pilot basis and are expected to raise these
rates this summer. It should also be noted that some cities subsidize their residential refuse rate with
their commercial refuse rate, thus artificially lowering actual refuse costs for residents. Staff would
also like to note that Chula Vista's recycling fee is the lowest in the County.
Most importantly, in those cities with yard waste programs, all residents are charged the yard waste
collection fee, regardless of usage. Thus, in these programs, residents who have little or no yard
waste are subsidizing the program for those who generate large amounts of yard waste. Universal
rate charges can be kept lower than "pay as you go" because all residents are charged and thus costs
are spread between all residents, again, even though not all residents use the program. Under the
"pay as you go" proposal, it has been assumed that 50 percent of the residents will use and pay for
the system, so the rate mayor may not be higher, depending on individual usage.
The "universal" rate fee is appropriate for the collection of recyclables, as there are markets for these
materials (thus bringing in monies to off-set program costs) and virtually all residents at least
generate some recyclables. However, with yard waste there is little or no current market (thus the
charges must cover virtually all collection costs) and, many residents generate little or no yard waste.
By charging all residents for collection, source reduction through composting and mulching is
discouraged instead of being encouraged. In Chula Vista, we have a relatively high percentage of
seniors, who generate little or no yard waste and compo sting is very popular with many residents.
Currently, Chula Vista's combined refuse and recycling rate is $12.28, thus if residents utilize the
proposed "pay as you go" yard waste service twice per month, the combined services would cost
$14.48.
4
/-2-1../
Should Council not accept staff's recommended course of action and instead choose the
alternative action, staff will release the request for proposals for yard waste collection within two
weeks. The Request for Proposals has been drafted and can be reviewed by Council in the City
Manager's office. As the RFP has not been released, it is not yet a public document, and so should
be treated with confidentiality. The RFP process should take approximately two to three months,
with a pilot program to then begin sometime in early fall. Staff has both verbally and in writing
informed the County of the current status of our yard waste program implementation plans and will
apprise the County of this action in writing.
FISCAL IMPACT: Costs associated with the proposed yard waste recycling program will be
individually determined and brought to Council prior to moving forward with program
implementation. These costs are expected to be borne by the user.
5 /.2..5'
Attachment A
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 6
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submined.
ACTION ITEMS
11. REPORT PROPOSFD COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL MULTI-FAMILY AND YARDWASTE
RECYCUNG PROGRAMS IN 1HE CITY - State law (AB 939) requires all cities and counties to divert 25%
of the "waste stream" from landfills by January, 1995 and 50% by the year 2000. The County's mandatory
recycling ordinance is more restrictive and prohibits certain designated recyclables from being disposed at
County owned landfills under a phased implementation timeline (March 1992 through July 1993). The City
has already partially complied with these laws and ordinances. Staff believes that the City needs to move
toward compliance with the State and County laws regarding recycling, and seeks Council's conceptual
approval to institute a yard waste recycling program, and a commercial and multi-family recycling program
development. Staff recommends Council accept the report. (Administration)
Councilman Fox questioned why Laidlaw could not handle a pricing variation for the commercial collection
when they were able to handle the variation in the yard waste collection.
Athena Bradley, Conservation Coordinator, responded that the stickers would be a set price for yard waste
which would be utilized by the owner as per their need. Commercial went beyond the billing and included
the services staff felt the businesses would need regarding frequency of pick-up, design and space, etc. There
were currently haulers in the City that were doing commercial hauling for free or for a very low rate. She
felt that Laidlaw or any single hauler could haul from all commercial establishments in the City but was
uncertain that it would be cost effective. Single family dwellings could have a landscape service that would
serve the same purpose. For a City-wide program of yard waste it was a maner of economies of scale. Yard
waste had no marketability currently whereas commercial recyclables did.
Councilman Rindone felt the structure of the bid was an effort to force the single family resident to seek a
different alternative than to utilize the prescribed the franchise hauler or haul it yourself. He expressed
concern that it would add more vehicles to the streets. He could not agree with the staff conclusion and
would not support the highest rate in San Diego County. He then reviewed the options listed in the staff
report and felt competition was the City's best option. He also felt there should be further discussion on
geographically breaking up the City into quadrants for competition for the commercial and industrial
recyclables.
Councilman Moore questioned what the maximum number of containers allowed on one sticker.
Ms. Bradley responded that it had not been discussed but believed that it would be one sticker for all the
containers utilized.
Alan Purves, 180 Gtay Lakes Road, Chula Vista, CA, representing Laidlaw, informed Council that for trash
collection it was unlimited service. The original proposal to the City was approximately eight months old
and Laidlaw had not received any response or feedback in that time frame. The original proposal was a pay
as you use system for yard waste and one sticker would apply tu one container or one measured bundle of
tree limbs.
Councilman Moore felt that a sticker should be more than one container and less than unlimited. He also
felt there should be a back-up system if the City was divided up in quadrants to ensure that all areas of the
City were being serviced.
J~"'(,
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 7
Councilman Fox questioned how the number of quadrants was decided and the economic feasibility of
getting four haulers that could make a profit.
Ms. Bradley responded that four would allow for economies of scale to entice a hauler to collect from the
City. She felt that through her recommendation of a request for an RFQ it could be determined whether
there was interest in the proposal to collect recyclables from multi-family dwellings. In terms of whether
a hauler would not be able to fulfill their obligation, that risk would be with any project. Through the RFP
staff would look at the financial stability of a company and past performance.
Mr. Purvis stated they had raised objections to the staff report and recommendations. All of the materials
included in the staff report were already in an exclusive franchise granted to Laidlaw and they did not
believe the Council had any ability to put the services out to bid. Staff had been directed to obtain
information on the alternate recycling measures being imposed by the state and county and to meet and
confer with Laidlaw. They felt staff had not met that requirement. Their yard waste proposal had been
submitted on 12/10/91 and other than clarifying questions shortly after the submittal there had been no
further conference and nothing that was close to meeting the definitions of negotiations with Laidlaw which
was a prerequirement before putting the services out to bid. Another objection they had was that if Council
did proceed, Laidlaw would be in the position of competing with other haulers while their proposal was laid
out in the staff report including their prices. They did not feel that would foster free and open competition
as it was a disadvantage to Laidlaw.
Councilwoman Horton questioned whether the proposal included a universal rate charge.
Mr. Purvis stated they had responded to what they felt was staff direction which was the pay as you go
system. They had informed staff that they had looked at the option of providing a monthly fee where
everyone paid.
Mayor Nader requested a staff response to Mr. Purvis' allegation that there had not been an adequate meet
and confer prior to the meeting.
City Attorney Boogaard responded that Section 21 (I) of the franchise gave the Council the right to go out
for competitive bidding on recycling after the City had met and conferred with the grantee with regard to
their intent to do so. Part of what was being done at the meeting was to see if the Council felt they wanted
to go out for competitive bid. Part of the recommendation was that the City had met and conferred to the
extent of getting the proposal. If the Council felt they wanted to go out to bid now they would have to
direct the staff by saying they wanted to go out to bid and meet and confer with Laidlaw, finishing up the
process staff had started, regarding the intent of the City to go out to bid.
Mayor Nader questioned why, if the City allowed individual business owners to make their own
arrangements with individual haulers, was a permitting system required. He also questioned why a system,
with or without, permits result in an increase in traffic on City streets.
Ms. Bradley responded that a permit would allow the City to charge a permit application fee that would
potentially help to cover staff costs for monitoring the program or additional materials for commercial
recycling or a franchise fee. Through the permit process, staff could track the businesses that were being
served in order to get tonnages from the haulers and whether all the businesses required to recycle were in
compliance. Additionally, staff could assess the impact if there were too many haulers servicing a particular
area.
Mr. Purvis stated a permitting system would allow more haulers, as each business would be making their
own arrangements, so the efficiency of one hauler would be lost. Before the advent of AB939 and recycling
1~-7
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 8
Laidlaw was already doing it for the City and had proven they could pick up all the material generated in
the City.
Ms. Bradley stated that Laidlaw could potentially service the City but whether that would be the best service
for businesses was her concern. She did not feel it would be as cost effective for the businesses if the City
awarded it to any single hauler.
Councilwoman Horton felt the City should go out to competitive bids and also looking at a universal rate
charge.
Councilman Rindone suggested that the City go out to bid two ways: 1) single hauler with an exclusive
franchise for all the City but would also provide the option for self-hauling, compo sting, etc.; 2) a universal
rate charge that would not allow the tlexabilities but a greatly reduced charge to all residents. Council
would then have solid information on which to base their judgements.
Mayor Nader stated he wanted to make clear that included in the RFP would be a specification for an
appropriate rate differential for low-income.
Councilman Fox stated Council also wanted assurance that the City would not be fined by the County.
Mayor Nader stated he hoped, on a universal charge, there would be some way of voiding the charge to low-
income seniors altogether. He requested that a letter be obtained from the County regarding the charging
of penalties.
Councilman Moore stated he could not support a City-wide rate charge and expressed concern regarding the
sticker process.
City Attorney Boogaard requested that the maker of a motion incorporate into it the proposal to finish up
the duty under the franchise agreement, which in Section I states the City had to meet and confer with
Laidlaw with regards to their intent to do so. The motion should be structured around yard waste which
was staff recommendation on page 11-1. The City would go out to bid and the concept of exclusivity would
be Council's intent City-wide but after going out to bid.
Mayor Nader stated that was consistent with his understanding of current Council direction but he did not
feel the City should be bound 100% by low bid.
City Attorney Boogaard recommended that it be a negotiated bid. The City would solicit bids and the City
would have the right to negotiate with the various bidders after that.
Councilman Rindone stated Council had not discussed the viable life of the franchise. He was not
comfortable with five years with an option for an additional five years.
Mayor Nader stated the RFP could request a response on a franchise of a five to ten year period and the
length of the franchise would be one of the factors staff and Council would take into account in evaluating
the responses. He felt a factor to consider when evaluating responses would be the extent of traffic and
expected wear and tear on the City. The RFP should be designed to evaluate those responses.
City Attorney Boogaard recommended Council consider: 1) On the condition the county will. in writing.
waive the fines for not recycling yard waste on or after 4/1/93. the City Council will adopt a policy that the
recyclable known as yard waste. which is tendered at curb side throughout the City should be franchised
to a single hauler selected by an RFP process subject to subsequent negotiation as to terms and conditions.
/;l-'Y
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 9
2) As a result of adopting the policy, Council direct staff to meet and confer with Laidlaw with regard to its
intent to go to bid, thereby sat:i:>fying the condition of the franchise. 3) Indicate an interest in receiving
RFP's regarding the following terms and conditions: a) a term of five years, or such other period that
minimizes the rates charged to either the City or its residents and include such options as the proposer
wishes to have the City consider; b) rates, both on a universal rate basis and a pay as you use basis; and
c) consider such discounts as may be made available to low income seniors. 4) Direct staff to solicit such
RFP's and if the County does not otherwise submit in writing to waive the fines for failing to recycle yard
waste, report back to the Council as soon as possible but not later than two weeks.
MS (Nader/Rindone) to approve the recommendation presented by City Attorney Boogaard.
Ms. Bradley questioned whether the alternative fees option that allowed back yard composting and the other
options proposed would be included in the RFP.
Mayor Nader stated that would be allowed under one of the options in the RFP but not under the second~
He felt the sticker system proposed by staff would be included in Option 1. He questioned whether the bid
would allow consideration of any and all other items pertinent to the bid.
City Attorney Boogaard responded that was correct.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
Mayor Nader requested that a copy of the RFP be given to Council in their information packets.
Councilman Moore questioned whether it was staffs intent to clarify in the RFP what a sticker covered, i.e.
single container or a CAP.
Ms. Bradley responded that Councilman Moore was correct.
Councilman Rindone questioned what guarantee there was that there would be weekly pick-ups.
Ms. Bradley responded she did not foresee a problem as the haulers were in the business to offer a service.
If a problem did arise staff would return to Council with a possible recommendation of a single hauler. She
stated the RCC had expressed concern over the number of permits that would be issued. There were
currently a number of haulers servicing the City and they had not negatively impacted the City.
MS (Nader/Moore) to accept staff recommendation regarding commercial recycling.
Councilman Rindone questioned what the staff recommendation would be to curb the unlimited number of
potential haulers. He also questioned how the City would ensure that all areas of the City would receive
service.
Ms. Bradley responded that a range of limitations could be placed on the permits, i.e. ten to fifteen small
haulers and five large haulers. The City could build into the permit process, if there was a charge for the
permits, a reduced fee for haulers that would collect from the smaller establishments or areas of the City
that did not have as much commercial development. She did not perceive a problem.
AMENDMENf TO MOTION: (RindonelFox) to set a CAP of twenty on the number of permits issued.
Mayor Nader expressed concern that a CAP would close competition. It was his inclination to go with the
staff recommendation and if it did not work it could be brought back to Council for review.
/.2-'7
Minu~es
January 26, 1993
Page 10
Ms. Bradley responded that a CAP did place a limit on some of the competition as staff did not know
everyone in the business. The City could start with twenty haulers and request at a later date an increase
in permits if there were other haulers that wished to serve the City.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: approved 4-1 with Nader opposed.
Mayor Nader stated he had not seen the proposed commercial rates by Laidlaw included in the report.
Ms. Bradley responded that they had not been included in the summary.
Mayor Nader questioned whether there was a way the rate information could be provided confidentially.
He felt that if it developed that the system the Council was about to vote for was costing more than on the
average of what Laidlaw proposed, Council may want to reconsider.
City Attorney Boogaard stated if the Council was advised through a confidential memo there would be a
serious question as to whether the confidential memo constituted a public record of the City.
Mayor Nader questioned whether staff could take it upon themselves to monitor the rates being charged for
commercial hauling if the system was implemented and to advise the Council, if it would appear to be
prudent to reconsider the issue.
City Attorney Boogaard stated he would have to research the City's ability to cancel prior to five years if a
recyclable permit was issued. There was a state law incorporated into the Waste Management Act which
required five year notice of cancellation of solid waste handling enterprises. There was a risk that if the City
wanted to extricate from the permit system it could take time. He would research the issue and report back
to Council.
Councilman Rindone felt it advisable, if the motion passed, that staff return and address annual permits and
fee structure.
Mayor N der stated he would' orporate Councilman Rindo
cture into the motion s a friendly amendment.
/~'/~
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 11
Mayor Nader questioned whether the bidding process could contain two different alternatives: 1) a sub-
quadrant of the City; and 2) City-wide. He did not feel the sub-areas would be competitive as they were not
competing with three other haulers because they had a monopoly within their sub-area of the City.
AMENDMENf TO MOTION: (Nader/Moore) the process be bid alternatively: 1) the staff recommendation;
and 2) City-wide. The bids are to be brought back to Council for evaluation.
Councilman Rindone stated he did not accept the staff recommendation of rejecting Laidlaw as he felt it
should be accepted. He questioned staffs reasoning for the rejection.
Ms. Bradley responded there were two issues: 1) staff was working to meet with Council's direction to go
out to bid for additional recycling programs; and 2) staff had concern with the issues of Laidlaw's service
in the way of promotional material development and expertise in program design. If Council directed staff
to negotiate with Laidlaw on those issues staff was willing to do that.
SUBS1Tl1ITE MOTION: (Rindone/Nader) direct staff to negotiate on the area of all multi-family service
areas to resolve the outstanding issues. If during negotiations staff feels it is not clarified, they are to bring
the issue back to Council.
Councilman Rindone stated the motion was made to negotiate with Laidlaw regarding the servicing of all
the multi-family units City-wide and clarify the areas of concern, which had served as the basis of staffs
rejection of the proposal. If, after negotiating those concerns staff was unsatisfied, staff could bring back
a recommendation to reconsider.
Mayor Nader felt staff had made a good effort to implement previous Council direction to encourage
competition and made a recommendation consistent with the previous policy direction. There was a wide
range in the Laidlaw proposal and the City did not know what the charge would be. It was his intent that
Laidlaw be able to bid under the previous motion. He felt the real issue was assurance that the City receive
the best deal for the rate payers.
VOTE ON SUBSTITIITE MOTION: approved 4-1 with Nader opposed.
MSUC (RindoneIHorton) to direct staff to meet with Laidlaw immediately and report back to Council no
later than three weeks.
12. REPORT REQUEST FOR AN All.-WAY STOP AT TIIE INTERSECTION OF EAST
NAPLES STREET AND FOXBORO AVENUE - Staff received a request from Mrs. Norma Erhardt of 657 East
Naples Street requesting the installation of an all-way stop at the intersection of East Naples Street and
Foxboro Avenue. Staff recommends Council concur with previous Safety Commission recommendations and
deny the request. (Director of Public Works)
Norma Erhardt, 657 E. Naples, Chula Vista, CA, was not present when called to the podium.
MS (MooreIHorton) to accept the staff report.
Mayor Nader questioned whether any comments had been received from the school district.
Cliff Swanson, City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director, responded there had bee.l no comments
received.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
/.).-/1
Attachment B
/1888/188
LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS
May 17, 1993
Ms. Athena Bradley
Conservation Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
270 F Street
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Dear Athena,
Residential Yard Waste
This letter is to follow up on our recent discussions regarding collection of yard waste from
single family residences in the City in accordance with the County Mandatory Recycling
Ordinance.
At the risk of repetition, Laidlaw's position on all recycling services is that they are part of
the existing franchises and the City, to comply with their own Ordinance, are required to
negotiate modifications of the franchise with Laidlaw prior to considering a request for bids
from other contractors. We look forward to completing these negotiations to our mutual
satisfaction.
At the January 26 Council meeting, the Council's direction seemed to focus on a "Universal
Rate Charge", rather than a variable rate structure and, I can confirm that our proposed
initial monthly charge would be $2.00 per home.
The City Council also questioned our variable rate proposal in tha~ if a home participated
each week their monthly charge would be $4.33. In calculating the $1.00 per sticker charge,
we assumed only 50% weekly participation and so the average charge per home would in
fact be close to the $2.00/month. You had asked us to review this proposal and to confirm
the volume covered by one sticker. Given the assumptions that we used, we believe that
$1.00 is the correct charge per sticker. H we could prevent incidents such as neighbors
combining their greens using one sticker, or a resident saving all his greens for one month
before placing it out for collection, we would be prepared to collect an unlimited volume
for the price of one sticker.
Perhaps such a solution could be based on a two-tier sys~em whereby Laidlaw would offer
60-gallon yard waste containers for a monthly rental fee which would include the cost of
weekly collection. Residents who did not anticipate sufficient volume for weekly service
would have the alternative of purchasing single use stickers.
Recycled Paper
180 Otay Lakes Road, Suite 200 · Bonita, California 91902 · (619) 267 - 6900
/,J. -/:L
A. Bradley
May 17, 1993
Page 2
We would also offer the following compromise suggestion. A lower Universal Rate Charge
to aU residents, combined with a lower sticker price which would increase the cost to
homeowners who most used the system.
If you think that either of the above options would be of interest to staff and council, I
would be pleased to meet with you very quickly to confirm specific price proposals for
Council's consideration.
The rates included in this letter are based on some favorable circumstances that are only
available to us for a limited time. For this reason, the proposals contained herein are valid
for the City's acceptance only until June 30, 1993.
As always, I will be pleased to answer any questions that you have or provide any additional
information.
Sincerely,
/; " J
J~ u~ LL-.,~.
Alan J. Purves
Market & Strategic
Development Manager
/~"15
u
+-'
C
a>
E
..c
u
co
+-'
+-'
<(
:>
w
>
a::
::J
en
w
I-
<J:
a::
e"
2
::i
(J
:>
(J
w
a::
a
a> +-' C'J
C .... a> 00
co co fJ) fJ)
fJ) co C'? a>
~ +-' a> 0 a>
c .... '+-
'-::a> u +-'
fJ)-O C co fJ)
c .- .- ::l
a> fJ) a -0 a
a> a> +-' a> .;:: a>
.... .... fJ) co ....
a> en -0 a > ::l
a> 0. fJ)
-0 C fJ) a c a
c a> a .... .- u
co a> 0. 0. "'"
.... a -
a> a> .... fJ) I"'- -
fJ) 0. .- '+- ....
::l .... a> C'? -0 a>
'+- a fJ) +-' 0 C ::l
a> .- fJ) co
.... a> a> co - - co
fJ) co ..c a>
>.2 fJ) ~ C +-' a>
::l fJ) C
-0 a co '+-
a> '+- a
a> c .... a> .... :t::: 0. 0>
a> a .... co 0.
'+- .... > -0 -0 ::l C'?
fJ) a> c n -0 C 0>
0> a> c ..c co a> . . a> a> a> co a> a> a>
+-' +-' fJ) +-' +-' +-' co +-' +-'
C'? fJ) co :t::: u fJ) .:.t. fJ) fJ) fJ) c fJ) fJ) c CJ
0> co u a> co co a> co co co co a> co co -0 <(
CJ ~ .... .... .... ~ a> ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ C
::l a +-' ~ . >.- ....
<( -0 >< -0 -0 -0 -0 co C -0 -0 a> a
.... a '+- a> .... " .... .... .... o.~ .... .... 0. '+-
co '+- -0 ~~r: co co co co co a>
C'? > a a> .... > > > > > -0 I"'-
..- +-' a> +-'200 fJ) U a
+-' -0 0. +-' +-' +-' +-' +-' +-'
0 ::l -0 a> ::l ..- ::l ::l ::l C +-' ::l ::l a 0
a> L.O a +-' 0 a a a a> a> a a
a a> >< a> L!)
...J en ..c :t::: c c.o ..c a> '+- ..c ..c ..c -0 .... ..c ..c en
<C u +-' E fJ) .~ c a .~ .~ .~ fJ) +-' .~ .~ c.o u
I- c .~ C'J ~ ~ ~ ~ a> fJ) ~ ~ ..- c
0 .- c 0 c co .... a 0 .-
.-
co +-' +-' . I
I- 0> 00 L.O -0 L.O OOC'J a 0> a ..- a a Ln '<t a 0> a C'? "'"
u a> -0
C'J C'J c.o L.O c.o..- +-' I"'- C'? ..- '<t Ln " '<t 00 C'J Ln c.o c.o
co a> co a>
C'J C'J C'J .... .... '<t ..-C'? c.o C'? C'? C'? C'J ..- C'? +-' C'J C'J a C'J C'J
+-' co .... co
..- ..- ..- >< ..c ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..-
00..8 a>
0 0 0 a> u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... 0 0 0 0 0
a
- - L.O
W co co c.o
en +-' +-'
a a ..-
::) +-' +-' 0
LL 0> 00 L.O Ln a c L.O C'J Ln C'? C 0> a 0> I a ..-
w 0> ..- I"'- 00 C'J .- " Ln c.o ..- .- c.o 00 C'J a L!) "
a: a a ..- a ..- a C'J C'J L.O
00 ..- 00 u 0> u 0> 0>
LL 0 ..- 0 ..- ..- c 0 ..- ..- ..- c ..- ..- ..- a 0 0
en 0 0 0 .- 0 0 0 .- 0 0 0 ..-
0
e"
2 a> a>
- - fJ) E fJ) E
...I co co ::l ::l
(J +-' +-' '+- co '+- co
:> a a a> .... a> ....
a a a C'J 00 +-' '<t 0> c.o " +-' .... a> .... a> 0> c.o
(J -- --
C'? ..- 0> 00 "'" c ..- Ln ..- C'? C ~ a ~ a C'J C'J
W .- .- .... ....
a:: ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- N ..- N ..- 0. 0. ..- ..-
0 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 u u a u a 0 0
LL C C C C C c
en .- .- .- "-
w
I-
en E - E E E E E E E
<J: co
~ co +-' co co co co co co co
.... a .... .... .... .... N .... .... ....
" a 00 a> +-' ..- a> a> a> a> L!) a> a> a> "'" a
c 00 a 00 a c '<t a a a a I"'- a a a 00 c.o
a: .... .- .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
<C ..- C'J ..- 0. ..- 0. 0. 0. 0. C'J 0. 0. 0. ..- ..-
:> 0 0 0 a u 0 a a a a 0 a a a 0 0
c c c c c c c c c
.-
..c
u a> > ..c
co > .~ fJ) u
co a> a a co
+-' a CJ .... U a> u a>
-0 .~ a fJ) -0 co (9 - -0 .... CJ
:> co > -0 .... C co co fJ) co fJ) co
I- co co a .~ -0 C C > ~ a> co
.0 C ~ C .;:: a> c a> c
U co "m c a a co co co
fJ) a a> ~ +-'
-;:: ::l a U 0. E ".j:j a> ~ c c co +-'
.... - u u fJ)
co ..c a a> c fJ) E co a> co u a co co 0
U U U Cl W L.U L.U - ...I ...I Z 0 a.. CJ) CJ) CJ) >
Cl..
:::::l
I
~
U
Cl..
Q)
C
o
....
o
.....
~
co
fJ)
Q)
+-'
~
co
.(3
....
Q)
E
E
o
u
co
"'0
Q)
+-'
co
+-'
fJ)
Q)
fJ)
.~
....
Q)
..c
+-'
o
en
en
Q)
C
:::::l
..c
+-'
c
o
E
....
Q)
Cl..
"'0
o
..c
Q)
en
:::::l
o
..c
en
Q)
Q)
..c
:s:
c
o
....
Q)
c
co
+-'
C
o
u
....
Q)
Cl..
~
co
.?-
E
co
.....
E
+-'
....
co
u
....
o
.....
:::::l
E
"'0"'0
C Q)
co +-'
Q) co
+-' +-'
en en
co Q)
:s: en
"E :s:
~a;
..c
+-'
o
o
0>
-en-
.....
o
Q)
Q)
.....
>-
....
o
+-'
co
"'0
C
co
E
en
Q)
"'0
:::::l
C3
C
....
o
.....
en en
~ ~
:::::l C
.~ :::::l
.....
.::Z
<( Q)
Q)
:s:
N
Q;
Cl..
J..2 '/~
4~/7 / ~
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 92-2
(ACQUISITION)
AUTOPARK
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Mavor
Tim Nader
City Council Members
Robert P. Fox
Jerry R. Rindone
Leonard M. Moore
Shirley Horton
City Staff
John D. Goss, City Manager
John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works
Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney
Cliff Swanson, City Engineer
Assessment Team
City of Chula Vista, Assessment Engineer and Project Management
Brown, Diven, & Hentschke, Bond Counsel
Stone & Youngberg, Underwriter
~~ary approval by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the ~ day of
ICa . 1993., "
' /) .1 /, ~.
!.J.i&-t.f; ((. 'u! f ll.
City Clerk, City of Chula Vista
Final approval and confIrmation by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the
day of . ,~93. /') , 7
"1:/tV-t';( ft.' u'u~.J:~.
City Cler~kity of Chula Vista
I) - /.5
SECTION A
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
AND
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
ASSESSMENT DISTRICf NO. 92-2
Event
Date
1. Adopt Boundary Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. March 23, 1993
2. Resolution of Intention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. March 23, 1993
3. Presentation of Preliminary Engineer's Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. May 4, 1993
4. Acquisition Agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 22, 1993
5. Public Hearing and Confmnation of Assessments ......... June 8 and 22, 1993
WPC F:\HOME\ENGINEER\770.93
Page 1
I '2...-1'"
SECTION B
GENERAL INFORM A nON
ASSESSMENT DISTRICf 92-2
The Assessment District is proposed for the purpose of acquiring certain public improvements
under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. The general administration of this District will
be undertaken by the City of Chula Vista and all official actions will be made by the City
Council.
Following the public hearing to confmn the assessments, the property owner has thirty (30) days
in which to pay all or any portion of this assessment without interest or penalty. Each property
owner has the option of paying their total proportional share in cash, or by paying each in
installments through the issuance of assessment bonds. H the property owner elects not to pay
the assessment within the 30 day cash collection period, assessment bonds, in the amount of the
unpaid assessment, will be sold to cover the cost of the assessment. The total cost may include,
but is not limited to, such items as construction costs, design costs, legal fees, various consultant
fees, printing and publication charges, and costs of servicing bonds.
The cost of the acquisition of these improvements and incidentals is assessed and spread
proportionally over every parcel of land within the District that has received an improvement or
has benefitted by the improvement. The method of making the assessment spread is in
accordance with the benefits received. The level of benefit varies according to land use and
utilization of the improvements funded.
Acquisition Construction Cost $1,144,658
Incidental Expenses 1,354,897
Less Developer Contributions (774,791)
Cost of Issuance 260,919
Balance to Assessment $1,985,683
Additional information may be obtained by contacting the Office of the Public Works Director,
John P. Lippitt.
Page 2
WPC F:\HOME'ENGINEER\770.93
SQ~~O~
C-
. RESOLUTION NO. 17045
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA DECLARING INTENTION TO ORDER THE INSTALLATION OF
CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN A PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT;
DECLARING THE WORK TO BE OF MORE THAN LOCAL OR ORDINARY
BENEFIT; DESCRIBING THE DISTRICT TO BE ASSESSED TO PAY
THE COSTS AND EXPENSES THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF BONDS IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 92-2 (AUTO
PARK)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
C.
D.
The public interest and convenience require, and it ;s the
intention of this body, pursuant to the provisions of Division 12
of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the
-MuniCipal Improvement Act 1913-), to order the installation of
certai n public improvements, together wi th appurtenances and
appurtenant work, in a special assessment district known and
designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 92-2 (AUTO PARK)
(hereinafter referred to as the -Assessment District-).
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS'
A.
The financing of certain public improvements described as
street improvements, including but not limited to paving.
curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, medians, water
improvements, sewer improvements, pump station, stonn
drains, electrical and communication facilities, gas
facilities and landscaping, together with appurtenances and
appurtenant work, as well as acquisition of necessary
rights-of-way, to serve and benefit properties within the
boundaries of the Assessment District.
Said streets, rights-of-way and easements shall be shown
upon the plans herein referred to and to be filed with
these proceedings.
All of said work and improvements are to be installed at
the places and in the particular locations, of the fonns,
sizes, dimensions and materials, and at the lines, grades
and elevations IS shown and delineated upon the plans,
profiles Ind specifications to be ~de therefor, as
hereinafter provided.
The description of the faprovements contained in thi s
Resolution is general in nature, Ind the plans and profiles
of the work as contained in the Engineer's -Report- .shall .-
be controlling as to the correct and detailed descriptior.
thereof.
B.
~a
SECTION C
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION
(Copy follows: esolution is on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
I
WPC F:'\HOME'CNGINEER\770.93
Page 3
\ 2.- ,-,
,.. ~~~.--.-.~_.,.~~--"~,.
.
Resolution No. 17045
Page '2
SECTION 2.
..JECTION 3.
D.
DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
That said improvements Ind work Ire of direct benefit to the
properties Ind land within the Assessment District, Ind this
legislative body hereby aakes the expenses of said work Ind
improvement chargeable upon I district, which is described IS
foll ows:
All that certain territory in the District included within
the exterior boundary lines shown the plat exhibiting the
property benefitted and to.be assessed to pay the costs Ind
expenses of said work Ind improvements in the Assessment
District, said lIap titled Ind identified IS .PROPOSED
BOUNDARIES OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 92-2 (AUTO PARK)-,
and which map was heretofore approved Ind which said map is
on file with the transcript of these proceedings, EXCEPTING
therefrom the area shown within the area of all publ ic
streets, easements or pub 1i c ri ghts-of-way. for all
particulars as to the boundaries of the Assessment
District, reference is hereby aade to said previously
approved boundart map.
REPORT OF ENGINEER
That thi s proposed improvement is hereby referred to
SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS, who is hereby directed to make and
file the report in writing containing. the following:
A.
B.
Plans and specifications of the proposed improvements;
An "estimate of the cost of the proposed works of
improvement, including the cost of the incidental expenses
in connection therewith;
A diagram showing the Assessment District above referred
to, which shall also show the boundaries and dimensions of
the respective subdivisions of land within said Assessment
District, IS the same existed at the ti~ of the passage of
the Resolution of Intention, each of which subdivisions
shall be given. separate number upon said Diagram;
A proposed assessment of the total Imount of the assessable
costs and expenses of the proposed improvement upon the
several divisions of land in proportion to the estimated
benefits to be received by such subdivisions, respectively,
from said improvement. Said assesJment shall refer to such
subdivisions upon said diagram by the respective numbers
thereof;
The descri pt i on of the works of illprovement to be install ed
under these proceedings, Ind acquisition, where necessary.
c.
Eo
'2.-I~
~b
SECTION 4.
Resolution No. 17045
Page 3
-,
When any portion or percentage of the cost Ind expenses of tl.
improvement is to be paid from sources other than assessments,
the amount of such portion or percentage shall first be deducted
from the total esti~ted costs and expenses of said work and
improvements, and said assessment shall include only the
remainder of the estimated costs and expenses. Said assessment
shall refer to said subdivisions by their respective numbers as
assigned pursuant to Subsection D of this section.
BONDS
Notice is hereby given that bonds to represent the unpaid
assessments, Ind bear interest at the rate of not to exceed the
current legal lIaximum rate of 12% per annum, wi 11 be issued
hereunder in the lIanner provided in the -Improvement Bond Act of
1915N, being Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code of the
State of California, which bonds shall be issued not to exceed
THIRTV-NINE (39) YEARS from the second day of September next
succeeding twelve (12) ~nths from their date. The provisions of
Part 11.1 of said Act, providing an alternative procedure for the
advance payment of assessments and the calling of bonds shall
apply.
'.
-,
The principal amount of the bonds maturing each year shall r
other than an amount equal to an even .annual proportion of th
aggregate prinCipal of the bonds, and the amount of principal
maturing in each year, plus the amount of interest payable in
that year, will be generally an aggregate amount that is equal
each year, except for the first year's adjustment.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Streets and Highways Code of
the State of California, speCifically Section 10603, the
Treasurer is hereby designated as the officer to coll ect and
receive the assessments during the cash collection period. Said
bonds further shall be serviced by the Treasurer or designated
Paying Agent.
Refundill,g
Any bonds issued pursuant to these proceedings Ind Division (a>
lIay be refunded, (b) the interest rate on said bonds shall not
exceed the aaximum interest rate IS luthorized for these
proceedings. and the number of years to maturity shall not exceed
the IIaximum number as authorized for these bonds unless a public
hearing is expressly held IS authorized pursuant to said Division
11.5. and (c) any adjustments in assessments resulting from any
refundings will be done on a pro-rate basis. .
Any authorized refunding shall be pursuant to the abov,~
conditions, and pursuant to the provisions and restrictions ot
Division 11.5 of the Street and Highways Code of the State of
~c..
Resolution No. 17045
Page 4
SECTION 5.
SECTION 6.
SEeTI ON 7.
SECTI ON 8.
California, commencing with Section 9500, and all further
condi ti ons shall be set forth in the Bond Indenture to be
approved prior to any issuance of bonds.
-MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1913-
That except as herein otherwise provided for the issuance of
bonds, all of said improvements shall be ..de and ordered
pursuant to the provisions of the -Municipal Improvement Act of
1913-, being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the
State of California.
SURPLUS FUNDS
That if any excess shall be realized from the assessment, it
shall be used, in such amounts as the legislative body Ilay
determine, in accordance with the provisions of law for one or
more of the following purposes:
A. Transfer to the general fund; provided that the amount of
any such transfer shall not exceed the lesser of One
Thousand Dollars (Sl,OOO.OO) or five percent (5%) of the
total from the Improvement Fund;
B. As a credit upon the assessment and any supplemental
assessment; or
C. For the maintenance of the improvement; or
D. To all bonds.
SPECIAL FUND
The legislative body hereby establishes a special improvement
fund identified and designated by the name .of this Assessment
District, and into said Fund Ilonies Ilay be.transferred at any
time to expedite the Ilaking of the illprovements herein
authorized, and any such advancement of funds is a loan and shall
be repaid out of the proceeds of the sale of bonds as authorized
by law.
PRIVATE CONTRACT
Not ice ;s hereby given that the public interest wi 11 n6t be
served by allowing the property owners to take the contract for
the installation of the improvements, and that, as authorized by
law, no. notice of award of contract shall be published.
I ~- 19
~d
1 'f
"
SECTION 9.
SECTION 10.
SECTION 11.
SECTION 12.
SECTION 13.
Resolution No. 17045
Page 5
-
GRADES
That notice is hereby given that the grade to which the work
shall be done is to be shown on the plans and profiles therefor,
which grade may vary from the existing grades. The work herein
contemplated shall be done to the grades as indicated on the
plans and specifications, to which reference is aade for a
description of the grade at which the work is to be done. Any
objections or protests to the proposed grade shall be lllade at the
public hearing to be conducted under these proceedings.
PROCEEDINGS INOUIRES
For any and all infonnation relating to these proceedings,
including infonmation relating to protest procedure, your
attention is directed to the person designated below:
JOHN P. LIPPITT, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
P. O. BOX 10S7
CHULA VISTA, CA 92012
TELEPHONE: (619) 691-5021
PUBLIC PROPERTY
All public property in the use and perfonmance of a public
function shall be omitted from assessment in these proceedings
unless expressly provided and listed herein.
~:"
ACQUISITION
That the public interest. convenience and necessity requires that
certain land. rights-of-way or easements be obtained in order to
allow the works of improvement as proposed for this Assessment
Di stri ct to be accomplished. The Engineer's -Report., upon
adoption. shall set forth a general description of the location
and extent of easements and/or land necessary to be acquired.
NO CITY LIABILITY. .
This legislative body hereby further declares not to obligate
itself to advance available funds from the Treasury to cure any
defiCiency which may occur in the bond redemption fund. This
detennination is aade pursuant to the authority of Section
S769(b) of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
California. and said determination shall further be set forth in
the text of the bonds issued pursuant to the -Improvement 80r~
Act of 1915".
'3e.
Resolution No. 17045
Page 6
. ...
PEn n ON
SECTION 14. .. That a petition signed by property owners representing more than
.- 60% in area of the property subject to assessment for said
improvement has been signed and filed with the legislative body,
and no further proceedings or actions will be required under
Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
California, the -Special Assessment Investigation, Ullitation and
Majority Protest Act of 1931-.
SEcnON 15.
WORK ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
It is hereby further determined to be in the best public interest
and convenience and more economical to do certain work on private
property to eliminate any disparity in level or size between the
improvements and the private property. The actual cost of such
work is to be added to the assessment on the lot on which the
work is done, and no work of this nature is to be performed
until the written consent of the property owner is first
obtained.
ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT
-"EcnON 16.
It is hereby declared that this legislative body proposes to levy
an annual assessment pursuant to Section 10204 of the Streets and
Highways Code of the State of California, said annual assessment
to pay costs incurred by the City and not otherwise reimbursed
which result from the administration and collection of
assessments or from the administration or registration of any
associated bonds and reserve of-other related funds.
Presented by
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
U f~"
J~ P. Lippi ~
o ector of Public Works
I '1.... '2.0
~1
Resolution No. 17045
Page 7
.;
.
I
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of ChL
Vista, California. this 23rd day of March. 1993. by the following vote:
YES: Councilmembers: fox. Horton. Moore. Rindone, Nader
NOES: Councilmembers: ~one
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: ~one
-
~~'-
Tim Nader. Mayor
ATTEST:
,
I
r~.jJ (, (;<7;;Cf
Beverly f. Authelet, City Clerk
-,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
SSe
I. Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista. California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 17045 was duly passed. approved.
and adopted by the City Council held on the 23rd day of Harch. 1993.
Executed this 23rd day of March. 1993.
-
31-
~~~
~~
~ ~ ~..,...;
~ """"""""""""
----
RECEIVED
THE CITY OF
lh. -,-- ~
Ii r .....
1:1: J!Ll I r:-3
D~-'-L .-:----..~.. .~.._--_.-~- ~-
C.,....... - .__.J
'\ < "0
--~
CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
"93 J.N -1 P 3 :20
CHULA VISTA
~,QR~.l4MMlSSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
C1TYctmr\YS-OFFICE- .
Please Indicate Your Interest By Checking the Appropriate Line(s)
If You Check More Than One Line, Please Prioritize Your Interest
_____ Board of Appeals
Chi ld Care
_____ Cmsm on Ag i ng
_____ Elderly & Handicapped Cmt
_____ Int. Friendship Cmsn
_____ Montgomery C.P.C.
_____ Planning Cmsn
Town Centre Proj. Area Cmt
Chula Vi sta 21
_____ Board of Ethics
Civil Service Cmsn
_____ Design Rev Cmt
_____ Growth Mgmt. Cmsm
_____ Library Board of Trustees
_____ Otay Valley Proj. Area Cmt
Resource Consv Cmsn
_____ United Nations Day Cmt
UC - CV
Charter Review
Cultural Arts
Economi c Dev.
Hl.III8n ReI. Cmsn
A Mobilehome Rent Revi ew Cmsm.
Parks & Rec Cmsn
_____ Safety Cmsn
Youth Cmsn
OTHER
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
HOME ADDRESS:
t:= A H L D - IJ I G- (; 2 ~S
&77 G S T S? 2..c..~ CITY:
L{ 2. ~""-7 r 7 t-" BUS. PHONE NO. -
Lr(-v..../+ VI) 17'+ c....A ZIP: 9 I c:; J.:?
REGISTERED VOTER IN CHULA VISTA: ~ _____
YES NO
NAMe":
RES. PHONE NO.
DO YOU LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF CHULA VISTA? ~
YES NO
HOW LONG?
/1 Vrl.
I
*Youth Commission Applicants ONLY: School Attending
Grade:
-.--.....---.---.--.----.-----..--.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESENT EMPLOYER:
1\ 2:-, , R t:?- D
H.5, LJ J\..) IV.
/
TH2" t.'" C; I c.. A,--
f A- r TO f?....
v ~ .:['C L /-\.) 0 If
COLLEGES ATTENDED & DEGREES HELD: A. ~
,1-1. 0/1/. If ~ (H-~ 01 f i.....
5 c...t+o (;' L... / /U c.>rr/",'?
POSITION:
WHAT ARE YOUR PRINCIPAL AREAS OF INTEREST IN OUR CITY GOVERNMENT AND WHAT EXPERIENCE(S) OR SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE CAN YOU YOU BRING
TO THOSE AREAS?
F ~(e.N&r i' r,J
(=-,.1 I ./.z
I:"" ~ --....-. ,Q. ^'
17 0 e I '- ~ *) 1'7 c;: R- e-.A..l; c: <.? .~./~ 0 L- _
10 COva.,.. t>..vA./c-flJ C/tJ c-..J d)"';
Pd<..D rD.] e-D K. c::.A.J I / N c..~ ~ S \...~ J
(7(?O'l/IU/,NG
08 v ~i'I'J;-~
(2...c.../ I e l;-
oF-
WHAT WOULD YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH BY YOUR PARTICIPATION?
-;- ^-' F..:; i<.Jr \2 j) ~ A- b E--^- P::: 1~_1 t2- N (. ~ '.J
v (~;:;'I "-' -;-- .
I ~' ,ith tho "'po ibiliti., ."i,... t. tho '..'d/'omm'..i",,'ommitt.. on '.hiCh I wish to serve.
;:~/'-<f). I< ' ~ j'1^y Z 7, I 7' ? 3
SIGNATURE I OAT~
I
* * * PLEASE SEE THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS APPLICATION FOR VERY IMPORTANT LEGAL IIIFORMATlON * * *
11-/
CC-Oll
~~~
~~
.....,; ~.....,;
"'"....... ""'"""'"
----
THE CITY OF
CllY OF
(HUlA VISTA
. ,~-"..-._~
CHULA VISTA
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Please Indicate Your Interest By Checking the Appropriate Line(s)
If You Check More Than One Line, Please Prioritize Your Interest
_____ Board of Appeals
Child Care
_____ Cmsm on Ag i ng
_____ Elderly & Handicapped Cmt
_____ Int. Friendship Cmsn
_____ Montgomery C.P.C.
_____ Planning Cmsn
_____ Town Centre Proj. Area Cmt
Chula Vista 21
Board of Ethics
Civil Service Cmsn
_____ Design Rev Cmt
_____ Growth Mgmt. Cmsm
_____ Library Board of Trustees
_____ Otay Valley Proj. Area Cmt
Resource Consv Cmsn
_____ United Nations Day Cmt
UC - CV
Charter Review
Cul tural Arts
Economic Dev.
Hl.flIan Re l. Cmsn
~ Mobi Lehane Rent Review Cmsm.
Parks & Rec Cmsn
_____ Safety Cmsn
Youth Cmsn
OTHER
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
NAME:
Bert Epsten
RES. PHONE NO.
BUS. PHONE NO.
CITY:
297-3201
San Diego
ZIP:
92106
HOME ADDRESS:
3526 Emerson Street
222-2847
REGISTERED VOTER IN CHULA VISTA: _____ XX
YES NO
DO YOU LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF CHULA VISTA? XX
YES NO
HOW LONG?
.Youth Commission Applicants ONLY: School Attending
Grade:
COLLEGES ATTENDED & DEGREES HELD:
University of Utah
PRESENT EMPLOYER:
Mobile Homes Acceptance Corp.
POSIT ION:
President
WHAT ARE YOUR PRINCIPAL AREAS OF INTEREST IN OUR CITY GOVERNMENT AND WHAT EXPERIENCE(S) OR SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE CAN YOU YOU BRING
TO THOSE AREAS?
Member of Mobile Homes Issues Committee for the San Diego City Housing Comm.
Member of El Cajon Mobile Horne Rent Review Committee
WHAT WOULD YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH BY YOUR PARTICIPATION?
Fairness to all issues that are addressed to this committee.
sibilities assigned to the Board/Commission/Committee on which I wish to serve.
April 21, 1993
DATE
CC-Oll
* * * PLEASE SEE THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS APPLICATION FOR VERY IMPORTANT LEGAL INFORMATION * * *
/o/'~