HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1992/10/20
,
"I declare under penalty of perJu~ t~8t I ....
employed by the City of Chula VIsta In the
Office of the City Clerk and th~, I posted
this Agenda/Notice on the Bulle"n B~ard at
Tuesday, October 20,1992 the PUbl~~JjS Buildin3 a6~~"" Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. DATED,;;<' SIGNED ~ Public Services Building
Rel(Ular MeetIDS?: of the City of Chula Vista Cltv Council
CAlL TO ORDER
1.
ROIL CAIJ.:
Councilmembers Horton _, Malcolm _, Moore ~ Rindone ~ and Mayor
Nader _
2. PLEDGE OF AlJ.EGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3.
APPROVAL OF MINIITES:
None submitted.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Presentation by Convention and VISitor's Bureau (CONVIS): Appreciation and recognition
from Visitor Industry for City's continued support by CONVIS Chairman of the Board.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 12)
The staff reamunendalions regarding the foUowing iIons listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the
Ct1lUICil by tHJe motion wilhout discussion unless a Coundlmember, a member of the puh1iJ: or CiIy staff requests
that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on tHJe of these items, please fill out a .Request to
Speak Form' available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form
to :peak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff
recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Action Items and Boards and
Commission RecommendatUms. Items pulled by the puh1iJ: will be the first iIons of business.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter requesting a waiver and refund of the conditional use permit fee for PCC-93-01
Victory World Outreach Center, Inc., DBA World Harvest Church - Thomas Reilly, Pastor,
World Harvest Church, 1008 Industrial Blvd., Chula Vista, CA 91911.
b. Letter of resignation from the Planning Commission - Joe D. Casillas. It is recommended
that the resignation be accepted and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately
according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public Library.
6.
ORDINANCE 2532
ADOPTING, ON CONDmONS, THE 'CHIJLA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN-THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN" AS
THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPUCABLE TO THE BAYFRONT, CERTIFYING
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MIDBAYFRONT LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBMITTAL NUMBER EIGHT AMENDMENT (EIR
89-08) AND ADDENDUM THERETO; AND MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT,
ADOPTING THE MmGATIONMONITORING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION - (second readinR: and adoption) - At
the meetings of 1/14/92 and 2/4/92, Council directed staff to process and
return to Council for approval: a Local Coastal Program (LCP) Resubmittal
(amendment), a General Plan amendment, and a Redevelopment Plan
amendment consistent with the Subcommittee Alternative and including
Agenda
-2-
October 20, 1992
tbeir modifications and informational items. The proposed Chula Vista LCP
Resubmittal is the document that has been prepared in response to the
Council directive. Additionally, tbe General Plan Amendment has been
prepared to make the General Plan consistent with the LCP. The
Redevelopment Plan Amendment will be prepared following approval of the
plans. Staff recommends Council place ordinance on second reading and
adoption. (Director of Community Development)
7. RESOLUTION 16839 APPROVING GRANT APPUCATION FOR COUN1Y OF SAN DIEGO
RECYCUNG TECHNICALASSISfANCE PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-
93 - In January 1992, Council adopted a mandatory recycling ordinance
requiring demolition and construction industries to recycle by October
1992. Additionally, tbe ordinance requires offices and office complexes
20,000 square feet or more and all restaurants, bars and hospitality
establishments to recycle by July 1993. Staff recommends approval of tbe
resolution. (Administration)
8. RESOLUTION 16840 ACCEPTING CAUFORNIA Sf ATE UBRARY CAUFORNIA UBRARY
SERVICES ACf FAMIUES FOR UTERACY GRANT FUNDS AWARDED TO
TIiE CHULA VISfA UTERACY TEAM, APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND
AMENDING TIiE FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 BUDGET - The Chula Vista
Literacy Team has been awarded a California Library Services Act Families
For Literacy grant from tbe California State Library to develop and offer
special family literacy services to adult learners and tbeir young children.
These funds cannot be used to supplant tbe current tutor reading program.
Staff recommends approval of tbe resolution. (Library Director) 4/5tb's
vote required.
9. RESOLUTION 16841 ACCEPTING FEDERAL UBRARY SERVICES AND CONSfRUcnON ACf
GRANT FUNDS FOR TIiE CONTINUANCE OF SPECIFIC UBRARY
REFERENCE RESOURCES, APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND AMENDING TIiE
FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 BUDGET - The State Library has approved tbe Chula
Vista Public Library's application for Major Urban Resource Library (MURL)
funds in tbe amount of $11,888. These funds will be used to purchase
domestic and international business directories and San Diego area
business information resources currently not available in tbe Chula Vista
Public Library. Staff recommends approval of tbe resolution. (Library
Director) 4/5tb's vote required.
10. RESOLUTION 16842 APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TIiE CITY OF CHULA VISfA AND
MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. AND AUTIlORIZING TIiE MAYOR TO
EXECIITE SAID AGREEMENT - On 5/19/92, Council approved $227,790
of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to nineteen social
service programs, including $5,000 for Mental Healtb Systems to establish
a vocational services program at Kinesis Soutb. The U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires a written agreement
between tbe City and each sub-recipient of CDBG funds. Staff recommends
approval of tbe resolution. (Director of Community Development)
Agenda
-3-
October 20, 1992
11. RESOLUTION 16843 AUTIlORIZING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE ON PARK WAY FOR THE
YWCA OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY TO CONDUCT A CULTURAL FAIR ON
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1992 IN MEMORIAL PARK - The YWCA of San
Diego County is requesting permission to conduct a Cultural Fair on
Sunday, 11/15/92, in Memorial Park and Bowl and along a limited section
of Park Way. They are requesting permission to close a portion of the
westbound lane of Park Way between Third and Fourth Avenue to facilitate
the event. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks
& Recreation)
12.A RESOLUTION 16844 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PARAllEL SEWER
CONSTRUCl10N, 'G' STREET FROM FOURTII AVENUE TO BROADWAY
IN THE CIlY OF CHULA VISTA, CAUFORNlA - The Director of Public
Works received sealed bids for parallel sewer construction, "G" Street from
Fourth Avenue to Broadway. The work to be done includes the
construction of a parallel 12", 15", and 18" sewer main adjacent to an
existing sewer main on "G" Street between Fourth Avenue and Broadway.
Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Public Works)
B. RESOLUTION 16845 AUTIlORIZING THE DlRECTOR OF PUBIJC WORKS TO EXECUTE A
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER DELETING THE SEWER WORK FROM THE
BROADWAY PROJECT, -po TO "I' STREET
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBIJC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
1'1u! foUowing items have been advertised and/or posted as publil: hearings as required by 1JJw. [fyou wish to speak
to any item, please Jill out the .Request to Speak Form' available in the lobby and submit it to the City CInk prior
to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak infavor of the staffrecommend/ltion; complete the pinkform
to speak in opposition to the staff recom.mendIltio) Comments are limited to five minutes per individual.
13.
PUBIJC HEARING
14.
PUBIJC HEARING
ORDINANCE 2533
PROPOSED FEE INCREASES FOR HARTSON'S EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES - On 5/9/92, Council approved an agreement with Hartson
Medical Service to provide basic (BLS) and advanced (ALS) life
support/ambulance services within Chula Vista. The agreement requires
Hartson to respond to 90% of all ALS calls within 10 minutes and 90% of
all BLS calls within 30 minutes. Hartson has consistently met these
threshold standards during the past twelve months. Pursuant to the
agreement, Hartson has proposed to increase their fees by an average of
5.2% effective 11/1/92. Staff recommends the public hearing be continued
to 11/10/92. (Fire Chief)
ADOPTION OF THE TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN FEE - In
compliance with the Telegraph Canyon Basin Sewer Monitoring and
Gravity Basin Usage Agreement between the City and EastLake
Development, the City entered into a contract with Willdan Associates for
preparation of the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and
Financing Plan. This provides recommendations for sewer system
improvements needed to accommodate ultimate wastewater flows in the
basin and proposes a fee of $184 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDO) to
finance the construction of these improvements. This is a one time fee
paid when building permits are taken out and is not an ongoing fee. Staff
recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading. (Director of
Public Works)
ESTABIJSHING THE TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TELEGRAPH CANYON
SEWER BASIN (first readinl()
Agenda
-4-
October 20, 1992
15.
PUBUC HEARING
CONSIDERATION OF ESTABUSHING UNDERGROUND UTIUlYDISTRIcr
NUMBER 123 ALONG "E' STREET FROM BROADWAY TO TOYON LANE
INCLUDING TOYON LANE, CORTE HELENA AVENUE, AND GUAVA
AVENUE (CANDY CANE LANE) - On 8/15/92, Council ordered a public
hearing to be held on 10/20/92 to determine whether the public health,
safety or general welfare requires the formation of an underground utility
district along 'E' Street from Broadway to Toyon Lane, including Toyon
Lane, Corte Helena Avenue, and Guava Avenue (Candy Cane Lane). Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
RESOLUTION 16846 ESTABUSHING UNDERGROUND UllU1YDISTRIcr NUMBER 123 ALONG
"E' STREET FROM BROADWAY TO TOYON LANE INCLUDING TOYON
LANE, CORTE HELENA AVENUE, AND GUAVA AVENUE (CANDY CANE
LANE) AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITIJRE OF ALLOCATION FUNDS
TO SUBSIDIZE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SERVICE LATERAL
CONVERSIONS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general pub1U: to atltJress the City CoundI on any subject 1nill1O wiJhin the Council's
jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State IiJw, Iwwever, generally prohibits the City CoundI from
taking action on any issues not iru:bJded on the posted agenda.) If you wish to atltJress the Cowu:iI on sudI a
subject, please complete the yeUow 'Request to SpeDk Under Oral Communications Form' ayailable in the lobby
and submit it to the City C1erk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speJJk, p1eJJse give your 1lIJ1TU! and atltJress
for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is 1imited to three milwtes per speoker.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council will consider irems which have hem forwarded to them for consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions and/or Committees.
16.
REPORT
REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE GROwrn MANAGEMENT
OVERSIGHT COMMISSION'S (GMOC) 1991 ANNUAL REPORT - The report
reviews the City's compliance with the Quality of Life Threshold Standards
for the period from 111191 through 6/30/91 and provides
recommendations regarding the results of that review for Council action.
Staff recommends Council accept the 1991 GMOC Annual Report and
direct staff to take the following actions: (1) prepare the necessary
Statements of Concern for issuance by the Mayor regarding the Water,
Schools, and Air Quality Thresholds; (2) endorse in concept the proposed
revision to the Parks and Recreation Threshold Standard and refer the
matter to staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission for finalization
and preparation of the required implementing resolutions and ordinance
amendments for subsequent Council action; (3) authorize staff to begin
work with the Parks and Recreation Commission on the 20-year
implementation strategy to address existing parkland deficiencies for
Western Chula Vista; (4) refer the matter of increasing the code
enforcement staff to address visual impact issues to the Building and
Housing Department for consideration in its Fiscal Year 1993-94 budget
proposal; and (5) support re-evaluation of the Fire and Emergency Medical
Service, and Police Threshold Standards, and direct staff to work with the
GMOC at some appropriate future date. (Director of Planning)
Agenda
-5-
October 20, 1992
AcnON ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicil substolrlial discussions and deliberations by the
Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council and staff
m:ommendations mDY in certain cases be presented in the aItemative. Those who wish to speak, plelJse fill out
a .Request to SpeaK' form avaikJble in the lobby and submit it to the CiJy Clerk prior to the meeting_ Publii;
comments are limited to five minutes.
17.
REPORT
SUPPORTING THE CONTINUED USE OF THE 1987 FEDERAL AID URBAN
(FAU) DISfRlBUTION FORMULA FOR THE NEW SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) OF THE INTERMODAL SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION EFFIOENCY ACT (lSTEA) . On 8/13/92, the Combined
Road Plan Committee (CRPC) recommended that STP funds for Fiscal Years
1992-97 be allocated as has been done since 1978 and re-authorized in
1987,40% to regional agencies (25% CalTrans, 15% Transit) and 60"A> to
local cities and the County. The 60% is distributed with each city receiving
a base amount of $25,000 and the remainder allocated on a per capita
basis. On 9/10/92, the City of Solana Beach proposed an alternative
formula that would increase revenues to the cities and the County, but
substantially reduce regional revenues to CalTrans and Transit. Staff
believes that potential cuts in regional programs implemented by MTDB
and CalTrans could prove to be more significant than the benefits realized
through the Solana Beach formula. The report supports the continued use
of the current formula. Staff recommends acceptance of the report.
(Director of Public Works)
18.
REPORT
PARKING CONCERNS IN THE 100 BLOCK OF GLOVER AVENUE - At the
6/30/92 meeting, staff was directed to respond to parking problems caused
by business parking for extended periods of time on the 100 block of
Glover Avenue. Staff evaluated the request and met with area residents to
discuss alternatives available to improve on-street parking. Staff
recommends acceptance of the report. (Director of Public Works)
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items which hove been removed from the Consent CaIendar. Agenda
items pulled at the request of the publii; will be considered prior to those pulled by CoundJnrembers. Publii;
comments are limited to five minutes per individual
OTHER BUSINESS
19. OTYMANAGER'S REPORTfS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
Agenda
-6-
October 20, 1992
20. MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
a. Distribution of Port District reserves.
b. Policy direction to staff on relocation mobile home park.
c. Ratification of appointment: Maureen McNair - Resource Conservation Commission.
21. COUNCIL COMMENfS
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council will meet in a closed session immediately following the Council meeting to discuss:
Acquisition of Property pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 - 100 Woodlawn Avenue
(Richard A. Hall Company, owner).
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) - Settlement of Otay Valley
Lawsuit - Siroonian vs. City of Chula Vista.
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - City of ChuJa Vista vs. Otay
Municipal Water District.
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) a joint meeting of the City CounciVCounty
Board of Supervisors on Thursday, October 22, 1992 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, thence to
the Regular City Council Meeting on October 27, 1992 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.
October IS, 1992
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Sid W. Morris, Assistant City Manager ~\
--c
City Council Meeting of October 20, 1992
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council
meeting of Tuesday, October 20, 1992. Comments regarding the Written
Communications are as follows:
Sa. This is a letter from Pastor Reilly of the World Harvest Church requesting
a waiver and refund of the conditional use permit fee for PCC-93-0!.
Section 3.45.010 of the Municipal Code (Master Fee Schedule) establishes
the authority for waiving fees (copy attached). This request for refund
of the $175.00 Conditional Use Permit fee falls within the guidelines
establishing the City Manager as the Waiving Authority. Staff is
reviewing the request, has posted notice as required, and will handle it
administratively. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
5b. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT MR. CASILLAS' LETTER OF RESIGNATION FROM THE
PLANNING COMMISSION BE ACCEPTED AND THAT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MADDY
ACT, THE CITY CLERK BE DIRECTED TO POST THE VACANCY IMMEDIATELY IN THE
CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE PUBLIC LIBRARY.
SWM:mab
trans
~~E;
l1'''IIl.'' IIAII VE!iiT ,:"'JIICII
Pastor Tom Reilly
(619) 691-0880
___c- :~:::=~=::-~'c_","-._._c:..~_,,_ _,.;i-;':~__
_^~~=:::2-;';:_~__n___",___ {~
'/ " . " -"~::,:::-<.....:,,.
I ,- ' , f.-,..,---~
::'/ C.__\ :\~\~
~'~-' J'...-.. -... I'~_i)
~.c MI\~CR'S c....= - ,..~t -.
€ Cr'uia "i'h"'\ l-,;~'
~ I _.1. _~-. ~ ~,.../,
~:.. 7\<)/'
/' <'f"/
October 7,1992
city of Chula vista
City Council Members
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
RE: Waiver of C.D.P. Fee
PCC-93-01 Victory World Outreach Center, Inc.
DBA World Harvest Church
Dear Honorable Council Memt)ers:
We would like to request a waiver and refund of the conditional use
permit fee of $175.00 paid to the city of Chula vista for the above
referenced C.D.P.
We are a non-profit organization and function in the community as
a local church meeting the spiritual needs of families in
Chula vista.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. We look forward
to your favorable response.
ReSP~1:fUlI2'! .
_ _-( . i )
'c;,-c-<-~--I -"""'.-<--L~
Thomas Reilly, pasJ'or
c.c. Martin Miller, Associate Planner
\ \
\,,:.-;,-,
WRrr"rEN COMMUNICATIONS I,
I
Ij
\'-1\ '-
-',
\
\
1008 Industrial Blvd" Chula Vista, CA 91911 ~,. /
From: Joe Casillas Realty
PHONE No. 619 4273747
Oct. 13 1992 11:08AM P01
"',.
',{ ..(',:"
"'. "'1',1-.,
.
MEMO
'1'0: MAYOR TIM NI'.DERICOUNCILMEN MALcOLM, RINDONE, MOORE:
COUNCILWOMAN IJORTON
, .
PROM: JOE D. CASILLAS, CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: RESIQNATION
1. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY I TENDER MY RESIGNATION FROM THE
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF~ CV~~
JOE D. CASILLAS
DATE: OCTOBER 13,1992
nn ~
:::(~
CC: CITY MANAGER -<...< -.0
CITY CLERK R ill
-i ""'1
CITY ATTORNEY ~ 'il
DIR OF PLANNING w
.,
oo;<~) "
"I
-'r" 1__..) Ci
C"""""'~i (f,
mp.
/
: I'
.'
\
\
MAYOR'S OffiCE
C1!ulll Yista, eA
CU
I ';.
., ~ .~:.
.,
,I
. .,
; .1-
,1'."
h~
~b-/
ITEM TITLE:
ALTERNATJlTlI
COURSE OF
.-...... ""'-',",-"-"","""
ACTION"
ALTERNATIVE
COURSE OF
ACTION
SUBJ\fiTTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
(,
Item ~'cl.
Meeting Date 10/13/92 It..?~.l
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERING AMENDMENTS TO THE
CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN AND
BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN, AND CORRESPONDING AMEND-
MENTS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN O~
iX'\~
J.53~ 'r-\)O '
ORDINANCE ADOPTING, ON CONDmONS, THE ;.aHBLA
VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENT~~W'PLAN--
THE BA YFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN" AS THE ZO.NING'ORDINANCE
APPLICABLE TO THE BA YFRONT, CE~YING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MIDBAYFRONT LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBMmAL NO.8 AMENDMENT (EIR
89-08) AND ADDENDUM THERETO; AND MAKING FINDINGS OF
FACT, ADOPTING THE MmGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
RESOLUTION 16'113 t Certifying the Final Environmental Impact
Report Midbayfront Local Coastal Program Resubmittal No. 8
Amendment (EIR 89-08) and Addendum thereto; amending the General
Plan Land Use Element, Land Use Circulation Diagram and Parks and
Recreation Element, and Bayfront Area Plan; adopting the Chula Vista
Local Coastal Program Resubmittal consisting of the Land Use Plan and
Specific Plan and with changes identified herein; and Making Findings of
Fact, adopting the Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the Midbayfront Local Coastal Program
Resubmittal No. 8
[ S.
Community Development Director -
C;'Y MM""(
(4/Sths Vote: Yes
NoAJ
In August 1988 the Midbayfront, the principal remaining undeveloped portion of the Chula Vista
Bayfront, was sold to Chula Vista Investors (CVI). The new property owner began preparing
#~-/
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 10/13/92
r
a plan to propose modifications to the certified LCP to allow a mixed-use development. CVI's
plan included a resubmittal of the LCP, along with a conceptual development plan consistent
with the proposed changes to the LCP. The City required that an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) be prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed plan
resubmittal.
The EIR process began in June 1989 with a Notice of Preparation. The Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) for the Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment (July 1991) was
certified by the City Council on August 20, 1991, and again on January 14, 1992. The FEIR
contains the CEQA compliance record for the proposed plan-level action that had been processed
beginning with the Notice of Preparation in June 1989 to the completion of the FEIR in July
1992.
The FEIR analyzed the applicant's original project, his revised (Alternative 8) project, seven
other alternatives developed by staff and/or required by CEQA, and the Bayfront Planning
Subcommittee's alternative. The Subcommittee Alternative was similar to the applicant's
original proposed project in types of land uses proposed. It differed from the original proposal
by reducing the density of the project from 4.18 million square feet to the revised project of 3.3
million square feet. Other revisions included replacement of the Luxury Motel with a Cultural
Arts Facility, and reduction in number of dwelling units to 1,000. No modifications to the
originally proposed LCP Resubmittal document were made at that time.
The Subcommittee Alternative was heard by the City Planning Commission on December 18,
continued to January 8, and by the City Council January 14, 1992. Both approved the
Subcommittee Alternative, certified the Final EIR, and made Findings, adopted a Mitigation
Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
At their January 14, 1992 meeting and February 4, 1992 meeting, the City Council directed staff
to process and return to Council for approval of: a local Coastal Program Resubmittal
(amendment), a General Plan amendment, and a Redevelopment Plan amendment consistent with
the Subcommittee Alternative and including their modifications and informational items.
The proposed Chula Vista Local Coastal Program Resubmittal is the document that has been
prepared in response to this Council directive. Additionally, the General Plan Amendment has
been prepared to make the General Plan consistent with the LCP. The Redevelopment Plan
Amendment will be prepared following approval of these plans.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
[1] Certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal
No.8 Amendment (EIR 89-08), and Addendum thereto, have been prepared pursuant to
CEQA, its Guidelines, and all local ordinances;
~&.-.2.
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 10/13/92
i
[2) Recommend that adoption of the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP)
Resubmitta1, consisting of the Land Use Plan (LUP) and Specific Plan (SP), including the
changes shown in the resolution be continued until economic feasibility of the project as
approved by the City Council is reconciled;
[3) Continue Amendment of the General Plan Land Use Element, Land Use Circulation
Diagram, and Parks and Recreation Element, and Bayfront Plan as shown in Attachment A
until Item [2) above is reconciled; and
[4) Not Make Findings of Fact, adopt the Midbayfront LCP No.8 Amendment Mitigation
Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations until project economic
feasibility is reconciled.
ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION AVAILABLE TO THE COUNCIL:
[1] Adopt the resolution; and
[2] Introduce the Ordinance (first reading).
BOARDS/COMl\fiSSIONS RECOMMENDATION: At their meeting of September 23, 1992
the City Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the Final
Environmental Impact Report Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment (EIR 89-08) and
Addendum thereto; and recommended amendment of the General Plan Land Use Element, Land
Use Circulation Diagram, Parks and Recreation Element, Bayfront Area Plan, and adoption of
the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) Resubmittal with staff recommended changes as
shown in the resolution. This recommendation is subject to submission and Council review of
the Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates Economic Feasibility Report Executive Summary which
addresses the financial feasibility of the project.
DISCUSSION:
I. Final Environmental ImDact ReDort
The Final EIR, Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment, and Addendum thereto,
addressed impacts of changes to the LCP from development of the Midbayfront and the northern
portion of Rohr's property. The proposed LCP Resubmittal includes the project as analyzed in
the Final EIR and Addendum, and remains appropriate and adequate for this proposal with
inclusion of stafr s recommendation regarding Cultural Arts Facility height and total project
square footage. Certification that it has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), its Guidelines, and local ordinances is necessary in order to take action
on the proposed LCP Resubmittal and General Plan Amendment (GPA).
~ ~'.3
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 10/13/92
g'
The Final EIR identified impacts associated with the LCP Resubmittal and associated GPA; it
identified mitigation measures, and the level of significance after implementation of mitigation.
The summary impact table from the Final EIR is included as Attachment B.
The CEQA Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring
Program are documents that are necessary to adopt if the Council approves the GPA and LCP
Resubmittal. The Findings of Fact summarize the significant and potentially significant effects
of the project, the feasibility of mitigation measures and their ability to avoid or reduce impacts,
and the feasibility of project alternatives. The Mitigation Monitoring Program details the
implementation methodology and monitoring and reporting program for mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR. The Statement of Overriding Considerations contains the project
benefits that the Chula Vista City Council believes outweigh or justify the existence of
significant and unmitigated environmental impacts which would occur if the project were
implemented. These documents (in particular, the Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations) make conclusions about the economic feasibility of the proposed project. The
City Council, as the decision-making authority of the City, is responsible for identifying the
City's willingness to approve the proposed project in light of the City's substantial economic
commitment which will be necessary in order for the project to proceed.
n. General Plan Amendment
A. Land Use Element Text
The current General Plan and LCP designate the Midbayfront core area (between Lagoon
Drive and Marina Parkway) for Professional Office and Residential Land Use. The City
Council has provided specific direction that the Midbayfront land uses should develop with
an emphasis on destination resort facilities coupled with a high degree of public park and
open space acreage. The proposed GPA and LCP Resubmittal are consistent with the City
Council direction on this matter. Irrespective of any potential issues raised by development
intensity levels proposed in the LCP Resubmittal, the underlying land use designations
proposed in the General Plan are recommended for approval.
The Midbayfront Conceptual Plan Subcommittee Alternative proposes a resort use of
approximately 44 acres as the project centerpiece, between Bay Blvd., Marina Parkway
(westerly extension of E Street), and Lagoon Drive (westerly extension of F Street). The
current General Plan Land Use Element does not contain a land use category which
adequately describes such a land use.
Therefore, staff proposes that a new commercial land use category, entitled "Resort", be
added to Section 4.2 of the Land Use Element. The proposed language is as follows:
"RESORT: This category identifies large-scale reson facilities proposed to serve
as "destination "-oriented, with a full range of reson-related services. Signing
~t,~i
Page S, Item
Meeting Date 10/13/92
i'
ofresons shall be in areas with significant attractions, such as bodies of water
or other natural features, which provide ample recreational opponunities and
scenic vistas. Resort facilities include, but are not necessarily limited to, hotels
and motels, resort-oriented commercial services, restaurants, retail shops, a
cultural arts center, recreational uses, time-share residences, coriference centers,
and pennanent residences. Specific intensity of use for resons within this
category shall be detennined at the project level, with consideration given to
general plan consistency, environmental impacts, and other relevant factors. .
This language adequately describes the proposed Midbayfront resort facility. It may be
applied in other areas of the City upon approval of a general plan amendment based on a
proposed project, but will clearly be limited in scope.
B. Land Use and Circulation Diagram
Exhibit A shows the existing land use and circulation diagram for the Midbayfront area,
while Exhibit B shows the proposed land use and circulation diagram. The major changes
to the diagram can be summarized in the following table:
AREA OLD LAND USE NEW LAND USE
North of Marina Parkway Professional & Administrative High-Density Residential
Commercial (t8-27 du/ac.) and
Parks and Recreation
North of Marina Parkway Open Space (SDG&E transmission Visitor-Serving Commercial
line)
North of Marina Parkway Circulation Element Class I Deleted
Collector
South of Marina Parkway, Medium Residential, Professional Resort
north of Lagoon Drive & Administrative Commercial,
Parks & Recreation. Open Space
South of Lagoon Drive Research & Limited Industrial Professional & Administrative
Commercial
In addition, the alignments of Marina Parkway and Lagoon Drive have been slightly altered
on the Land Use and Circulation Diagram, which has the effect of increasing the amount
of area designated Parks & Recreation located between Marina Parkway and San Diego
Bay.
The proposed amendments to the diagram will result in the following changes in acreages
for each affected land use category:
~ ~.5'
Page 6, Item ~
Meeting Date 10/13/92
Land Use Cateoorv
Existing Plan Proposed Plan
(acres) (acres)
Medium Residential
High Residential
Visitor Commercial
Professional & Administrative Commercial
Resort
Research & Limited Industrial
Parks & Recreation
Open Space
Circulation Element Streets
18 0
o 18
9 14
37 15
o 44
8 0
21 40
56 22
16 12
The proposed changes to the Land Use and Circulation Diagram are appropriate in order
to allow the Midbayfront Conceptual Plan to proceed, and will have no adverse effects on
the remainder of the General Plan.
c. Parks and Recreation Element
An amendment to Table 7-2 of the Parks & Recreation Element is also proposed as part
of this General Plan Amendment. The proposed change would remove Park 2.23, the
proposed Bayfront Park, from the list of Planned Neighborhood Parks, and would instead
designate it in the list of Planned Special Purpose Parks. The amendment would allow the
Bayfront Park to be developed as the specialized park facility with amenities such as water-
related recreation and cultural arts facilities that are proposed in the Midbayfront
Conceptual Plan.
D. Bayfront Area Plan
A minor textual amendment to the sentence incorporating by reference the Bayfront Specific
Plan into the General Plan would indicate that revisions to the Plan occurred as part of this
action.
m. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBMI'ITAL
The proposed Loca1 Coastal Program (LCP) Resubmittal, changes the existing certified LCP in
the Midbayfront area (Subarea 1), the northern portion of Subarea 2(Rohr), and changes the land
use designations to reflect the existence of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge.
Otherwise, information in the LCP has not changed, but has been re-arranged for organizational
reasons. The changes in the LCP are consistent with the Planning Commission and City Council
approved Subcommittee Alternative.
The informational items that the Council directed staff to include are discussed below.
~~-~
Page 7, Item t'
Meeting Date 10/13/92
1. Economic Feasibility - Council required an Economic Feasibility Analysis which
would be approved prior to, or concurrently with, the LCP Resubmittal and General
Plan Amendment. The criteria for approval of this report was that it demonstrated
clearly that the proposed project/phasing is economically feasible. Initial information
submitted by the developer indicates that the project Ell n21 be economically feasible
without public assistance. To date, the Council has indicated that public subsidies
would not be available for this project.
Staff has reviewed an economic feasibility analysis from the developer's consultant,
Price Waterhouse. Based upon the conclusions of their analysis which was predicated
upon the developer's phasing plan, the project, as approved by the City Council on
January 14, 1992 including school and low/moderate income housing mitigation but
excluding the Cultural Arts Center and ice skating rink (discussed below), would
require public assistance estimated at $30.6 million. This public assistance includes
$5 million public financing assistance (Mello Roos). The developer would receive a
fair return on his investment (13%). The Redevelopment Agency has retained
William Kuebelbeck to review the developer's analysis and verify the conclusions.
However, this information is not available as of the writing of this report. A
Summary Report will be submitted to the Council with the Agenda package.
Based upon previous analysis done by Williams Kuebelbeck and a cursory review of
the developer's analysis, the general consensus is that the project, as approved by the
Council, will require substantial public assistance to be economically feasible. The
extent of such assistance will be confirmed by Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates.
2. Minimal Residential Density to Permit Economic Feasibility - Council requested that
the minimum number of residential units be identified that would permit the project
to remain economically feasible. The developer's analysis (and the Williams
Kuebelbeck analysis) has assumed a minimum of 1,000 dwelling units. Since the
project's economic feasibility is in question and the residential component is
potentially the most profitable, a reduction in the number of units would negatively
impact economic feasibility and necessitate greater public assistance or a further
reduction in public improvements.
3. Shipbuilding Jobs - Council requested the retention of shipbuilding jobs, through the
relocation of the shipyard facility to a site within the same general area. The lessee
of the shipbuilding business has not, to date, indicated an intent to vacate the premises
prior to the termination of the lease (expires August 1993).
4. Coordination with Coastal Commission Processinl! - Council directed staff to review
mass transit options with Coastal Commission staff, and to work with the Coastal
Commission staff as to the acceptability of the proposed building heights and other
project features.
-?' ,- ~-?
Page 8, Item t
Meeting Date 10/13/92
Coastal Commission staff are interested in all transportation demand management
programs that achieve reduction in numbers of trips. They are more concerned .
though, that land use densities are exceeding projected/planned densities and resulting
in more vehicle trips. The Commission staff views the trolley as a benefit to
transportation options at the Midbayfront area. Also, they indicated that the railroad
tracks were retained in the existing certified LCP and could be another possible
solution in proposed LCP for future mass transit. These tracks are also shown on the
land use map in the proposed LCP Resubmittal.
Regarding building heights and other project features, Coastal Commission staff said
in their review letter dated July 28, 1992 that, "as we have stated on numerous
occasions in the past, we remain concerned about the scale and intensity of
development proposed for the Midbayfront." Their concerns regarding traffic and
visual quality of the Midbayfront area stem from their concern over the intensity.
Recent verbal communication with staff confirms this concern. Staff point to the 44-
foot height limit in much of this area which was certified by the Commission to be
consistent with Coastal Act policies, and to the absence of project specifics regarding
building heights and building placement. In particular, the Cultural Arts Facility
height and location potentially affects views, aesthetics, and biological resources.
Coastal staff may provide a formal response to the City prior to the Council hearing.
The City Council also directed that certain conditions are proposed in the LCP Resubmittal and
General Plan Amendment documents. Each of these is discussed below.
5. Cultural Arts Facility - Council stated that upon determination by them that a cultural
arts facility is most appropriately placed within the territory of the Midbayfront area,
that the developer shall dedicate the land for this facility including parking, and
develop and present to the Council for approval a feasible financing plan that will
permit the design and construction of a multi-functional cultural arts center with a
minimum goal of 2,000 seat capacity. Also, they stated that the developer should
contribute significant financing for this facility, while also allowing for Port
participation.
As described in number I under the Economic Feasibility Analysis discussion, the
project would require substantial public assistance without the cultural arts facility.
The cultural arts facility analysis completed by AMS Planning & Research
Corporation in March 1992 found that a multi-form facility of 1,500 seats would be
most appropriate for this market area, and that such a facility would cost between $30-
37.3 million to construct (excluding land and parking costs). Assuming dedication of
land by the developer and parking structure costs of $6.8 million, the total cost could
range from $36.8 to $44.1 million. The City Council did not conduct a workshop to
discuss the Cultural Arts Facility project and associated cost.
~ ~-8'"
Page 9, Item t:'
Meeting Date 10/13/92
The LCP Resubmittal document reserves space for such a facility in one of two
locations - either at the west end of the site, west of Marina Parkway, or at the
southeast side of the Midbayfront development, west of the SDG&E right-of-way (see
Exhibit 4 and pg. ill-7, LCP Resubmittal Land Use Plan). The LCP Resubmittal calls
for this facility to be 100 feet high. However, due to environmental considerations,
the building height cannot exceed 69 feet above grade if located west of Marina
Parkway. Staffs recommendation includes a change of this height to 69 feet to
address this. Otherwise, new environmental analysis must occur, and recirculation of
the EIR.
6. Ice Rink/Park - Council required developer dedication and construction of/or funding
construction of a 62,000 square foot, 5,000 seat capacity ice rink, or, alternatively,
a park.
The ice rink with parking has been estimated to cost $18.2 million by the developer
($4 million without parking). Joint parking with other facilities is being investigated
to reduce costs.
As discussed earlier regarding economic feasibility, the project would require
substantial public assistance without this facility. Therefore, any additional capital
costs added to the project by including an ice rink would add to the required public
assistance.
Space has been reserved for an ice rink in the LCP Resubmittal (see Central Resort
District Concept, Exhibit 4, LCP Resubmittal Land Use Plan).
7. Limited Number of High Rises - Council stated that the LCP Resubmittal and General
Plan Amendment should provide no more than four (4) high rise structures ("high
rise" meaning more than ten (10) stories tall).
The LCP Resubmittal provides for this condition.
8. Parkin!! - Council directed that a minimum of 75% of the required parking for the
resort and residential uses be provided in subterranean or "concealed" parking
structures.
The LCP Resubmittal provides for this on pg. ill-27.
9. BikelHikin\! Trails - Council required an integrated trail system to maximize trail and
visual access to the Bayfront, providing linkage to the Chula Vista Greenbelt.
The LCP Resubmittal provides for this on pgs. ill-23 to ill-24.
~~-1
Page 10, Item g'"
Meeting Date 10/13/92
10. Water Access - Council mandated that a location be identified that would provide for
future direct access to the bay (pending federal, state and Port District approvals).
The LCP ResubmittaI provides an area of passive park uses that would not preclude
such access (see Policy EM.l.I, pgs. m-47 to m-48 LCP ResubmittaI Land Use
Plan), however, the mudflats and eelgrass westward of this are extremely rich and
sensitive ecosystems. The federal and state regulatory agencies have indicated that
such access would be prohibited due to these resources.
11. Traffic - Council stated that the project shall not cause traffic in the project vicinity
to exceed City Threshold Standards, and that a traffic monitoring program be
established as an implementation and phasing requirement.
A traffic monitoring program has yet to be established; traffic impacts and mitigation
would be determined at a project level. Impacts were considered significant and not
mitigated at the Plan level, however, potentially feasible mitigation measures identified
in the Final EIR maintained City Threshold Standards in the project vicinity.
12. Compliance with the City's Affordable Housinl! Policy
Compliance with this Policy will be included in the LCP Resubmittal on page VII-I3
of the Specific Plan.
13. Agreement between the Developer. School Districts and City to Assure Adequate
Student Facilities
This agreement will be included in the LCP Resubmittal on page VII-I3 of the
Specific Plan.
The Council's condition for a detailed Phasing Plan is appropriate for the Owner Participation
Agreement or Disposition and Development Agreement, yet, the LCP ResubmittaI should include
general Midbayfront phasing. Staffs recommendations include this general phasing to
incorporate development of biological mitigation measures, and the Central Resort District first,
while allowing no more than 25 % of northern residential development to also be included in this
first phase. This condition was also important to Coastal Commission staff.
Also, the Council's conditions to prepare an Air Quality Improvement Plan and a Water
Conservation Plan would be prepared at the project level.
~ ~-I()
Page 11, Item t'
Meeting Date 10/13/92
IV. CEOA FINDINGS. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM.
AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
If the City Council approves the proposed project, then the Council must concurrently make
Findings of Fact, adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt the
Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Findings of Fact identify the potentially significant
and significant environmental impacts, the ability of feasible mitigation measures or alternatives
to substantially lessen or avoid significant impacts, and the feasibility of alternatives. The
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program identifies the implementation program for project
mitigation measures. The Statement of Overriding Considerations identifies the benefits that the
project would bring that would override the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.
V. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN REOUIREMENTS
Some conditions required by the Council were determined by staff to be appropriate items for
the Redevelopment Plan Amendment rather than be included in an LCP or GPA. The
Redevelopment Plan Amendment shall be accomplished only through an Owner Participation
Agreement or Disposition and Development Agreement which contains the following
requirements for the Midbayfront area only:
. Prohibition of hotel conversions to residential use
. Participation in a yet-to-be-established Nature Interpretive Center Benefit or
Assessment District
. Agreement to allow lagoon in northern residential area to be private
. Detailed Phasing Plan
FISCAL IMPACT:
Council required an Economic Feasibility Analysis which would be approved prior to or
concurrently with the LCP Resubmittal. The report was to demonstrate the economic feasibility
of the proposed project and phasing plan. To date, staff has received a feasibility analysis from
the developer's consultant, Price Waterhouse, which indicates that the project will require
substantial public assistance in order to be financially feasible. This analysis is being reviewed
by the Agency' economic consultant, WilIiams-Kuebelbeck & Associates. An Executive
Summary of the Williams Kuebelbeck & Associates findings will be provided to the Agency
under separate cover.
The Price Waterhouse study concluded that the project, as approved by the Council/Agency
earlier this year, has a ne\!ative net present value of $30,594,563. This figure includes school
and low/moderate income housing mitigation costs and a 13 percent return on investment to the
J::# ~-JI
Page 12, Item ~
Meeting Date 10/13/92
developer. It does not include funding for the Nature Interpretive Center, Cultural Arts Center,
or Ice Skating Rink. Inclusion of these items would increase the negative Net Present Value
(NPV) as follows:
In Millions
Net Present Value without Extras
Nature Interpretive Center Operations
(capitalized atl
($30.61
( 5.01
( 4.01
( 40.01
Skating Rink (without Parkingl
Cultural Arts Center (with Parking)
Cultural Arts Center Operating Subsidy Capitalized
~l
($84.61
Total NPV of the Project
Price Waterhouse estimates total tax increments accruing to the City/ Agency over the first 25
years at $73.8 million, and an additional $31 million in reversionary value based upon future
income to be derived beyond the 25 year.
Financial feasibility of the base project, without NIC, Skating Rink, and Cultural Arts Center,
would require public assistance estimated by Price Waterhouse as follows:
In Millions
Tax Revenue Sharing
Mello Roos Subsidy
$25.3
--.M
Total Public Assistance
Project NPV
$30.3
1$ .31
The City Council has indicated that the project would have to "stand on its own" fmancially.
The Council has not held a workshop to review this information which is currently being
reviewed by Williams Kuebelbeck & Associates.
It should be noted that the Price Waterhouse figures are based upon a land development and
parcel sales scenario and !lQ1 project buildout which may further impact project financing. Price
Waterhouse also predicated project revenue estimates upon the Developer's Phasing Plan in
which all of the hotels are built at the same time.
By way of comparison, the Williams Kuebelbeck & Associates analysis that the Council
reviewed in January was predicated on the assumption that the Developer would build out the
project based upon staffs Phasing Plan which staggered hotel development. The Williams
~ d? 'l~
Page 13, Item
Meeting Date 10/13/92
i
Kuebelbeck & Associates analysis indicated that the project was financially feasible if the
Developer accepted a 9 percent to 10 percent return of investment.
The Developer indicated, in January, that an 8% to 10% return was acceptable. The higher
return (13 percent) in the recent Price Waterhouse analysis has substantial impact upon the NVP
for the project.
The Williams Kuebelbeck & Associates analysis did not consider fmancing of the Skating Rink
or Cultural Arts Center.
In order to determine financial feasibility, the Agency must consider the conclusions of the
Williams Kuebelbeck & Associates analysis, determine whether public assistance will be
provided and, if so, to what extent.
[C:\WP)1 ICOUNClLII J3S\BA Y-J.llJj
~~-/.J
TIllS PAGE BlANK
~~-I'I
tJ1fl?rr tP
MEMORANDUM
October 20, 1992
TO:
FROM:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
(:
John D. Goss, City Manager.-K1l"n~i
Chris Salomone, Community Development Director l_S,
VIA:
SUBJECT: Midbayfront Local Coastal Plan Amendment
Tonight is the second reading of Ordinance 2532 to approve the Local Coastal Plan Amendment
for the proposed Midbayfront Project. At the first reading of the ordinance on October 13, 1992
the Council asked for certain changes in the LCP documents. These changes, list on
Attachment A, are being incorporated into the appropriate documents.
The Council is also reminded that staff has been directed to work with Ted Gurnee of San Diego
Shipbuilding, tenants at 980 F Street, towards locating a suitable relocation site, preferably
within one of the adjacent subareas--Subarea 2 or 3--in the Bayfront planning area. It has been.
the expressed preference of staff that this business remain in Chula Vista, if possible.
[C:\WP51 \COUNCILIMEMOS\INFO-18.MEM]
~ /.;< L/
~. v
< 0" ~~v
\,.~ CJ ,oi)
f ~\" t.~ ~11 Ordinance No. 2532 O'~\)
_(f.t' ,,~ .,~ St-.G \
f"""~t." 0'\ ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
'7 \ ADOPTING, ON CONDITIONS, THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN, RE-
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE
MIDBA YFRONT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBMIITAL NO. 8
AMENDMENT (ErR 89-08) AND ADDENDUM THERETO, AND MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH REGARD THERETO, RE-ADOPTING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVER-
RIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN
\~ f>.~\)
,?-t-.~\)\~
P.\)O?:'i\O~
WHEREAS, the Midbayfront Land, as the term is used herein, shall refer to the shaded
area of land as shown on the attached Exhibit Cli; and,
WHEREAS, the owner of the Midbayfront Land has applied to the City for various
entitlements described herein; and,
WHEREAS, on February 4, 1992, the Chula Vista City Council adopted Resolution
No. 16467, which approved the Midbayfront Conceptual Development Plan (Subcommittee
Alternative) with modifications made by the Council ("Council Alternative") which operated as
direction to staff to process and return to Council for approval of an LCP Resubmittal for the
territory of the Midbayfront, a Redevelopment Plan Amendment and a General Plan Amendment
that provides a plan for the development of the Midbayfront consistent with the Midbayfront
LCP Conceptual Development Plan (Subcommittee Alternative), with certain designated changes,
conditions, information and additional processing direction contained therein and incorporated
herein by reference; and,
WHEREAS, the implementation of Resolution No. 16467 and the Midbayfront
Conceptual Development Plan (Subcommittee Alternative), with modifications, will require,
among other things,
(1) General Plan Amendment.
the approval of a General Plan Amendment amending the General Plan Land Use
Element, Land Use and Circulation Diagram, Parks and Recreation Element, Bayfront
Area Plan, all of which is more particularly articulated in Resolution No. 16838 under
the Section entitled "General Plan Amendment" ("Midbayfront GPA"); and,
(2) Local Costal Program Resubmittal No. 8
I. Exhibit A and B omitted.
mbf3.wp
October 9, 1992
Ord adopting Midbayfront SP
Page 1
" -f-~d
ATTACHMENT "A"
CHANGES TO BAY FRONT LCP
I. Changes to Exhibits
A. Delete the West Fairfield Subarea from the following LCP
Exhibits
1.
Land
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Use Plan Exhibits
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
2. Specific Plan Exhibits
a. Exhibit 1
b. Exhibit 2
c. Exhibit 3
d. Exhibit 4
e. Exhibit 7
f. Exhibit 8
g. Exhibit 9
h. Exhibit 10
B. Changes not related to West Fairfield
1. Revise F & G Street Marsh, Exhibit 11 in L.U.P. and
Exhibit 12 in S.P. to illustrate the wetland
enhancement agreed to by CVI, the city, and the Fish
& wildlife Service.
2. Delete 8' wide moat shown on Exhibit 11 in S.P. and
Exhibit 10 in L.U.P.
II. Changes to Tables
A. Delete statistics and references related to the West
Fairfield subarea from the following LCP tables.
1. Table 3-1 of L.U.P., p. III-11
2. Table 3-2 of L.U.P., p. III-15
3. Table IV of S.P., p. IV-5
&'oZS
(A'V
,
,," ~tI
\00/
Note: L.U.P. refers to Land Use Plan
S.P. refers to Specific Plan
B. Changes to Tables not related to West Fairfield
1. Correct table 3-1 of L.U.P. to accurately reflect the
change of 12 acres in the Land Use Plan (Rohr I s
headquarters office complex) from "Industrial" to
"Professional & Administrative".
2. Revise table 3-4 in L.U.P., p. III-51 and table VI-1
in S.P., p. VI-10 to indicate that items 2 & 3 under
wetland restoration should be 2.3 and 2.0 acres
instead of 2.0 and 1.5 acres respectively. Also add
to these same tables under other enhancement that
approximately 8.5 acres of new coastal sage
scrub/succulent scrub habitat will be provided within
the Primary Buffer Zone.
III. Changes to LCP Text
A. Land Use Plan
1. (p.vi) Delete West Fairfield
2. (p.I-2) Revise subarea numbering in fourth paragraph
resulting from deletion of West Fairfield.
3. (p.I-4) Delete West Fairfield (Subarea 4) and revise
subarea numbering of other subareas.
4. (p.II-3 & 4) Add the word approximately preceding
the acreage in second paragraph.
5. (p.III-1) Revise statistics in second paragraph to
reflect deletion of West Fairfield.
6. (p.III-2) Delete last sentence in fifth paragraph
relating to West Fairfield.
7. (p.III-6) Revise the acreage of Research & Limited
Industrial to reflect the deletion of West Fairfield.
8. (p.IV-4) Add to Policy Sl.C.I under Marina Parkway:
"The width of Marina Parkway shown on Exhibit 11 in
the vicinity of F-G street Marsh shall not be widened
beyond that indicated therein."
9. (p.IV-12)
S2.A.1.
Pluralize the word "area" in Policy
10. (p.IV-13) Delete subarea 4 - West Fairfield and
revise subarea numbering of subareas that follow.
Note: L.U.P. refers to Land Use Plan
S.P. refers to Specific Plan
.
0.11
~r~?
B. Specific Plan
1. (p.v) Delete West Fairfield and renumber subareas
that follow.
2. (p. V-I) Delete subarea 4 - West Fairfield and
renumber subareas that follow.
3. (p.V-7) Add to paragraph b, 2): "Sign design and
lettering shall not permit perching by avian
predators of the California least tern, light-footed
clapper rail, or Belding's Savannah Sparrow."
4. (p.vr-S) Revise acreage in paragraph 1) b) from 2.0
to 2.3 acres.
5. (p.vr-S) Revise acreage in paragraph 1) c) from 1.5
to 2.0 acres.
6. (p.Vrr-21) Delete paragraph '0' West Fairfield
Subarea
b~ -.2 ?
Note: L.U.P. refers to Land Use Plan
S.P. refers to Specific Plan
October 20, 1992
~?
CROSSROADS
P.O. Box 470
Chula Vista, CA 91912
Mayor Tim Nader
Chula Vista City Council
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor and City Council: Oil ~ $J<-(froJfI
We hereby demand that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)^not be
certified tonight because it is inadequate. The A. .~l"",l finailcial
feasibility study conducted by the developer concluded that the
bay-front project was unfeasible. A new study was ordered and
hasn't been completed to this date. We believe without the new
feasibility. study we do not know if the the environmental
mitigation, as required in the EIR, will be able to be achieved.
We believe that there will not be enough financial resources
generated by the project, which will result in the following
environmentally adverse impacts on the project:
(1) Inadequate roads
(2) Inadequate schools
(3) Create additional air pollution
(4) Create t~affic significantly above Chula
Vista's threshold levels.
(5) Provide an inadequate buffer between project,
environmentally sensitive wetlands and
endangered species.
(6) Over-building and in too-dense development.
(7) Create urban blight
We further believe that consideration of alternative projects and
alternative sites was inadequate and a farce. The Chula Vista City
Council and Staff only wanted to consider unworkable alternatives,
so the present plan could be approved.
At time of the public hearing October 13, 1992, the justification
given for the Chula Vista Council's approval was pending private
negotiations with the San Diego Port District. All knowledge of
these negotiations were unknown to the public. The public was at a
significant handicap to participate intelligently in the public
hearing.
In summary: We believe the economic feasibly of this project is
going to result in some physical impacts which are going to have
significant effec&on the environment and demand that you not go
forward with the certification of the EIR until you receive and
study the new economic feasibility study.
';'inCerelY~~' //~
p,t" W.t" ~v ~
F,,:ft~<~
Carol
t~~g/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Iteml
Meeting Date 10/20/92
Resolution 11D~3q Approving Grant Application
for County of San Diego Recycling Technical
Assistance Program for FY 1992-1993.
SUBMITTED BY: Conservation Coor<;l.,J.nator ALB
REVIEWED BY: city Manager~1~1~~(4/5ths Vote:
Yes_ No--.!L)
BACKGROUND:
In January, 1992, the city Council of Chula vista adopted a
mandatory recycling ordinance requiring demolition and construction
industries to recycle by October 1992. Additionally, the ordinance
requires offices and office complexes 20,000 square feet or more
and all restaurants, bars and hospitality establishments to recycle
by July, 1993.
Under prior year grants from the County of San Diego's Technical
Assistance Program (FY 1990-1991 and FY 1991-1992) the City began
its Business Recycling Outreach Project. The Project has provided
a strong foundational basis for the development of the citywide
commercial and industrial recycling programs. This report describes
a proposal to expand the Business Recycling Outreach Project for FY
1992-93 for which County grant funds are being requested. The
total amount being requested under this proposal is $16,434. Grant
monies for the proposal, if funded, would be awarded sometime in
January, 1993.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
Approve resolution for county of San Diego Recycling Technical
Assistance Program grant application and authorize City Manager to
submit.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Resource Conservation
commission is not scheduled to meet again until October 26th, which
is following the submittal deadline for the application. However,
a special mailing of this report will be sent to them for their
review as an information item. staff will accept any comments on
the grant prior to submittal to the County. If awarded funding,
staff will bring the item to the RCC for consideration prior to
requesting Council acceptance of the grant.
1- \
DISCUSSION:
The County of San Diego, through its Recycling Technical Assistance
Program (TAP), has made available $1,000,000 for this fiscal year
to promote commercial, industrial and institutional recycling
programs. In fiscal year 1990-91, the City was awarded a TAP grant
of $15,000 to implement the Model Office Recycling Program and
establish the Business Recycling Outreach Project which allowed
staff to target ten offices for recycling program set-up, including
Scripps Memorial Hospital and offices in the Bay Medical Plaza.
In fiscal year 1991-1992 the city was awarded another TAP grant,
for $11,373, to expand the Business Recycling Outreach Project to
include not only outreach to offices, but restaurants, bars and
other hospitality establishments as well as demolition and
construction firms. Under this grant, staff is targeting 20
additional offices, 10 hospitality establishments and demolition
and construction firms in the City for recycling program
development. This current qrant will end in April. 1993.
It is the intent of staff to coordinate and expand upon current
commercial and industrial recycling activities in Chula Vista, and
to, again, apply for funding from the County's Recycling Technical
Assistance Program. Through this grant application, it is proposed
that the Business Recycling Outreach Project be expanded to include
outreach and assistance to all businesses required to recycle under
the Mandatory Recycling Ordinance, as well as retail
establishments, schools, recreational areas and landscapers.
Staff is sensitive to previous Council concerns regarding the
number of personnel in the Recycling Program. Staff wanted to make
it clear that staffing for the proposed Project would include the
Conservation Coordinator and a new intern, to be funded through the
grant, if awarded. Further, overall funding for the City Recycling
Program staff will continue to be reduced as the temporary
appointments (interns) expire in accordance wi th proj ect
completion. A matrix of Recycling Program staff is contained in
Attachment A. A brief description of the proposed Project follows.
proiect Descriptions
1) Business Recycling Outreach Project
The proposal will expand Chula vista's Business Recycling Outreach
Project ("Project") to allow for recycling program development at
all businesses required to begin recycling by July 1992 under the
city and County mandatory recycling ordinances. This will include
offices or office complexes 20,000 square feet or more, and all
restaurants and hospi tali ty establishments currently not recycling.
Additionally, Project staff will continue to work with demolition
2
'\-2
and construction industry to ensure that all businesses in this
sector are recycling.
project staff will distribute the City's Office Recycling Guide,
Demolition and Construction Recycling Guide (now being finalized)
and the Restaurant Recycling Guide (currently being developed) to
all businesses requesting information. Additionally, Project staff
will be available to assist in waste audits, program development,
promotional and educational material distribution and employee
training.
A new aspect of the Business Recycling Outreach Project to be
developed will include outreach to retail establishments, schools,
recreational areas and landscapers. Businesses in these sectors
have not yet been actively targeted for recycling program
development. Project staff will promote recycling at all area malls
and retail centers. Particularly important will be outreach to
area landscapers, as landscape debris is required to be recycled
under the Mandatory Recycling Ordinance as of January, 1993.
2) Regional Materials Exchange Bank
A Regional Materials Exchange Bank, now being developed as part of
TAP fiscal year 1991-1992 funding, will be expanded to foster a
greater awareness of the concept of materials reuse as a viable
source reduction strategy. staff will request information from
businesses on material by-products ("wastes") of respective
manufacturing or operational activities that could be utilized by
other industries, as well as to ascertain industries that utilize
or could potentially utilize industrial by-products in their
manufacturing process. The "bank" listings would then be
distributed to area industries.
The City will work in conjunction with the state's CALMAX materials
exchange program to facilitate the distribution of this local
listing throughout the state, as well as provide state-wide
information for use by local establishments. Charitable
organizations, "second-hand" stores and market opportunities in
Mexico will also be included in the Materials Exchange Bank to
encourage donation of used office equipment, furniture, clothing,
school and office supplies and other useful items.
Grant Reauirements
As required in the previous grant cycles, the City must have
adopted waste diversion goals of 30% by 1992 consistent with County
goals. Council policy #530-01 adopted 4-26-90 regarding "Recycling
and Integrated Waste Management" established the wastestream
diversion goal of 30 percent by 1992. Additionally, through the
mandatory recycling ordinance, all residents and most businesses
3
I-~
will need to recycle according to the timeline established by the
County and city.
It is also required under the County's Technical Assistance Grant
Program that matching funds of 50 percent be appropriated for
projects receiving grant funds. At least 25 percent of these funds
must be in the form of cash or capital outlays ("hard match") and
25 percent as "soft match," such as in-kind donation of services.
The "soft match" will be in the form of staff work on the proposed
project (including, approximately 25 percent of the Conservation
Coordinator's time). currently, the Conservation Coordinator
spends an average of 20 to 25 percent of her time on commercial and
industrial recycling programming, which will increase as the
mandatory ordinance is implemented for the commercial sector.
If awarded the grant, staff will return to Council to request
acceptance of the grant and identify a funding source for the
required "hard match." The due date for the grant application
submittal is October 26, 1992 by 3:00 pm. A copy of the grant
application will be on file in the City Manager's office as of
October 20th.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact as a result of this
action. If the grant application is approved by the County, the
approximate $4200 in hard match funds required would be the subject
of a future City Council appropriation request. Funds for the hard
match could be appropriated from the Waste Management Trust fund.
Soft match funds would come largely from staff time to be devoted
to the Project, principally the Conservation Coordinator.
4
,-L\
Attachment A
Recycling Program Interns
Temporary
positions
staff
Years (FTE)
Project
Title
Funding
Source
Project
Duration
1 .50 Business County 4/92 - 4/93
Recycling (TAP 91-92)
Outreach Project
2 .50 Household state 8/92 - 8/93
Hazardous Waste
Education
Project
3 .25 Mandatory Waste Mgmt. 10/92 - 6/93
Recycling Trust Fund
Outreach
proposed .50 Business county 2/93 - 2/94
Recycling (TAP 92-93)
Outreach project
Expansion
5
I-S/7-~
RESOLUTION NO.
;68'$9
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING GRANT APPLICATION FOR
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO RECYCLING TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR FY 1992-93
WHEREAS, in January, 1992, the City Council of Chula
vista adopted a mandatory recycling ordinance requiring demolition
and construction industries to recycle by October 1992 which
ordinance additionally requires offices and office complexes 20,000
square feet or more and all restaurants, bars and hospitality
establishments to recycle by July, 1993; and,
WHEREAS, in July, 1991, a model, multi-material office
recycling program was established for almost 600 City employees
(full-time equivalent) and ten offices were targeted for recycling
program set-up, including Scripps Memorial Hospital and offices in
the Bay Medical Plaza; and,
WHEREAS, these offices were the first offices to recycle
under the City's Business Recycling Outreach Project ("Project"),
partially funded through a Technical Assistance Program (TAP) grant
(FY 1990-1991); and,
WHEREAS, last spring the Business Recycling Outreach
Project was expanded, again with partial funding from a TAP grant
FY 1991-1992), to include not only offices but restaurant and
hospitality establishments and construction and demolition firms;
and,
WHEREAS, under this current grant, guidebooks for
restaurant recycling and demolition and construction recycling are
being developed and staff is targeting 20 additional offices, 10
hospitality establishments and all demolition and construction
firms in the city for recycling program development which grant
will end in April, 1993; and,
WHEREAS, the Project has provided a strong foundational
basis for the development of the citywide commercial and industrial
recycling programs and it is proposed to expand the Business
Recycling Outreach Project for FY 1992-93 for which County grant
funds are being requested; and,
WHEREAS, the total amount being requested under this
proposal is $16,434.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby find that the general
1
7-'1
provisions of the grant proposal are consistent with the City and
County recycling goals; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the city
of Chula vista does hereby approve the grant application for County
of San Diego Recycling Technical Assistance Program for FY 1992-93
and does hereby authorize the City Manager or his designee to
submit same on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
Presented by
Athena Bradley, Conservation
Coordinator
F:\home\altomey\tap
2
?-gv'
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM ~
MEETING DATE 10-20-92
. \<.,'t,4D . . .
Resolutlon acceptlng Cal1fornla State Library -
California Library Services Act, Families for
Li teracv grant funds awarded to the Chula vista
Literacy Team, appropriating funds, and amending the
FY 1992-93 budget.
SUBMITTED BY: Library Director ~
"
'\'
REVIEWED BY: City Manager:Jc:.'0 j~\ (4/5ths Vote: Yes-1LNo_)
The Chula vista Literacy Team has been awarded a California Library
Services Act, Families for Literacv grant from the California State
Library to develop and offer special family literacy services and
programming to adult learners and their young children. This is
the second consecutive year that the Literacy Team has been awarded
a Families for Literacy grant from the California State Library.
These funds cannot be used to supplant the current tutor reading
program.
ITEM TITLE:
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On May 27, 1992 the Library Board
of Trustees voted to support the Library's application for CLSA
Families for Literacv grant funds.
DISCUSSION
Grant funds will be used to offer 3-5 special family literacy
programs which will be held at the Chula vista Public Library.
Each program is offered twice. All programs feature songs, story
times, craft activities, and informative presentations for parents.
Program participants (30-35 families) are given featured books for
the families to keep. Special bilingual story hours and
orientations to the Library are also offered. Volunteer tutors are
trained at specialized in-service workshops to incorporate
children's literature, reading readiness and language development
activities into the regular bi-weekly tutoring sessions with adult
family members.
Family literacy services are provided as a cooperative program with
Chula vista Elementary School Districts, Even Start Program,
Sweetwater Union High School District's Parent Education
Department, and social service providers throughout the community.
FISCAL IMPACT
Accepting this grant will provide $11,000 to implement this program
through the Chula vista Literacy Team. These funds will be
appropriated into fund 216-2163 (See attachment A) .
'6 -\
Item C6 ,Page 2
Meeting of 10/20/92
On September 23, 1992 the California State Librarian indicated this
FY 1992-93 Families for Literacy grant my be increased by an
additional $11,000 if the funding becomes available. The
anticipated increase is dependent upon the final State allocation
to the California Library Services Act (LSCA). The Library will
notify Council if and when the additional funds are made available.
~-2.
ATTACHMENT A
FAMILIES FOR LITERACY BUDGET
FY 1992-93
10/5/92
BUDGET ACCOUNT: 216-2163
5105 - Hourly Wages $8,000
5319 - Family Literacy Resources 2,088
5301 - Office/Program Supplies 337
5221 - Travel, Conferences, Meetings 200
5298 - Other Contractual Services 300
5218 - Postage 75
TOTAL $11,000
'6 -?:, /8,l/
RESOLUTION NO.
16pfJ/f)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY
- CALIFORNIA LIBRARY SERVICES ACT, FAMILIES
FOR LITERACY GRANT FUNDS AWARDED TO THE CHULA
VISTA LITERACY TEAM, APPROPRIATING FUNDS, AND
AMENDING THE FY 1992-93 BUDGET
WHEREAS, the Chula vista Literacy Team has been awarded
a California Library Services Act, Families for Literacy grant from
the California State Library to develop and offer special family
literacy services and programming to adult learners and their young
children; and,
WHEREAS, these funds cannot be used to supplant the
current tutor reading program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby accept the California State
Library - California Library Services Act, Families for Literacy
grant funds awarded to the Chula vista Literacy Team.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY 1992-93 budget is
amended by appropriating $11,000 from California Library Services
Act 216 Fund and transferring said amount into Account 216-2163.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Ii- 41.
Rosemary Lane, Library
Director
Bruce M. Boogaar , city
Attorney
F:\home\attomey\CLSA
7"5'"
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM ~
MEETING DATE 10/20/92
1 t' /b~YJ t' f d 1 'b S '
Resa u ~an accep ~ng e era L~ rary erv~ces
and Construction Act grant funds for the
continuation of specific library reference
resources, appropriating funds and amending the FY
1992-93 budget.
SUBMITTED BY: Library Director~
REVIEWED BY: city Manager-jc. \Jiy)~.\1 (4/5ths Vote: Yes~No_)
ITEM TITLE:
For the third consecutive year, the California State Library has
approved the Chula vista Public Library's application for Major
Urban Resource Library (MURL) funds. Major Urban Resource Library
(MURL) funds are available to libraries serving cities having a
population of 100,000 or more. These Federal Library Services and
Construction Act funds are awarded on a per capita calculation
based on the population and funding levels provided by the united
States Department of Education. These libraries must also
participate in the California Library Services Act (CLSA) database
and statewide inter-library loan programs. In FY 1992-93 the grant
amount is $11,888. These funds will purchase Business Collection,
a microfilm product of nearly 400 business journals.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Library Board of Trustees
supports the Library'S application for MURL funds.
DISCUSSION
As the Chula vista Public Library is a City agency serving a
resident population of over 100,000, we have been designated a
Major Urban Resource Library (MURL) and are therefore eligible for
these funds.
MURL funds were awarded to the Chula vista Public Library both in
FY 1990-91 and 1991-92 and were used to purchase business
directories, both regional and foreign, as well as timely business
information affecting the greater San Diego and southern California
area. As a result, the Chula vista Public Library has acquired
materials on twin plant/maquiladora projects with Mexico,
directories that highlight both product markets and suppliers in
the Southern California Area, directories which encourage import-
export with foreign companies and etiquette or doing business with
various foreign countries.
C1- \
ITEM 3-, PAGE 2
MEETING DATE 10/20/92
It is the Library I s intent to use the 1992-93 MURL funds to
purchase Business Collection for the users of the Chula vista
Public Library. Business Collection provides access to 400
business periodicals and journals on microfilm and is of use to
small business enterprises, students, private and public sector
administrators.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Accepting the grant will provide $11,888 to the City's General fund
and this amount will be appropriated to account 260-2609 5328.
q=2,.
RESOLUTION NO.
/68"'1/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING FEDERAL LIBRARY SERVICES
AND CONSTRUCTION ACT GRANT FUNDS FOR THE
CONTINUATION OF SPECIFIC LIBRARY REFERENCE
RESOURCES, APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND AMENDING
THE FY 1992-93 BUDGET
WHEREAS, the California State Library has approved the
Chula vista Public Library's application for Major Urban Resource
Library (MURL) funds in the amount of $11,888; and,
WHEREAS, these funds will purchase Business Collection,
a microfilm product of nearly 400 business journals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby accept the Federal Library
Services and Construction Act grant funds for the continuation of
specific library reference resources.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY 1992-93 budget is
hereby amended by appropriating $11,888 from the unappropriated
balance of the General Fund and transferred into Account No. 260-
2609-5328.
Presented by
Rosemary Lane, Library
Director
F:\hornc\attomey\MURL
9-~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 10
Meeting Date 10/20/92
ITEM TITLE:
RESOLUTION llo~ "\ "'2- Approving agreement between the City of
Chula Vista and Mental Health Systems, Inc. and authorizing the Mayor
to execute said agreement
C . 1 . / ~.
ommumty Deve opment DIrector l/-
City Manager "j., b~ ~0\\
(4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No _XJ
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND: On May 19, 1992, the City Council approved $227,790 of CDBG funds
to nineteen social service programs, including $5,000 for Mental Health Systems, Inc. to
establish a vocational services program at Kinesis South Day Treatment Program. The U.S.
Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) requires a written agreement between the
City and each sub-recipient of CDBG funds.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the resolution approving the agreement
between Mental Health Systems, Inc., and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Commission on Aging, the Youth
Commission, Childcare Commission and the Human Relations Commission made funding
recommendations in April 1992 which were considered by Council in approving the CDBG
budget on May 19, 1992.
DISCUSSION:
Kinesis South had originally requested $15,000 from the City's CDBG program. Based on the
recommendations of the Commissions and the limited social service funding, the Council
allocated Kinesis South $5,000 which will be used to employ one Employment Training
Specialist (ETS) part-time who will assist in developing a Vocational Center at Kinesis South
Day Treatment Program. This ETS will become knowledgeable about the Certification
Standards for Rehabilitation Facilities as published by the Department of Rehabilitation and take
the necessary steps to obtain certification as a Work Activities Center. Once certified as a Work
Activities Center, Kinesis would be eligible to receive revenue for certain vocational services
provided. The ETS would then provide ongoing vocational services on-site until the CDBG
grant revenue is utilized.
FISCAL IMPACT: This contract for $5,000 will be funded out of the 1992-93 Community
Development Block Grant entitlement of $1,380,000.
[AG\A:\KINESIS.I13]
DISK #8
lo - \ / 10 - 2-
RESOLUTION NO.
J~ 7''/..2
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a pri nci pa 1 goal of whi ch is to fund projects and servi ces
which will benefit low income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with
HUD for the City's annual CDBG entitlement and also anticipates program income
from the Housing Rehabilitation Revolving Fund; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a publ ic
hearing and allocated CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 19,
1992, a portion of which was allocated for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit
of low income households performed by the Grantee, and
WHEREAS, HUD requi res the execut i on of a wri tten agreement sett i ng out
the terms and obl igations for the expenditure of CDBG funds by the Grantee;
and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and
staffed in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services
requ i red of Grantee wi th in the time frames here i n prov i ded all in accordance
with the terms and condition of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES HEREBY FIND,
DETERMINE ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The City Counci 1 does hereby approve the Agreement known as
Document Number C092-_, a copy of which is on file in the office of the
City Clerk.
SECTION II. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor
of the Ci ty of Chul a Vi sta to execute said contract for and on behalf of the
City of Chula Vista.
SECTION III. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect
immediately upon the passage and adoption hereof.
SECTION IV. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of
this Resolution; shall enter the same in the book of origi 1 Resolutions said
City; and shall make a minute of the passa and ad t on hereof in the
minutes of the meeting at which the same is p se an~d ad pt d.l)
Presented by A rov (l as t 0 by
~~
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
1~-3/1(J-'1
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
~PC 4976K/4977K
"
AGREEMENT SETTING OUT TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.
IN REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS APPROPRIATED
THIS AGREEMENT is made this July 28, 1992, for the purposes of
reference only, and effective as of the date last executed between the
parties, between the City of Chula Vista ("City") herein, a municipal
corporation of the State of Cal ifornia, and Mental Health Systems, Inc., a
non-profi t organi zat i on ("Grantee"), and is made wi th reference to the
following facts:
RI~lIAJ..S.
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Program, a principal goal of which is to fund programs and
servi ces whi ch will benefit low and moderate- income Chul a Vi sta househo1 ds;
and,
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a separate funding agreement with
HUD for the City's annual CDBG entitlement and also anticipates program income
from the Housing Rehabilitation Revolving Fund; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public
hearing and allocated COBG entitlement and program income funds on May 19,
1992, a portion of which was allocated for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is des i rous of havi ng those certain servi ces for
the benefit of low income households, hereinafter enumerated, performed by the
Grantee, and
WHEREAS, HUD requires the execution of a written agreement setting
out the terms and obligations for the expenditure of CDBG funds by the
Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced
and staffed in a manner such that they can prepare and del iver the services
required of Grantee within the time frames herein provided all in accordance
with the terms and condition of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obl igations of the
parties as herein expressed, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term of AQreement. The term of th is agreement shall be for a
period of one (1) year, from July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993,
2. Statement of Work and Schedule. The Grantee shall perform those
duties described in the Statement of Work in Exhibit A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein. These services shall be provided during the term of this
agreement and accordi ng to the Performance Schedul e in Exhi bi t A, attached
hereto and incorporated herein.
WPC 4974H/4975H
-1-
/~-5
3. Low Income Reouirement. The services to be performed by Grantee
shall be provided primarily to persons of low income households. A minimum of
70% of the persons provided services shall be of low income, as determined by
the most current HUD Income Limits for the San Diego SMSA, a copy of which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit C). Grantee shall use
reasonable means to determine the income level of each person or family served.
4. Comoensat i on and Budoet. The Grantee agrees to expend
City-appropriated funds to meet bona fide obligations incurred for the Kinesis
South Vocational Services. The City shall compensate Grantee for said
services up to a maximum amount not to exceed $5,000 (Five Thousand Dollars).
An itemized budget for said expenses is in Exhibit B, attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
5. Reimbursement Pavments. Payment of those City appropriated
funds shall be made to Grantee in monthly or quarterly installments following
recei pt of the "CDBG Expense Reimbursement Cl aim" form from the Grantee.
Expenses itemi zed on the "Expense Reimbursement Claim" form shall be 1 imi ted
to actual expenses incurred duri ng the peri od specHi ed on sai d form, and
shall not include any anticipated costs. Grantee shall attach documentation,
such as receipts, bills, payrolls, etc. as shall provide reasonable proof of
actual expenses incurred.
6. Reoorts. The Grantee shall provide the Ci ty wi th a quarterly
report, submitted no later than 40 days after the 1 ast day of the previous
quarter, whi ch i ncl udes a bri ef narrative of the servi ces provided and an
itemi zed account i ng of the expendi tures of CDBG funds duri ng the previous
quarter. In addition, said report shall include the following statistical
data for persons/households served during the previous quarter:
(a) the total number of persons/households served;
(b) the number of persons/households receiving .each type of
service provided;
(c) of the persons/households served, the number of residents
and non-residents of Chu1a Vista;
(d) annual gross household income by standard categories,
adjusted for family size (low, moderate, other);
(e) race or ethnicity according to standard categories (Black,
Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, White);
(f) number of female-headed households served.
7. Assionment. The services of Mental Health Systems, Inc. are
personal to that organization. The Performance of this agreement may not, by
subagreement, be assigned to any other entity without prior written consent of
the City.
WPC 4974H/4975H
-2-
/ f)-- c.o
8. Financial Records and Audits. The Grantee shall maintain all
financial records for three years following the term of this agreement. The
City, at its discretion may require the Grantee to provide or allow the City
to undertake a complete financial and program audit of its records. Those
records shall contain, at a minimum, the following information for each client
served: income, residency, and ethnicity. The records shall also contain
receipts or other proof of all expenditures made with City COBG funds.
9. Reoresentatives. The Community Development Director, or his/her
designated representative, shall represent the City in all matters pertaining
to the services rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall administer this
agreement on behalf of the City. The Director of Mental Health Systems, Inc.,
or his/her designated representative, shall represent the Grantee in all
matters pertaining to the services rendered pursuant to the agreement and
shall administer this agreement on behalf of the Grantee.
10. Uniform Administrative Reauirements. The Grantee shall comply
with the appl icable uniform administrative requirements as described in HUD
regulation 24 CFR 570.502. This HUO regulation requires compliance with
certai n sect ions of 24 CFR Part 85 "Uniform Admi ni strat i ve Requi rements for
Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments."
11. Other Proaram Reaui rements. The Grantee shall carry out each
activity specified under this agreement with all Federal laws and regulations
descri bed in 24 CFR 570, Subpart K, with the foll owi ng except ions: a) The
Grantee does not assume environmental responsibil ities described at 24 CFR
570.604; b) The Grantee does not assume responsibility for initiating the
review process under the provisions of 24 CFR 570.612.
12. Accountina Procedure. The Grantee agrees to abide by the
requirements of OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles far Nan-Profit
Organizations." The Grantee shall account for use of Black Grant funds
separately from other funds so as to demonstrate that the funds are used for
their designated purposes.
13. Proaram Income. Any program income derived from COBG funds
sha 11 be reported to the Ci ty and shall only be used by Grantee for the
services funded under this agreement. All provisions of this agreement shall
apply to the use of program income for said activities. Said program income
shall be substantially disbursed for said services before the City will make
additional reimbursements to the Grantee. If said program income is on hand
when this agreement expires, or is received after expiration of this
agreement, then said program income shall be paid to the City.
14. Conditions for Reliaious Oraanizations. If the Grantee is a
religious entity, affiliated with a religious entity, or sponsor of religious
activities, then Grantee shall abide by the HUD regulations 24 CFR 570.200 (j)
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion and prohibits the use
of funds for rel igious activities, and places other restrictions and
limitations on the Grantee.
WPC 4974H/4975H
-3jtJ '-1
15. Drua-free Workolace. The Grantee shall maintain a drug-free
workplace at all times for the duration of this contract.
16. Lobbvina of Federal Officials. The Grantee shall not use any
funds provided under this agreement to pay any person for influencing or
attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member
of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of
Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making
of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal,
amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or
cooperat i ve agreement. I f Grantee ut il i zes any other funds for any of the
aforementioned purposes, then the Grantee shall complete and submit Standard
Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its
instructions.
17. Insurance. Grantee represents that it, and its agents, and
staff employed by it are protected by worker's compensation insurance and has
coverage under publ ic 1 iabil ity and property damage insurance pol icies which
thi s Agreement requi res to be demonstrated in the form of a cert i ficate of
insurance. Grantee will provi de, pri or to the commencement of the servi ces
requi red under thi s agreement the foll owi ng cert i fi cates of insurance to the
City : a) Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000 Employers
liability coverage; b) General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000
combined single limit which names the City as an additional insured, and which
is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry ("primary
coverage"), and whi ch treats the employees of the Ci ty in the same manner as
members of the general publ ic ("cross-l iabil ity coverage").
18. Hold Harmless. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold
harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and
against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without
limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct of the Grantee, or any
agency or employee, or others in connect i on with the execution of the work
covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole
negl igence or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees.
Grantees indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's
fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers and agents, or employees
in defendi ng against such cl aims, whether the same proceed to judgement or
not. Further, Grantee at its own expense shall, upon wri tten request by the
City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officer,
agents, or employees. Grantee's indemnification of City shall not be limited
by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Grantee.
19. Susoension and Termination. In accordance with HUD regulation
24 CFR 85.43, Grantee may be suspended or terminated by the City after 30 days
written notice to the Grantee due to default by the Grantee or the Grantee's
inability to perform, regardless of whether such inability is due to
circumstances within or beyond the Grantee's control. The award may be
terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CFR 85.44. Settlement of any
disputes shall be based on the laws of the State of California.
~PC 4974H/4975H
-4- I tJ - ~
20. Breach of Contract. The parties reserve the right to pursue any
remedy provided under California law for remedy in instances where contractors
violate or breach contract terms.
21. Reversion of Assets. Upon expiration of this agreement, Grantee
shall transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration
and any accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including
any program income derived from CDBG funds.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Grantee have executed thi s Agreement
this ____ day of , }992.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.
BY'&;r //)<<.lf~
Exhibit List
Exhibit A.
Exhibit B.
Exhibit C.
Exhibit D.
Statement of Work and Performance Schedule
Itemi zed Budget
HUD Income Limits (Revised May 1992)
City of Chula Vista Party Disclosure Statement
WPC 4974H/4975H
-5-
/p-- 9
EXHIBIT A
STATEMENT OF WORK
We will employ one Employment Training Specialist part-time who will
assist us in developing a Vocational Center at Kinesis South Day Treatment
Program. This Employment Training Specialist (ETS) will become knowledge-
able about the Certification Standards for Rehabilitation Facilities as
published by the Department of Rehabilitation (DR) and take the necessary
steps in order to become certified as a Work Activities Center.
Once certified as a Work Activities Center Kinesis would be eligible to
receive revenue for certain vocational services we provide. The ETS
would then provide ongoing vocational services on-site until the CDBG
grant revenue is utilized. Our plan is to employ an individual for
20 hours a week for a period of 4.5 months at approximately $14.00
per hour.
PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
July - Sept.
-Advertise and recruit Employment Training Specialist.
Oct.
_In-house training and program planning.
_Research certification process and develop Vocational Center.
_Meet with Dept. of Rehab. and .~egin certification
process.
Nov. - Jan.
_Develop policy and procedures to insure certification
and program structure.
-Begin accepting referrals and develop billing process.
Feb.
_Assure that referrals are receiving adequate training
and that all staff is trained and ready to assure
the successful operation as a Work Activities Center.
10- ID
EXHIBIT B
ITEMIZED BUDGET
TOTAL: $ 5,000
CDBG IN-KIND
Salary $ 5,000
Rent/Utilities $ 1,000
Equipment/Supplies $ 500
Professional Liability $ 200
Staff Development $ 50
Accounting/Auditing $ 600
Travel $ 150
Subtotals: $ 5,000 2,500
/~-l \
COUNCIL AGENDA STAlEMENT
1'8''13
ITEM 11TLE: Resolution authorizing temporary street closure on Park Way for the
YWCA of San Diego County to conduct a Cultural Fair on Sunday,
November 15, 1992 in Memorial Park.
SUBMITIED BY: Director of Parks and RecT~ati/7
l~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager.....}'" ~6 fJ~\j (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NolO
The YWCA of San Diego County is requesting permission to conduct a Cultural Fair on Sunday,
November 15, 1992, in Memorial Park and Bowl, and along a limited section of Park Way. They are
requesting permission to close a portion of the westbound lane of Park Way between Third and
Fourth Avenue to facilitate the event.
Item ) J
Meeting Date 10120/92
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution, subject to staff conditions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable
DISCUSSION: The YWCA of San Diego County is requesting permission to conduct a Cultural Fair
in Memorial Park on Sunday, November 15, 1992, from approximately 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM. They
are also requesting permission to close a section of the westbound lane of Park Way between Third
Avenue and Garrett Avenue in order to expand the area of the event.
The YWCA recently received a grant from the Nestle's Chocolate Company to conduct this event,
which is a social service project being coordinated by the YWCA's Youth Programs. The "Nestle's
Chocolate Very Best in Youth Program" grant is designed to build self-esteem in young people
throughout the nation by providing funds for projects that are developed and organized by youth.
The program is offered in 15 cities across the country, including New York, Miami, Portland,
Houston, and Los Angeles. The event will be a collaborative effort with other youth-serving
organizations, including the YMCA, Boys and Girls Club, 4-H, Optimists, Neighborhood House, Boy
Scouts, San Diego Youth Involvement, and various student groups from local high schools and junior
high schools. The fair will include multi-cultural dance and musical performances that will take place
in Memorial Bowl. Organizations involved will set-up temporary displays to distribute information
about their respective programs, and the YWCA hopes to have a "Taste of the World" food booth
area with a wide variety of ethnic foods to sample. All food will be prepared off-site in advance of
the event. The YWCA is expecting in excess of 400 participants at the event. All teens involved in
the event will be given a free T-shirt, provided by Nestle's Chocolate.
The YWCA notified all residences along Park Way (between Third Avenue and Garrett Avenue) of
the proposed event, and included the date and time of Council's consideration of the item in the
notice. These notices were distributed approximately two weeks ago.
Staff is recommending approval subject to the sponsor's compliance with the following conditions:
1. Provision of evidence of general liability insurance in the amount of $1 million, in the form
//-/
of a certificate of insurance and policy endorsement which names the City of Chula Vista as
additional insured.
2. Execution of a standard hold harmless agreement.
3. Provision of adequate Police coverage for crowd and traffic control (as prescribed by the
Police Department).
4. Notification to all residents along Park Way between Third Avenue and Garret Avenue of
the date and time of street closures.
5. Strict compliance with noise ordinances regarding the musical and dance performances in
Memorial Bowl.
6. Provision of adequate no-parking signs and traffic control equipment (as prescribed by the
Traffic Engineer and Police).
7. Provision of adequate trash receptacles and trash removal and disposal.
8. Provision of an adequate number of portable toilets.
The YWCA will be responsible for all costs associated in complying with the conditions of approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. The YWCA will be responsible for all costs associated with this event.
The cost of any services or supplies provided by the City will be reimbursed by the sponsor.
J /-.2,
" I
I
IA
pi pi
l!- I>
'J c
\/I g
0 1$
.J J!.
U C iN
III "'
I- ....... ~<
. 0
.. .. ,111
.. pi ,
" "1- 7-
.- 8
(/l
I .
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ,
~
III
.
~
;
!
i
I
n..u.o
li
;0
",
1<.
f
~
I
t
.n":.;,..,
I
t:'~'J
.,...
..:
III
.
o
.
~
4
.
.. .
... It ....
.. *.
* .
~i.f
The Nestle Chocolate
Very Best In Youth Progral1l
San Diego COUlIty
---'--_.._---~_._----_..-....... .,' ...-.-
--.- - ---..--.----.-.-------....,--
NeStle CIlOCOIate
VERY BEST
~~""
Valotie Romoro, CorporAlo/Community Llason
YWCA of s",n Oleao COllnty, Oirel;iIClI ofYoutb SeNic~.
360.. ~'>,er Boul....Ard
Saa Utt$O, Ct., lJ~1'3
1-(800)VBIY-tJSA Ot (619) 428-5797
AN IAAPORTANT NOTICE TO
PA.RI< (..VAY RESIDENTS...
The Nestle Chocolate Very Best In Youth Project is a
collaborative effort between many youth serving agencies
in San Diego County. The purpose of the project is to
bring youth together to perform community service
activities to benefit their communities.
This year, the youth involved have opted to host a
cultural fair. (Please see enclosed flyer.) Under their
current plQn, they have asked for;
TE.-AAPORATY STREET CLOSURE
SUNDAY. NOVEMBER 15. 1992
7:00 arrl- -;- 6:00 10>>1-
PARI< ("vAY(Wc4Uoc_f~ TMA4 4It4 ~ Av~.)
We do not anti.cipate any major disturbances in the
community, and the music which is planned is traditional
in style. .
The City Council of Chula vista will be meeting to
discuss the issue of the street ~losure, and all
intcrolilted residents ~re inVited to attend this meeting
and address the councll. The meeting is planned tor:
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY. OCT013E:R 20. 1992
6:00 p>>1-. COUNCIL CHAMBERS
It you have any questions, you may oontact Valerie Romero
aL the YWCA: 428-5797.
Thank-you.
~~L
Valerie Romero
/ ) _ ~~~c6frs8rt of~ &'UnWes
----J::L----.-------__
I W..:..
SIDO"""P.'~^.""";..
\'9
YWCA
of Sail C:II.OO
Cuunty
RESOLUTION NO.
/68'~?
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET
CLOSURE ON PARK WAY FOR THE YWCA OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY TO CONDUCT A CULTURAL FAIR ON SUNDAY,
NOVEMBER 15, 1992 IN MEMORIAL PARK
WHEREAS, the YWCA of San Diego County is requesting
permission to conduct a Cultural Fair on Sunday, November 15, 1992,
in Memorial Park and Bowl, and along a limited section of Park Way;
and,
WHEREAS, they
portion of the westbound
Avenue to facilitate the
are requesting
lane of Park Way
event; and,
permission to close a
between Third and Fourth
WHEREAS, staff is recommending approval subject to the
sponsor's compliance with the conditions listed hereinbelow.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby find that temporary closure is
necessary for the safety and protection of persons to use the
street during closure, and authorize temporary street closure on
the westbound lane of Park Way between Third Avenue and Garrett
Avenue from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. for the YWCA of San Diego
County to conduct a cultural fair on Sunday, November 15, 1992 in
Memorial Park, in accordance with the following conditions:
1. provision of evidence of general liability insurance in the
amount of $1 million, in the form of a certificate of
insurance and policy endorsement which names the City of Chula
vista as additional insured.
2. Execution of a standard hold harmless agreement.
3. provision of adequate Police coverage for crowd and traffic
control (as prescribed by the Police Department).
4. Notification to all residents along Park Way between Third
Avenue and Garrett Avenue of the date and time of street
closures.
5. strict compliance with noise ordinances regarding the musical
and dance performances in Memorial Bowl.
6. provision of adequate no-parking signs and traffic control
equipment (as prescribed by the Traffic Engineer and POlice) .
1
//-,5'
7. provision of adequate trash receptacles and trash removal and
disposal.
8. Provision of adequate number of portable toilets.
9. The temporary street closure shall not be effective until
signs giving notice thereof are posted at all streets or
portions thereof affected, as required by Vehicle Code section
21103.
10. YWCA shall pay all costs for all conditions, including full
cost recovery for any City services.
Presented by
APfJt bJ
Jess Valenzuela, Director of
Parks and Recreation
Bruce M. Boogaard, 'ty
Attorney
F:\home\attomey\YWCA
2
//-?
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Item J.;J....
Meeting Date 10/20/92
a) RESOLUTION 1~3'f'i:ePting bids and awarding Contract
for Parallel Sewer Construction, "G" Street from Fourth Avenue
to Broadway in the City of Chula Vista, California
b) RESOLUTION /j, B"Y-!:thoriZin9 Director of Public Works to
execute a contract change order deleting the sewer work from
the Broadway widening;;ro'ect, F to I Streets
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work
.c,
REVIEWED BY: City Manageuc, lova ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..XJ
At 2:00 p.m. on September 9, 1992, in the Public Services Building, the Director of
Public Works received sealed bids for Parallel Sewer Construction, "G" Street from
Fourth Avenue to Broadway in the City of Chula Vista, Ca. The work to be done
includes the construction of a parallel 12", 15" and 18" sewer main adjacent to an
existing sewer main on "G" Street between Fourth Avenue and Broadway.
RECOMMENDATION:
a) That Council accept bids and award contract to Ortiz Corporation in the
amount of $321,999.00.
b) That Council authorize the Director of Public Works to execute a change
order deleting sewer work from the Broadway widening project, F to I
Streets.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
DISCUSSION:
This Project was advertised for a period of four weeks beginning August 8, 1992.
During that period plans were purchased by 7 contractors. On the bid opening date,
only one bid was received. A review of the sheet listing persons purchasing bid
packages revealed that plans were purchased by 5 general contractors, 1 materials
supplier, and 1 trucking contractor. Staff contacted plan purchasers to inquire about
their reasons for not submitting bids for this project. Those contractors that staff was
able to contact indicated that they had too many projects at this time and that they
elected not to bid the project.
A portion of the parallel sewer improvements at the intersection of G Street and
Broadway were included within the Broadway widening project between F Street and
I Streets. The intent was to complete all subsurface improvements within the
Broadway intersection with G Street prior to the construction of sewer improvements
J~-J
Page 2. Item I ~
Meeting Date 10/20/92
on G Street east of Broadway. The new sewer main in "G" Street was to be
connected to the sewer constructed with the Broadway widening project.
By Resolution 16675, Council accepted bids and awarded contract to Southland
Paving, Inc. for the construction of improvements on Broadway from F Street to I
Street for the amount of $1,542,943.15. The cost of sewer improvements within
that contract was $28,140. However, since the scheduling for the construction of
Broadway improvements was revised and construction is now scheduled to start in
January 1993, staff incorporated the sewer improvements to be constructed with the
Broadway widening project into the contract for "Parallel Sewer Construction, G
Street from Fourth Avenue to Broadway". Based on the bid submitted by Ortiz
Corporation, the cost of constructing this portion of the sewer improvements is
$24,652 (a savings of $3,488) and the contractor will complete the work at that
intersection prior to January 1993, when construction begins on Broadway.
Staff is recommending that Council authorize the Director of Public Works to execute
a contract change order deleting the sewer work from the Broadway widening project
and as shown on City Drawing No. 92-241. This change order will reduce the amount
of the contract with Southland Paving Inc by approximately $28,140. The contract
with Southland Paving allows the City to eliminate entire items of work. The sewer
work is listed in the bid proposal as separate items of work. Any reduction in
compensation for traffic control, shoring, construction surveying and protection and
restoration of existing improvements will have to be negotiated with the contractor.
The bid submitted by Ortiz corporation, Chula Vista, Ca, for the amount of $321,999
is below the Engineer's estimate of $356,335 by $34,336 or by 9.64%.
Staff has conducted a background check and past performance evaluation and
determined that Ortiz Corporation has performed similar projects, and has the
resources to complete this project on schedule and within budget. We recommend
awarding the contract to Ortiz Corporation. Attached is the contractors disclosure
statement.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Funds Required for Construction
A. Contract Amount $ 321,999.00
B. Contingencies (approx. 10%) 32,200.00
C. Design Staff Cost lapprox. 10%1 32,200.00
D. Construction Staff Cost (approx. 8.1 %) 28,000.00
Total Funds Required for Construction $414,399.00
I...;. -~
Page 3. Item /,)..
Meeting Date 10/20/92
Funds Available for Construction
Trunk Sewer Fund
Account #600-6008-SW206 $414,399.00
FISCAL IMPACT: The sum of $236,000 was originally budgeted in FY 91-92 for this
project and the scope of the project was from Fifth Avenue to Broadway. Additional
funds in the amount of $262,000 was budgeted in FY 92-93 and the scope of work
was increased to include Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue, thus total funds budgeted
was $498,000. The project will utilize $414,399 of the budgeted funds.
SA:File AR-037
WPC F:\home\engineer\agenda\g-sewer
092592
);l~3
RESOLUTION NO.
/~ 8''1'1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR PARALLEL SEWER CONSTRUCTION, "G"
STREET FROM FOURTH AVENUE TO BROADWAY IN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on September 9, 1992, in the Public
Services Building, the Director of Public Works received the
following sealed bid for Parallel Sewer construction, "G" Street
from Fourth Avenue to Broadway in the city of Chula Vista, Ca.:
ortiz Corporation
$321,999
WHEREAS, the work to be done includes the construction of
a parallel 12", 15" and 18" sewer main adjacent to an existing
sewer main on "G" Street between Fourth Avenue and Broadway; and
WHEREAS, staff has conducted a background check and past
performance evaluation and determined that ortiz Corporation has
performed similar projects and has the resources to complete this
project on schedule and within budget and recommends awarding the
contract to ortiz Corporation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby accept the bid of ortiz
Corporation in the amount of $321,999 and award the contract to
said company who has assured the city that they are a licensed
contractor in the State of California who can produce an acceptable
performance bond.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
contract for and on behalf of the city of Chula vis
Presented by
ZOV If f
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Attorney
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
F:\home\attomey\g-sewer
/;1./1-/
RESOLUTION NO.
/bY~5
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
WORKS TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
DELETING THE SEWER WORK FROM THE BROADWAY
WIDENING PROJECT, F TO I STREETS
WHEREAS, by Resolution 16675, Council accepted bids and
awarded contract to Southland Paving, Inc. for the construction of
improvements on Broadway from F Street to I Street for the amount
of $1,542,943.15; and
WHEREAS, the cost of sewer improvements within that
contract was $28,140; and
WHEREAS, however, since the scheduling for the
construction of Broadway improvements was revised and construction
is now scheduled to start in January 1993, staff incorporated the
sewer improvements to be constructed with the Broadway widening
project into the contract for "Parallel Sewer Construction, G
Street from Fourth Avenue to Broadway"; and
WHEREAS, based on the bid submitted by ortiz Corporation,
the cost of constructing this portion of the sewer improvements is
$24,652 (a savings of $3,488) and the contractor will complete the
work at that intersection prior to January 1993, when construction
begins on Broadway; and
WHEREAS, staff is recommending that Council authorize the
Director of Public Works to execute a contract change order
deleting the sewer work from the Broadway widening project and as
shown on city Drawing No. 92-241 which will reduce the amount of
the contract with Southland Paving Inc. by approximately $28,140.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby authorize the Director of
Public Works to execute a change order deleting sewer work from the
Broadway widening project, F to I Streets.
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
F:\home\attorney\CO-sewer
l.2g~/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 13
Meeting Date 10/20/92
Public Hearing on Proposed Fee Increases for Hartson Emergency
Medical Services
Fire Chief .~ J\~
'. ~~\\
REVIEWED BY City Manager0\:1 .\j.~ ~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes_No..x.)
On May 9, 1989, Council approved Resolution 14092 that executed an agreement with Hartson
Medical Service to provide basic (BLS) and advanced (ALS) life support/ambulance services
within Chula Vista. The agreement requires Hartson to respond to 90% of all ALS calls within
10 minutes and 90% of all BLS calls within 30 minutes. Hartson has consistently met these
threshold standards during the past twelve months. Pursuant to the agreement, Hartson has
proposed to increase their fees by an average of 5.2%.
ITEM TITLE
SUBMITTED BY
RECOMMENDATION: Continue Public Hearing until Novemb~r 10, 1992.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
DISCUSSION:
Since the existing Hartson contract went into effect in October, 1989, rate increases have been
approved each year by Council based upon the criteria described below. If the proposal being
considered today is approved, the Basic Rate for ALS treatment will have increased from $295
to $355, a total of $60.00 or 20.3%, since 1989. The remainder of the rate schedule has
increased proportionally over the same period.
The City Council has the unilateral right to require a Public Hearing to consider any fee
increases proposed by Hartson. The last Public Hearing on this subject was conducted in
December of 1985.
Staff is currently meeting with Hartson to evaluate potential alternative rate increases.
Continuing the Public Hearing will enable staff to further evaluate this and any forthcoming
alternative proposals.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
)3-)
File No.
PUBLIC HEARING CHECK LIST
CI1Y COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARlNG DATE \~ /""2.0 I Cl 2.-
SUBJECT ~..fi v...-e:~. ~ D ~ ~ ~ r
L8CAlIcrn ~"'v--' ~~ (?~. - ~l...~ S.'oN:.........
I
SENT TO STAR NEWS FOR PUBLICATION -- BY FAX ~ BY HAND ; BY MAIL
\0/10 /q 2-- - -
PUBLICATION DATE
MAILED NOTICES TO PROPER1Y OWNERS
-
NO. MAILED
PER GC 54992 Legislative S[aff, Construction Indus[ry Fed, 6336 Greenwich Dr Suite t', San Diego, 92122
LOGGED IN AGENDA BOOK I 0 I io I c:r 2-
COPIES TO:
Administration (4)
Planning . /
/
Originating Department
Engineering 1/
Others
City Clerk's Office (2)
.,,//
~q2-
POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
-58-
/3~J
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold
a public hearing to consider the following:
Consideration of an ordinance adopting Telegraph Canyon
Sewer Basin Plan & addendum & establishing the Telegraph
Canyon Sewer Basin Fee of $184 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
(EDU). Fee is required to finance sewer system improvements
needed. All new facilities located east of I-80S & discharging
wastewater by gravity flow into Telgraph Canyon Sewer Basin
will pay this fee at time building permits are required.
Consideration of proposed fee increase for Hartson Emergency
Paramedic Services.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this matter in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's Office at or prior to the
public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday,
October 20, 1992, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276
Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: October 6, 1992
Beverly A. Authelet
City Clerk
J3~Y
DATE
October 1, 1992
/'\ \ /' \- 2'-/--
G"'1t- f)'C
~. '\ \'
\-\Y "W\,V
. \ '0iY ," II.; ~J\..J-
\J \ \ J\'I.., ('\' 'y
,,.'\->l..v\ yof r')i-'"
i..-nV .. & V
- ~~
~)~,~\ ), .
\'\'(. v_ ,~'\ , ,'\."
" J ~r01\
Proposed Fee Increase for Hartson Emergency Paramedic Servfces ~ \ .~
TO
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA
John Goss, City Manager
FROM
Sam Lopez, Fire Chief
SUBJECT :
Background
On May 9, 1989, Council approved Resolution 14092 that executed an agreement with Hartson
Medical Service to provide basic (BLS) and advanced (ALS) life support/ambulance services
within Chula Vista. The agreement requires Hartson to respond to 90% of all ALS calls within
10 minutes and 90% of all BLS calls within 30 minutes. Hartson has consistently met these
threshold standards during the past twelve months. Pursuant to the agreement, Hartson has
proposed to increase their fees by an average of 5.2% effective November 1, 1992.
Since the existing Hartson contract went into effect in October, 1989, rate increases have been
approved each year by Council based upon the citeria described below. If the proposal being
considered today is approved, the Basic Rate for ALS treatment will have increased from $295
to $355, a total of $60.00 or 20.3%, since 1989. The remainder of the rate schedule has
increased proportionally over the same period.
The City Council has the unilateral right to require a Public Hearing to consider any fee
increases proposed by Hartson. The last Public Hearing on this subject was conducted in
December of 1985.
Discussion
Hartson has proposed fee increases that, taken in total, average approximately 5.2% over the
current rate schedule. The agreement stipulates that Hartson's charges shall be eligible for
adjustment annually. Annual adjustments may not exceed 8% annually and are further limited
to the greater of:
1. The percentage increase in San Diego's Consumer Price Index (CPI); or
2. 75% of the increase in the San Diego Medical Consumer Price Index (MCPI).
In the present case, 75% of the last published MCPI, which measured the twelve month period
form July 1991 to June 1992, is the greater of these two indices. This index has risen from
approximately 185.7 in June 1991 to approximately 198.5 in June 1992; an increase of 6.9%.
The 5.2% proposed increase is derived by calculating 75% of 6.9.
)3-3
Page 2, Item
Date 10/01/92
Under this proposal, the current Basic Rate for ALS treatment and transportation services
provided by Hartson will increase $17.00 from $338.00 to $355.00. The proposal also calls for
the current Basic Rate for BLS treatment and transportation provided by Hartson will increase
$10.00 from $190.00 to $200.00. The complete Hartson Service Rate Schedule is attached for
your information.
Fire Department staff have reviewed the request and find that proposed rate increases are within
the terms and conditions set forth in the agreement. Therefore, unless Council directs staff to
continue the matter for purposes of conducting a public hearing, a 5.2 % average increase in fees
for ALS and BLS services will take effect November I, 1992 without further Council action.
/3-b
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 10/20/92
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing on Adoption of the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Fee
Ordinance oZ5:J:J Establishing the Telegraph Canyon
Sewer Development Impact Fee to Pay for Improvements to the
Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..xJ
Attached is a Draft of the proposed Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Plan
Ordinance. Due to the press of business at the staff level, the final
ordinance has not been prepared in a form approved by the City
Attorney and will be delivered to you between now and the time of the
meeting.
If this is inconvenient, the matter may be continued, but it was noticed
as a public hearing and people may be desirous of appearing and
testifying on the issue to the City Council. If the Council desires to
continue the item, please open the public hearing, take any testimony
proposed, and continue the public hearing to the meeting of October
27, 1992.
1'1-)
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ItemK
Meeting Date 10/20/92
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing on Adoption of the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Fee
SUBMITTED BY:
Ordinance ;(53.3 Establishing the Telegraph Canyon
Development Impact Fee to Pay for Improvements to the Telegraph
Sewer Basin ... /
Director of Public wo~~ ~
City Manager-J"- \1;~\
Sewer
Canyon
REVIEWED BY:
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..x..l
In compliance with the Telegraph Canyon Basin Sewer Monitoring and Gravity Basin Usage Agreement
between the City and EastLake Development, the City entered into a contract with Willdan Associates
for preparation of the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and Financing Plan. This plan and
a subsequent addendum provide recommendations for sewer system improvements needed to
accommodate ultimate wastewater flows in the basin and proposes a fee of $184 per Equivalent
Dwelling Unit (EDU) to finance the construction of these improvements. This is a one time fee paid
when building permits are taken out and is not an ongoing fee.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council conduct subject public hearing and place the Ordinance on the
first reading.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Telegraph Canyon Basin Sewer Monitoring and Gravity Basin Usage Agreement required that the
City prepare a Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and Financing Plan. The City awarded
the contract for preparation of this plan to Willdan Associates. The work to be accomplished by the
consultant included:
I. Preparation of a report to estimate current, projected and ultimate gravity sewage flows
into the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin.
2. Recommendation of the type, size, location and approximate order of construction of
necessary sewer improvements.
3. Establishment of a work program for future projects, with estimated costs for the
construction of required facilities for the transportation of all sewage flows which will
use the Telegraph Canyon Sewer.
WPC F:\home\engineer\agenda\tcsewedce
J 1/-' / JJj~3
Page 2, Item~
Meeting Date 10/20/92
4. Establishment of fees or a funding mechanism to finance these improvements and flow
monitoring.
The original basin plan included gravity flows from the Woodcrest, EastLake, Sunbow, Rancho del
Rey, Salt Creek Ranch and Otay Ranch developments. The improvements recommended to
accommodate ultimate gravity basin flows included 5980 linear feet of 12" parallel sewer lines and 900
linear feet of 24" replacement sewer. The estimated total cost of recommended improvements was
$1,447,630 in 1992 dollars, or $158 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit.
As the basin plan was being completed, the EastLake I Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) was approved.
The SPA deleted a residential development and added commercial development in the EastLake Village
Center area, resulting in a net estimated increase of 297 EDU's. We prepared the attached Addendum
to Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Plan to estimate the additional improvements and costs due to the
increased flow. We determined that an additional 300 linear feet of 10" relief sewer and 280 linear feet
of 12" relief sewer would be needed to provide sufficient ultimate sewer capacity. The estimated total
cost of all improvements was revised to $1,740,290 or $184 per EDU.
Information was provided to the developers at various stages of the report preparation and approval
process. Copies of the draft report were provided to the five major developers. Comments were
received from Sunbow, Wilson Engineering for Baldwin, Project Design Consultants for Mc Millin
Communities, and EastLake Development. Their comments were incorporated into the final report.
Copies of the final report were sent to the five major developers, as well as to six other potentially
affected developers and property owners. These are the only developers or owners who should be
affected by the fee. They were also sent copies of the Addendum to Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin
Plan, and invited to a public meeting at 6:00 p.m. on October 5, 1992. A representative from the
Baldwin Company was the only person to attend the meeting. His questions and comments were
informational in nature. All eleven property owners were notified of the public hearing.
Additional flows will be pumped to the Telegraph Canyon Basin from the EastLake and Salt Creek
developments. These flows are being considered separately under a contract awarded February 25,
1992 for an amendment to this plan. Depending on the timing of construction and financing method
approved by Council, the gravity basin fees may change with the inclusion of pumped flows.
A plat showing the approximate boundary of the area affected by the proposed fee is attached as Figure
1. All new facilities located east ofI-805 and discharging into the Telegraph Canyon sewer basin are
required to pay this fee. The fee will be collected at the time that the building permits are pulled. The
fee will be adjusted for inflation and to reflect any changes in proposed development in the basin
annually.
A portion of this basin was included under Reimbursement District No. 43 adopted by Resolution 6157
on August 3, 1971. The agreement for this district expired in 1991. However, properties connecting
to a public sewer which has been constructed at no cost to the property owners are still responsible for
paying $16.00 per frontage foot in accordance with Ordinance No. 997.
WPC F:\home\engineer\agenda\tcsewer.fee
/'1-'1
Page 3, Item--.l!t
Meeting Date 10/20/92
Environmental review of this project is not necessary at this time. Such review will be performed later,
prior to project construction. At that time, an Initial Study Application will need to be filed with the
City of Chula Vista Planning Department in accordance with CEQA requirements.
On September 22, 1992, the City Council passed Resolution No. 16819 to set a public hearing to
approve the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Plan and establish the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Fee.
Copies of the Basin Plan were distributed to Council prior to that date.
FISCAL IMPACT: Passage of this ordinance will result in revenues of approximately $1,740,290,
plus increases due to an annual adjustment for inflation. These revenues would be specifically used for
construction of sewer improvements and flow monitoring in the Telegraph Canyon Basin.
EMC:kpj:ST-002
WPC F:\home\engineer\agenda\tcsewer.fee
/ y-f //1/-' I1J
\Xl
I
N
I
NOT TO SCAlE
'-\
~.
\
'J
"
...
I
.... ~
...
WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
CONSUl. rING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
6J6~ (iR[(NllIICH OP.sUlT( :'50.5AN [lI[C.()..~"" 121:'."
PROJECT TITLE
TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN
FIG.
LEGEND :
CITY BOUNDARY
SEWER BOUNDARY
PHASE I
PHASE II
PHASE III
PHASE IV
SCHOOl SITE
I 1
~
I' , , . . ' .. . , 'j
... .........
. ..........
~
.
September 25,1992
Fi1e# ST-002
ADDENDUM TO
TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN PLAN
As the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Plan was being completed, the
EastLake I Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) was approved. The SPA
deleted a residential development and added commercial development
in the EastLake Village Center area, as shown on Figure 11
(enclosed) . This resulted in a net estimated increase of 297
Equivalent Dwelling units (EDUs), where one EDU is equivalent to
250 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater flow. This change occurred
too late to incorporate it into the original gravity flow basin
plan. This addendum was prepared to include the impact of this
additional development on the basin plan.
The original basin plan recommended replacement for all sewer
segments with depth to diameter (Djd) ratios over 85 percent for
Phase 4, or ultimate gravity flow basin development. We identified
all sewer segments with Djd ratios between 75 and 85 percent (Table
1), and reevaluated them with the additional Village Center flows
(about 0.115 cfs). The revised Djd ratios are shown on Table 2.
Parallel sewers need to be provided for the sewer segments between
Manholes 84-81, 80-78, and 55-52.
The recommended sizes for the parallel sewers were taken from the
original computer runs for Phase 4. These sizes were determined to
be adequate to handle the additional flows. We also verified that
the improvements recommended in the original report will have
sufficient capacity (Table 3).
The cost estimate for the required additional improvements is
provided below. Unit costs were obtained from Willdan Associates
and are consistent with the original report.
Seqment
Lenqth
Size
Unit Cost
Total
MH 84-81
MH 80-78
MH 55-52
1800 LF
1200 LF
280 LF
10" relief
10" relief
12" relief
$60jLF
$60jLF
$70jLF
$108,000
$ 72,000
$ 19.600
SUBTOTAL
PLUS ENGINEERING, INSPECTION, SURVEYING @
PLUS CONTINGENCIES @
PLUS CITY ADMINISTRATION @
15%
25%
2%
$199,600
$229,540
$286,925
$292,664
$292,660
TOTAL (ROUNDED)
The existing report recommended improvements which had a total cost
of $1,447,630.
IL/-CJ
The original total number of EDUs to be developed east of Highway
I-805 was 9159. The fee per EDU would therefore be recalculated as
follows:
$1,447,630 + $292.660
9159 + 297
=
$184.04
The charge per EDU would be increased to $184. Wi thout the
additional EastLake I SPA flows, the cost was $158 per EDU. This
fee will be collected with the building permits and will be
adjusted on a yearly basis to reflect chages in development and
construction costs.
(EMC2:TELADD)
/'-/-/(/ /11./ -12
"
"t
~
"
Figure 11
Wascew.Cer c....rbo. "-
""....ed Eas....le PI..
Approyed Acre."e Se_r Genention R." Se-.- eeaer.lled EDU Factor EDU 1
orr_/Relail 34.2 2,500 p,pd/ac IS.SOO BPdI& IOlac 342
Residelllial 11.0(40S ..ils) III BPd/du lS.1)S O.lSI. 303.15
OS/hbJic Facility 19.6 SOD p/ac ',100 Ipd 2/ac 39.2
Medical Cenler - - - - -
Emplo,- - - - - -
Commllllily PuqJase Facility - - - - -
Total . 71.1 lie m,on JPCI 6U.9S EDU
~ ....Jed
orr_/Retail 23.3 . 2,500 plat: .,2SO Ipd 10/ac 2))
Residenrial - - - - -
OS/Pvblic FKility 11.9 SOD JPCI/K J,9SO Ipd 2/ac 23.1
Medical Cnl. 30.6 S"m.4 BPd/Ile 166.200 ) 21.7/ac 664.1
EmpIoymenr 2 2.0 2,500 p/ac 5,000 BPd 10/ac 20
Com..nity ...~ Facility 4.0 2,_ ~/ac 10,000 BPd 10/-= 40
TOlal 7... ac 2'JS,400 RPd 911.6 EDU
,
Difference Be.- Plus - 14.365 Ipd \ ::B6..6 EOU )!
.
2
)
1 EDU - 250 pel
RI:IaOWlII rrom EastLate Acrivity Center
Es.imated waSle_rer ror Medical Center IKovided by Kaiser Per_nre
o~
1-?7.46FPV
TABLE 1
TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN
ORIGINAL FLOWS
SEGMENTS FLOWING NEAR Did = B5
PEAK
SEGMENT SLOPE DIAM FLOW FLOW
(IN) (CFS) (CFS) K' Did
B9-BB 0.01000 15 3.49 6.17 0.44274 0.7B
BB-B7 0.01000 15 3.51 6.21 0.44505 0.7B
B7-86 0.01000 15 3.63 6.40 0.45887 0.81
85-84 0.01250 15 3.89 6.82 0.43710 077
84-83 0.01050 15 3.89 6.82 0.47691 0.84
B3-B2 0.01050 15 3.89 6.82 0.47691 0.84
82-B1 0.01050 15 3.90 6.83 0.47B03 0.85
81-BO 0.01200 15 3.90 6.83 0.44715 0.79
80-79 0.01200 15 4.16 7.25 0.47420 0.84
79-7B 0.01200 15 4.16 7.25 0.47420 0.84
65-64 O.OOBOO 1B 5.65 9.57 0.471 B9 0.83
64-63 O.OOBOO 18 5.65 9.57 0.471 B9 0.83
63-62 0.00800 18 5.65 9.57 0.47189 0.83
59-58 0.01060 18 5.90 9.96 0.42643 0.75
58.57 0.01036 18 5.90 9.96 0.43134 0.76
57.56 0.01036 18 5.90 9.96 0.43134 0.76
56-55 0.01060 18 5.90 9.96 0.42643 0.75
55-54 0.00847 18 5.90 9.96 0.47705 0.85
54.53 0.00847 18 5.90 9.96 0.47705 0.85
53-52 0.00847 18 5.90 9.96 0.47705 0.85
32.31 0.00413 21 6.06 10.20 0.46406 0.82
4-3 0.00430 24 9.05 14.70 0.45885 0.81
K' = [Opeak X nJ I [(D/12) ^ 8/3 X S ^ 0.5J
Did from table 7.14 of Handbook of Hydraulics
Opeak = 1.98 (Oave) ^ 0.91
/0/./3
TABLE 2
TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN
FLOWS INCLUDE VILLAGE CENTER ADDITIONS
(ADDING 74,365 GPO = 0.11506 CFS)
PEAK
SEGMENT SLOPE DIAM FLOW FLOW
(IN) (CFS) (CFS) K' Old
89-88 0.01000 15 3.605 6.36 0.45600 0.80
88-87 0.01000 15 3.625 6.39 0.45831 0.81
87-86 0.01000 15 3.745 6.58 0.47209 0.83
85-84 0.01250 15 4.005 7.00 0.44885 0.79
84-83 0.01050 15 4.005 7.00 0.48973 0.88
83-82 0.01050 15 4;005 7.00 0.48973 0.88
82-81 0.01050 15 4.015 7.01 0.49084 0.88
81-80 0.01200 15 4.015 7.01 0.45914 0.81
80-79 0.01200 15 4.275 7.43 O.4B612 0.87
79-78 0.01200 15 4.275 7.43 0.4B612 0.87
65-84 0.00800 18 5.765 9.75 0.48063 0.85
64-tl3 0.00800 18 5.765 9.75 0.48063 0.85
63-62 0.00800 18 5.765 9.75 0.48063 0.85
59-58 0.01060 18 6.015 10.13 0.43399 0.76
58.57 0.01036 18 6.015 10.13 0.43899 0.77
57-56 0.01036 18 6.015 10.13 0.43899 0.77
56-55 0.01060 18 6.015 10.13 0.43399 0.76
~54 0.00847 18 6.015 10.13 0.48550 0.87
54-53 0.00847 18 6.015 10.13 0.48550 0.87
53-52 0.00847 18 6.015 10.13 0.48550 0.87
32-31 0.00413 21 6.175 10.38 0.47207 0.83
4-3 0.00430 24 9.165 14.87 0.46415 0.82
K' = (OpeakX 0] I [(O/12)^813XS^0.5]
Old from table 7-14 of Handbook of Hydraulics
Opeak = 1.98 (Oave) ^ 0.91
/t/-I'-/
TABLE 3
TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN
EXISTING PLUS ADDITIONAL VILLLAGE CTA FLOWS
AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
PEAK
SEGMENT SLOPE DIAM** FLOW FLOW K' Did
(IN) (CFS) (CFS)
78-77 0.00900 19.208 4.27506 7.43 0.29029 0.57 15" SEWER PLUS 12" RELIEF
77-76 0.00900 19.208 4.27506 7.43 0.29029 0.57 " "
78-75 0.00900 19.208 4.96506 8.51 0.33264 0.62 "
75-74 0.01200 19.208 4.96506 8.51 0.28807 0.57
74-73 0.01200 19.208 5.08506 8.70 0.29440 0.57
73-72 0.01200 19.208 5.28506 9.01 0.30492 0.59
72-71 0.01200 19.208 5.29506 9.02 0.30544 0.59
71-70 0.01200 19.208 5.29506 9.02 0.30544 0.59
70-69 0.01200 19.208 5.31506 9.05 0.30649 0.59
69-68 0.01200 19.208 5.34506 9.10 0.30807 0.59
68-67 0.01200 19.208 5.59506 9.49 0.32115 0.61
67-66 0.01650 19.208 5.60506 9.50 0.27433 0.55
66-65 0.02000 19.208 5.76506 9.75 0.25563 0.53
52-51 0.00800 21.636 6.01506 10.13 0.30585 0.59 18" SEWER PLUS 12" RELIEF
51-50 0.00800 21.636 6.06506 10.21 0.30816 0.59
50-49 0.00800 21.636 6.06506 10.21 0.30816 0.59
49-48 0.00800 21.636 6.06506 10.21 0.30816 0.59
48-47 0.00800 21.636 6.08506 10.24 0.30909 0.59
47-46 0.00800 21.636 6.08506 10.24 0.30909 0.59
46-45 0.01702 21.636 6.08506 10.24 0.21191 0.47
45-44 0.01702 21.636 6.08506 10.24 0.21191 0.47
44-43 0.01702 21.636 6.08506 10.24 0.21191 0.47
43-42 0.01702 21.636 6.11506 10.29 0.21286 0.47
42-41 0.01702 21.636 6.11506 10.29 0.21286 0.47
41-40 0.00366 24.18 6.13506 10.32 0.34227 0.63 21" SEWER PLUS 12" RELIEF
40-39 0.00366 24.18 6.13506 10.32 0.34227 0.63
39-38 0.00378 24.18 6.13506 10.32 0.33680 0.63
38-37 0.00366 24.18 6.13506 10.32 0.34227 0.63
37-36 0.00386 24.18 6.13506 10.32 0.34227 0.63
38-35 0.00366 24.18 6.13506 10.32 0.34227 0.63
35-34 0.00366 24.18 6.14506 10.33 0.34278 0.63
34-33 0.00366 24 6.17506 10.38 0.35123 0.65 21" SEWER REPLACED WITH 24"
33-32 0.00366 24 6.17506 10.38 0.35123 0.65 21" SEWER REPLACED WITH 24"
.. ALL DIAMETERS ARE EOUIVALEi'I1' DIAMETERS EXCEPT FOR LAST TWO SEGMEi'I1'S
K.= [Qpool<XnJ [ID/12J^8/3XS^0.5J JLj- /5 / /#"'Ib
Did from _7.'4 of Handbook of Hydrauli<s
Qpool< = 1.98 10el'll1 ^ 0.91
Draft Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO.
).533
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING THE TELEGRAPH CANYON
SEWER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR
PARALLEL SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AS A CONDITION OF
ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION
IN THE TELEGRAPH CANYON SEWER BASIN
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan Land Use and Public
Facilities elements require that adequate public facilities be
available to accommodate increased population created by new
development; and,
WHEREAS. the Teleqraph Canyon Sewer Basin ("Basin") is that
area of land within the city of Chula vista water on which. if
deposited in sufficient quantities. would flow downstream to a
common point. which area is shown on the map attached hereto as
Exhibit A: and.
WHEREAS, on January 23, 1990 the City Council passed
Resolution No. 15449 approving the Telegraph Canyon Basin Sewer
Monitoring and Gravity Basin Usage Agreement, which required the
City to prepare the Telegraph Canyon Basin Improvement and
Financing Plan ("Basin Plan"). This Basin Plan was to include an
estimate of ultimate sewer flows anticipated within the Basin;
recommend improvements to handle the incremental increases of
sewage flow anticipated within the Basin; and establish a fee
payable by all dwelling units discharging into the Basin and
benefiting from trunk sewer improvements; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 1990 the City Council passed Resolution
No. 15760 approving an agreement between the City of Chula vista
and Willdan Associates for preparation of said Basin Plan~
'l'eleqraph Canyon Dever Ba3in rlan,1. and-L
WHEREAS. pursuant to said aqreement. Willdan Associates have
prepared said Basin Plan which is contained and more fullv
articulated in a document entitled: "Teleqraph Canvon Sewer Basin
Improvement and Financinq Plan" dated JulY 31. 1992 and the
subsequent Addendum dated September 25. 1992. which documents are
WPC F:\home\engineer\220.92
Page 1
Ii/-I?
incorporated herein bv reference;
WHEREAS, the Basin Plan has determined that new development
within the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin will create adverse impacts
on the city's existing sewer facilities--to wit. that the sewaqe
expected to be qenerated from new development within the Basin will
exceed the capacitv of the current sewer system to handle said
additional sewaqe--which must be mitigated by the financing and
construction of certain sewer facilities identified in this
ordinance, and
WHEREAS, sewer improvements
improvements in the Telegraph
justified in the Basin Plan; and,
and a fee to be levied on new
Canyon Sewer Basin have been
WHEREAS, developers of land within the City should be required
to mitigate the burden created by development through the construc-
tion or improvement of sewer facilities within the boundaries of
the development, the construction or improvement of sewer facili-
ties outside the boundaries of the development which are needed to
provide service to the development in accordance with the city
standards and the payment of a fee to finance a development's por-
tion of the total cost of the public facilities, and
WHEREAS, all development within the City contributes to the
cumulative burden on various sewer facilities in direct relation-
ship to the amount of population generated by the development or
the gross acreage of the commercial or industrial land in the
development, and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 1992 the City Council passed
Resolution No. 16819 setting a public hearing to approve the
Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Plan and establish the Telegraph
Canyon Sewer Development Impact Fee, and
WHEREAS, on October 20, 1992 city Council held a duly noticed
hearing at which oral or written presentations could be made, and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined, based upon the evidence
presented at the hearing, includinq. but not limited to. 4ft-the
Tcle'3raph canyon Ce\lcr Basin Plan and Addendum and the various
reports and other information received by the city Council in the
course of its business, that imposition of the sewer facilities
development impact fee on all developments within the Telegraph
Canyon Sewer Basin east of Interstate 805 in the City of Chula
vista for which building permits have not yet been issued is
necessary in order to protect the public safety and welfare and to
ensure effective implementation of the City's General Plan, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the amount of
WPC F:\home\engineer\220.92
Page 2
IL/-/Y
the fee levied by this ordinance does not exceed the estimated cost
of providing the public facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1:
Establishment of Fee: Purpose: Use
A.
Establishment of Fee.
A development impact fee in the amount
Equivalent Development unit ("EDU")
established the purpose of which is
variouo certain public facilities
herein within the City of Chula vista.
of $184 per
is hereby
to pay for
desiqnated
B. Facilities.
The facilities which will be designed and
constructed, and the location at which they will
be constructed, with the proceeds of the fee are
more fully described in the Basin Plan on file in
the Office of the city Engineer at Plates 1
through 14 under the section thereof entitled
"Improvement Locations", and the attached Exhibit
A, as same may be modified by the City Council
from time to time by resolution ("Facilities").
C. Territory to Which Fee Applicable.
The fee shall be paid before the issuance of
building permits for each development project
within the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin east of
Interstate 805. The Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin
is defined as that territory shown on a map on
file in the Office of the City Engineer entitled
"Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin" and dated October
20, 1992, which area is shown without legal
precision on Exhibit A.
D. Use of Fee Proceeds.
The proceeds collected from the imposition of the
fee shall be deposited into a public facility
financing fund which is hereby created and shall
be expended only for the purposes set forth in the
this ordinance. The Director of Finance is
authorized to establish various accounts within
the fund for the various improvements and
facilities identified in this ordinance and to
WPC F:\home\engineer\220.92
Page 3
/0/-)'1
periodically make expenditures from the fund for
the purposes set forth herein in accordance with
the facilities phasing plan or capital improvement
plan adopted by the City Council. The city
Council finds that collection of the fees
established by this ordinance at the time of the
building permit is necessary to ensure that funds
will be available for the construction of
facilities concurrent with the need for these
facilities and to ensure certainty in the capital
facili ties budgeting for growth impacted public
facilities.
(b) The fee established by this section is in addition
to the requirements imposed by other City laws,
policies or regulations relating to the
construction or the financing of the construction
of public improvements within subdivisions or
developments.
(c) Determination of Equivalent Development units.
The fee for each development shall be calculated
at the time of building permit application and
shall be the amount as indicated at that time and
not when the tentative map or final map were
granted or applied for, or when the building
permit plan check was conducted. Each single
family detached dwelling or single family attached
dwelling shall be considered one EDU for purposes
of this fee. Each unit within a mUlti-family
dwelling shall be considered .75 EDU. Each
commercial project shall be charged at a rate
calculated in accordance with the method for
estimating commercial EDUs in the Master Fee
Schedule. The City Council shall annually review
the amount of the fee. The City Council may
adjust the amount of this fee as necessary to
reflect changes in the Engineering-News Record
Construction Index, the type, size, location or
cost of the various public facilities to be
financed by the fee, changes in land use on
approved tentative maps or Specific Plan
Amendments, and upon other sound engineering,
financing and planning information. Adjustments
to the above fee may be made by resolution
amending the Master Fee Schedule.
(d) The fees collected shall be used by the City for
the following purposes as determined by the city
WPC F:\home\engineer\220.92 Page 4
/l/-oZl/
Council:
1.
To pay for
the City,
facilities
from other
the construction of facilities by
or to reimburse the City for
installed by the City with funds
sources.
2. To reimburse developers who have been
required by section 4(a) of this ordinance to
install approved various public facilities
listed on Table 1.
3 .
To reimburse developers who
permitted to install improvements
section 4(b) of this Ordinance.
have been
pursuant to
SECTION 2:
Definitions.
For the purposes of this ordinance, the following words
or phrases shall be construed as defined in this
Section, unless from the context it appears that a
different meaning is intended.
(a) "Building Permit" means a permit required by and
issued pursuant to the Uniform Building Code as
adopted by reference by this City.
(b) "Developer" means the owner or developer of a
development.
(c) "Development Permit" means any discretionary
permit, entitlement or approval for a development
project issued under any zoning or subdivision
ordinance of the City.
(d) "Development Project" or "Development" means any
activity described in section 65927 and 65928 of
the State Government Code.
(e) "Basin Plan" means the "Telegraph Canyon Sewer
Basin Improvement and Financing Plan "prepared by
Willdan Associates and dated July 31, 1992 and the
subsequent Addendum prepared by staff and dated
September 25, 1992.
SECTION 3: Public Facilities to be Financed bv the Fee.
(a) The various public sewer facilities to be financed
by the fee established in this ordinance are
listed on Table 1 and shown on Plates 1 through 9.
WPC F:\home\engineer\220.92 Page 5
I'I-~I
(b) The City Council may modify or amend the list of
projects in order to maintain compliance with the
City's Capital Improvement Program or to reflect
changes in land development and estimated and
actual wastewater flow.
SECTION 4:
Developer Construction
Facilities
of
Various
Public
(a) Whenever a developer of a development project
would be required by application of city law or
policy as a condition of approval of a development
permit to construct or finance the construction of
a portion of a public facility identified on Table
1 of this ordinance, the City Council may impose
an additional requirement that the developer
install the improvements with supplemental size or
capacity in order to accommodate estimated
ultimate flow as indicated in the Basin Plan and
subsequent amendments. If such a requirement is
imposed, the City Council shall, in its
discretion, enter into a reimbursement agreement
with the developer or give a credit against the
fee otherwise levied by this ordinance on the
development project or some combination thereof.
(b) A developer may request authorization from the
City Council to construct one or more of the
facilities listed in Table 1.
(c) Whenever a developer requests reimbursement or a
credit against fees for work done or paid by the
developer under subsections (a) or (b) of this
section, the request shall be submitted in writing
to the city Council before commencement of the
work. The request shall contain the following
information and if granted, shall be subject to
the following conditions:
1.,
Detailed descriptions of the project with the
preliminary cost estimate.
2 .
Requirements of developer:
preparation of plans and specifications
for approval by the city;
secure and dedicate any right-of-way
required for the project;
secure all required permits and
environmental clearances necessary for
WPC F:\home\engineer\220.92
Page 6
J'I--o<J-
WPC F:\home\engineer\220.92
3.
4.
construction of the project;
provision of performance bonds (where
the developer intends to utilize
provisions for immediate credit, the
performance bond shall be for 100
percent of the value of the project);
payment of all City fees and costs.
The city will not be responsible for any of
the costs of constructing the project. The
developer shall advance all necessary funds
to construct the project.
The developer shall secure at least three (3)
qualified bids for work to be done. The
construction contract shall be granted to the
lowest qualified bidder. If qualified, the
developer may agree to perform the work at a
price equal to or less than the low bid. Any
claims for additional payment for extra work
or charges during construction shall be
justified and shall be documented to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
5.
The developer shall provide a detailed cost
estimate which itemizes those costs of the
construction attributable to the Public
Facility Construction and excludes any work
attributable to a specific subdivision
project. The estimate is preliminary and
subject to final determination by the
Director of Public Works upon completion of
the Public Facility Project.
6.
Upon approval of the estimated cost by the
Director of Public Works, the developer shall
be entitled to immediate credit for 75
percent of the estimated cost of the
construction attributable to the Public
Facility Construction. The immediate credits
shall be applied to the developers'
obligation to pay fees for building permits
issued after the establishment of the credit.
The developer shall specify these building
permits to which the credit is to be applied
at the time the developer submits the
building permit applications.
7.
If the developer uses all of the 75 percent
immediate credit before final completion of
Page 7
1,/-d.3
WPC F:\home\engineer\220.92
the public facility, then the developer may
defer payment of Development Impact Fees for
other building permits by providing to the
City liquid security such as cash or an
irrevocable letter of credit, but not bonds
or set-aside letters, in an amount equal to
the remaining 25 percent of the estimated
cost of the public facility.
8. When all work has been completed to the
satisfaction of the city, the developer shall
submit verification of payments made for the
construction of the project to the City. The
Director of Public Works shall make the final
determination on expenditures which are
eligible for credit or cash reimbursement.
9. After final determination of eligible
expendi tures has been made by the Public
Works Director, the final amount of
Development Impact Fee credits shall be
determined. The developer shall receive
credit against the deferred fee obligation in
an amount equal to the difference between the
final expenditure determination and the
amount of the 75 percent immediate credit
used if any. The amount of the deferred fee
obligations shall be based upon the fee
schedule in effect at the time of the final
credit determination. The Director of Public
Works shall convert the credit to an EDU
basis for residential, commercial or
industrial development. The City shall
notify the developer of the final deferred
fee obligation, and of the amount of the
applicable credit. If the amount of the
applicable credit is less than the deferred
fee obligation, then the developer shall have
thirty (30) days to pay the deferred fee. If
the deferred fees are not paid within the
thirty-day period, the City may make a demand
against the liquid security and apply the
proceeds to the fee obligation.
10. The developer will receive the credit against
required Development Impact Fees incremental
at the time building permits are issued for
the developer's project.
If the total construction cost amounts to
Page 8
Io/~'< 'I
SECTION 5:
SECTION 6:
SECTION 7:
WPC F:\home\engineer\220.92
more than the total Development Impact Fees
which will be required for the developer's
project, then the amount in excess of
Development Impact Fees will be paid in cash
when funds are available as determined by the
City Manager, a reimbursement agreement will
be executed; or the developer may waive
reimbursement and use the excess as credit
against future Development Impact Fee
obligations.
Procedure for Fee Waiver or Reduction:
Any developer who, because of the nature or type of uses
proposed for a development project, contends that
application of the fee imposed by this ordinance is
unconstitutional or unrelated to mitigation of the
burdens of the development, may apply to the city
Council for a waiver or reduction of the fee. The
application shall be made in writing and filed with the
city Clerk not later than ten (10) days after notice of
the public hearing on the development permit application
for the project is given, or if no development permit is
required, at the time of the filing of the building
permi t application. The application shall state in
detail the factual basis for the claim of waiver or
reduction. The city Council shall consider the
application within sixty (60) days after its filing.
The decision of the City Council shall be final. If a
reduction or waiver is granted, any change in use within
the project shall subject the development to payment of
the fee. The procedure provided by this section is
additional to any other procedure authorized by law for
protection or challenging the fee imposed by this
ordinance.
Exemptions.
Development projects by public agencies shall be exempt
from the provisions of the fee if those projects are
designed to provide the public service for which the
agency is charged.
Assessment District.
If any assessment or special taxing district is
established for any or all of the facilities listed in
Section 3, the owner or developer of a project may apply
to the city Council for a credit against the fee in an
amount equal to the development's attributable portion
Page 9
li~..25'
of the cost of the authorized improvements as determined
by the Director of Public Works plus incidental costs
normally occurring with the construction project but
excluding costs associated with Assessment District
proceedings or financing.
SECTION 8:
Expiration of this Ordinance.
This ordinance shall be of no further force and effect
when the City Council determines that the amount of fees
which have been collected reaches an amount equal to the
cost of the public facilities or reimbursements.
SECTION 9:
Time Limit for Judicial Action.
Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set
aside, void or annul this ordinance shall be brought
within the time period as established by Government Code
section 54995 after the effective date of this
ordinance.
SECTION 10:
Effective Date.
Pursuant to Government Code
ordinance shall become effective
its second reading and adoption.
section 65962, this
sixty (60) days after
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt
Director of Public Works
Bruce M. Boogaard
city Attorney
WPC F:\home\cngineer\220.92
Page 10
J '/ ~cJ. "
File No.
PUBLIC HEARING CHECK LIST
\0/2-0 !Cf2-
SUBJECT ~ ~!'-.."- e...k~ I..J..-..('\?I- G.y ~"."- ~
\ 0
.J..OC^TION G7~ ... o...J..h /J".r "'" ..,.,.~t.-'i '~;-el- Y ~.. .~
.!-"....:_ ")....... b ~ I ~ 't .4V- ZI::>\A. 0
1
SENT TO STAR NEWS FOR PUBLICATION -- BY FAX v-;BY HAND_; BY MAIL
PUBLICATION DATE 11:1 /'0 f q '2..
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING DATE
MAILED NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS
-
NO. MAILED
PER GC 54992 Legislative Staff, Construction Industry Fed, 6336 Greenwich Dr Suire F. S<Jn Diego, 92122
LOGGED IN AGENDA BOOK 10/'" / 9 2-
COPIES TO:
Administration (4)
Planning /
/'
Originating Department
Engineering ,,//
Others
City Clerk's Office (2)
1/
Ie ~ J'n-
POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
.58.
/y,c2?
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold
a public hearing to consider the following:
Consideration of an ordinance adopting Telegraph Canyon
Sewer Basin Plan & addendum & establishing the Telegraph
Canyon Sewer Basin Fee of $184 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
(EDU). Fee is required to finance sewer system improvements
needed. All new facilities located east of 1-805 & discharging
wastewater by gravity flow into Telgraph Canyon Sewer Basin
will pay this fee at time building permits are required.
Consideration of proposed fee increase for Hartson Emergency
Paramedic Services.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this matter in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's Office at or prior to the
public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday,
October 20, 1992, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276
Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: October 6,1992
Beverly A. Authelet
City Clerk
) Y-cJ- r
NOTICE OF peBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY
THE CITY COUt-iCTL of Chula Vista, California, for consideration of
an ordjnancE" adopting the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Plan and
Addendllill and establishing tile Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Fee of
$184 per Equivalent DKelling Unit (EDUl. This fee is required to
financE" sewer system improvement.s DE"edf-,>d to accommodate gravity
floK in this basin. All new facilities located east of 1-805 Rnd
disctlarging wastewatpr by gravity flow irlto the Telegr'aph Cany()n
Sewer Basin will he required to pay this fee at such time that
huilding permits are obtained.
SAID PUBLIC HEAR.ING W] LL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on
Tuesday, October 20, ]992, at 6:00 p.m. in r.hp Council Chambers,
Publ ic Servi.ces Building, 276 Fourth A.venue, Chula Vista, at which
time any person desiring to be heat"d may appear.
DATED: October 2, 1992
CO\TACT: PubUc Works Department, Elizabeth Chopp
Phone: 691-5258
EMC
)zj~<2/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item L5'
Meeting Date 10/20/92
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing Consideration of Establishing
Underground Utility District # 123 along E Street from Broadway to
Toyon Lane Including Toyon Lane, Corte Helena Avenue, and Guava
Avenue (Candy Cane Lane)
REVIEWED BY:
Resolution I /P 8"''1~ Establishing Underground Utility District
#123 along E Street from Broadway to Toyon Lane Including Toyon
Lane, Corte Helena Avenue, and Guava Avenue (Candy Cane Lane) and
Authorizing the Expenditure of Allocation Funds to Subsidize Single
Family Residential Service La~e/I Conversions
Director of Public workW' \tf
City Manager,~ \"';){~\
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..xJ
SUBMITTED BY:
On August 25, 1992 by Resolution Number 16764 the City Council ordered a Public Hearing
to be held on October 20, 1992 to determine whether the public health, safety, or general
welfare requires the formation of an underground utility district along E Street from
Broadway to Toyon Lane, including Toyon Lane, Corte Helena Avenue, and Guava Avenue
(Candy Cane Lane).
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1) Conduct a public hearing on the formation of the conversion district.
2) Adopt a resolution forming the district and authorizing the use of approximately
$81,000 in allocation funds to subsidize 77 single family residential service lateral
conversions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Underground Utility Advisory Committee, consisting of representatives of SDG&E,
Pacific Bell, Cox Cable T.V., Chula Vista Cable, and the City staff agreed to propose to the
City Council the formation of a district to convert the overhead facilities along E Street from
Broadway to Toyon Lane including Toyon Lane, Corte Helena Avenue, and Guava Avenue
(Candy Cane Lane). This project is on the Council's approved priority list and is in
accordance with the adopted underground utility program. The proposed utility
undergrounding district along E Street is about 7,400 ft. long running from Broadway to
Toyon Lane and includes approximately 400 ft. along Toyon Lane, 250 along Corte Helena
/5"'- /
-
Page 2, Item )5
Meeting Date 10/20/92
Avenue, and a 300 ft. length of overhead line crossing Guava Avenue (Candy Cane Lane,
Exhibit A) approximately 150' south of E Street. No properties along Guava Avenue will be
affected because service to these lots are from the rear. The estimated cost for
undergrounding the utilities is $2,000,000. West and east of the proposed district
undergrounding of overhead utilities has been completed. The average daily traffic (ADT)
count on E Street varies between 17,500 and 20,000 depending on the location along E
Street. Staff recommends the formation of this conversion district along this section of E
Street, including Toyon Lane, Corte Helena Avenue, and Guava Avenue because:
1) E Street is a major east/west thoroughfare connecting 1-805 and 1-5 in the northern
portion of Chula Vista. E Street also passes through and provides access to the
central business district. The undergrounding of existing overhead utilities will
contribute to the creation of an aesthetically pleasing central business district.
2) E Street is classified as a Class I Collector street.
3) This City will use SDG&E allocation funds based on Rule 20-A distribution formula to
fund this project.
4) Undergrounding has been completed on E Street west of Broadway and east of Toyon
Lane thus making the proposed district a link between two undergrounded sections.
5) Undergrounding will eliminate an overhead line on Chula Vista's well known Candy
Cane Lane.
Toyon Lane is proposed to be included in this district because of its direct aesthetic impact
on E Street. Drivers on E Street can see most of the utility lines on Toyon Lane as they
approach Corte Maria east of First Avenue. The utilities on Corte Helena were also included
in the district because of the extremely short distance to do the entire street and the
associated minimal costs.
Section 15.32.130 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires the City Council to set a
public hearing to determine whether the public health, safety, and general welfare requires
the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities within designated areas of the City and to
give persons the opportunity to speak in favor of or against the formation of the proposed
district to underground utilities. The purpose of forming the district is to require the utility
companies to underground all overhead lines and to remove all existing wooden utility poles
within the district and to require property owners to convert their service connections to
underground at their expense. The conversion work by the property owners involves
trenching, backfill, and conduit installation from property line to point of connection. Chula
Vista City Council Policy # 585-1 established a mechanism that reduces the property
owner's cost for the conversion from the distribution lines to the residence. The mechanism
is based on the following provisions:
1) Funding is limited to single family residential properties.
IS-:~
.-'
Page 3, Item /.:;)
Meeting Date 10/20/92
2) Funding is limited to facilities which the customer traditionally supplies/installs such
as trenching and conduit from property line to point of connection.
3) Funding shall not exceed the estimated cost of trenching and conduit installation for
up to 100 ft. of the private service lateral.
There are 77 properties located within this district eligible for this subsidy. The property
owners are required to cause the work to be done. The SDG&E will contribute $30 per foot
for the trenching and backfill on each eligible property. This amount should cover all the
trenching costs, as well as other conversion costs to the meter box. However, there may
be cases where the property owner is not reimbursed 100% for costs. The total
reimbursement for the 77 properties is approximately $81,000. The list of the 77 property
owners that will be subsidized is shown on Exhibit B.
It may take approximately two years to commence the design of this project, following the
design of other districts recently approved by the City Council. Forming the district now will
give the utility companies ample time to complete the budgetary and preliminary planning
associated with a district of this magnitude. Since the proposed district is the largest in the
City's history, it is proposed to implement the construction in phases, the first of which is
the section between Broadway and Fourth Avenue. With this schedule, construction within
phase 1 could begin sometime during 1995.
The Director of Public Works, subsequent to the formation of the district, will submit to the
Council a resolution setting the date for the property owners to be ready to receive
underground facilities and the date for the removal of all wooden poles in accordance with
the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code. A submission of the resolution to the City Council
will occur after the utility companies have agreed on a schedule for the project.
All property owners within the district have been notified of tonight's hearing.
A transparency is available showing the proposed boundary of the district.
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost to underground utilities along E Street from Broadway to Toyon
Lane including Toyon Lane, Corte Helena Avenue, and Guava Avenue is estimated to be
$2,000,000. SDG&E's allocated funds (Rule 20-Al will cover the estimated costs of the
project. A subsidy of approximately $81,000 for 77 single family property owners within
this district is included in this amount.
SMN:AY-088
WPC:F:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\ESTRUNDR.GRD
100992
Jy3 / 15-~
RESOLUTION NO. JI,;('1~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO.
123 ALONG E STREET FROM BROADWAY TO TOYON LANE
INCLUDING TOYON LANE, CORTE HELENA AVENUE, AND
GUAVA AVENUE (CANDY CANE LANE) AND AUTHORIZING THE
EXPENDITURE OF ALLOCATION FUNDS TO SUBSIDIZE
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SERVICE LATERAL
CONVERSIONS
The City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 16764, a pUblic hearing was
called for 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, the 20th day of October, 1992, in
the Council Chambers of the city of Chula vista at 276 Fourth
Avenue in said City, to ascertain whether the public health, safety
or welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead wires and
associated overhead structures and the underground installation of
wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or
similar or associated service within that certain area of the City
more particularly described as follows:
All that property along "E" Street from Broadway to Toyon
Lane including Toyon Lane, Corte Helena Avenue and Guava
Avenue (Candy Cane Lane) and enclosed within the boundary
as shown on the plat attached hereto as Attachment "A" of
subject Underground utility District.
and
WHEREAS, notice of such hearing has been given to all
affected property owners as shown on the last equalized assessment
roll, and to the utility companies concerned in the manner and for
the time required by law, and
WHEREAS, such hearing has been duly and regularly held,
and all persons interested have been given an opportunity to be
heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista hereby finds and determines that the public
health, safety and welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead
wires and associated structures, and the underground installation
of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or
similar associated services, the above-described area is hereby
declared an Underground Utility District, and is designated as such
in the City of Chula vista. Attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A",
and incorporated herein by reference is a map delineating the
1
/S:.5
boundaries of said District, and attached hereto as Exhibit B is a
listing, by parcel numbers of parcels included within the district.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city council shall, by
subsequent resolution, fix the date on which affected property
owners must be ready to receive underground service, and does
hereby order the removal of all poles, overhead wires and
associated overhead structures and the underground installation of
wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or
similar associated service within said Underground utility
District.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Clerk is hereby
instructed to notify all affected utilities and all persons owning
real property within said Underground utility District of the
adoption of this resolution within fifteen days after the date of
said adoption. Said city Clerk shall further notify said property
owners of the necessity that, if they or any person occupying such
property desires to continue to receive electric, communication or
other similar or associated service, they, or such occupant shall,
by the date fixed in a subsequent resolution provide all necessary
facility changes on their premises so as to receive such service
from the lines of the supplying utility or utilities at a new
location, subject to the applicable rules, regulations and tariffs
of the respective utility or utilities on file with the Public
utilities commission of the State of California as of the date of
adoption of this resolution. Such notification shall be made by
mailing a copy of this resolution to affected property owners as
shown on the last equalized assessment roll and to the affected
utility companies.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City council hereby finds
that the Underground Utility District herein created is in the
general public interest for the following reasons:
1. E Street is a major east/west thoroughfare connecting
I-805 and I-5 in the northern portion of Chula vista. E
Street also passes through and provides access to the
central business district. The undergrounding of
existing overhead utilities will contribute to the
creation of an aestheticaly pleasing central business
district.
2. E Street is classified as a Class 1 Collector street.
3. The City will use SDG&E allocation funds based on
Rule 20-A Distribution Formula to fund this project.
4. Undergrounding has been completed on E Street west of
Broadway and east of Toyon Lane thus making the proposed
district a link between two undergrounded sections.
2
/5''' t.
5. Undergrounding will eliminate an overhead line on
Chula vista's well known candy Cane Lane.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the expenditure of $81,000 of
allocation funds to subsidize 77 single-family resid ntial service
lateral conversions is hereby authorize
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
~t
Presented by
Bruce M.
Attorney
F:\home\attomey\underg
3
/Y7
File No.
PUBLIC HEARING CHECK LIST
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING DATE \ 0 I ~ I q 2-
b~ .....1.J::j...'-' f'l.(': ..........~I "'-".'-.'...-, ~ QJ-.~
SUBJECT ~......... ! n>.........::t,.~-' 1> .~.. ~t u.:>>U'i o;.,,-w......,l- ~~..f."
Wc;,','!"lON s.:.t:i.......: ~~ C:>....... p...^.\ ~ T~ eK-...... .l.+<Q O"f
\l~ ~, ~ ~\t.04,.J- ~ '\0 r.... ~.
SENT TO STAR NEWS FOR PUBLICATION -- BY FAX """;BY HAND_: BY MAIL
PUBLICATION DATE \ 0 Ilo I "I "2...
MAILED NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS
-
NO. MAILED
PER GC 54992 Legislative Sti.lfr, Construction Industry Fed, 6336 Greenwich Dr Suile F. Si.ln Diego, 92122
\ 0 / \0 /o.."l..
LOGGED IN AGENDA BOOK
COPIES TO:
Administration (4) V-
V
Planning
Originating Department
Engineering
V-.
Others
City Clerk's Office (2)
V
lO/q/l1.2-
POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
.58.
/~-~
M E M 0 RAN DUM
October 6, 1992
File # AY-088
TO:
Beverly Authe1et, City Clerk
'S"".J
civil Engineer
FROM:
samir M. Nuhaily,
SUBJECT:
Notice of Public Hearing
Please have Resolution No. 16764, calling for a Public Hearing,
published per section 15.32.14C of Chu1a vista's Municipal Code.
The public hearing is scheduled for October 20, 1992. The said
Resolution is attached.
MI:rb
Attachment
(MI\RESO.MEM)
/~)- / ()
RESOLUTION NO. 16764
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER
PUBLIC NECESSITY , HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE REQUIRES THE
FORMATION OF AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT ALONG "E"
STREET FROM BROADWAY TO TOYON LANE, INCLUDING TOYON
lANE, CORTE HELENA AVENUE, AND GUAVA AVENUE (CANDY CANE
LANE)
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, Chapter 15.32 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code establishes a
procedure for the creation of underground utility districts and requires as the
initial step in such procedure the holding of a public hearing to ascertain
whether public necessity, health, safety, or welfare requires the removal of
poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures and the underground
installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication, or
similar or associated service in any such district; and,
WHEREAS, on August 12, 1992, an Underground Uti 1 ity Advisory Committee
(UUAC) meeting was held in the Public Services Building to consider the proposed
boundary of an underground utility district along E Street from Broadway to Toyon
Lane, including Toyon Lane, Corte Helena Avenue and Guava Avenue (Candy Cane
Lane); and,
WHEREAS, it has been recommended that such an underground utility district,
hereinafter called "District", be formed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista as follows:
1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held in the Council
Chambers of the City of Chula Vista at 276 Fourth Avenue in said City on
Tuesday, the 20th day of October, 1992, at the hour of 6:00 p.m.. to
ascertain whether the public necessity, health, safety or welfare requires
the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures
and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying
electric, communication, or similar associated service in the District
hereinabove described. At such hearing, all persons interested shall be
given an opportunity to be heard. Said hearing may be continued from time
to time as may be determined by the City Council.
2. The City Clerk shall notify all affected property owners as shown on the
last equalized assessment roll and utilities concerned of the time and
place of such heari ng by mail i ng a copy of thi s reso 1 uti on to such
property owners and utilities concerned at least fifteen (15) days prior
to the date thereof.
)~//
Resolution No. 16764
Page 2
3. The area proposed to be included in the District is as shown on Exhibit A ~
attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~~
) oh . Lippitt
!~i r or of Pub 1 i c Works
J
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
~ MAP ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
,
"
esolution No. 16764
age 2
"
The area proposed to be included in the District is as shown on Exhibit A ~
attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference.
'resented by
Approved as to form by
J
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
~ MAP ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
10'- /~
Ii
,\
~
J I I III I , I , J' :.,. " I ~ I I 1'1 I II' IIII H --l I \ ~ ,
::~ n', ,~::', .,;;' ,,~q L I. 'I ,~ vi )
... fT ,... ~ '",.-'-, -," ~t~~'! Willi II III 1 ~ U'
- ~_.-- t= "'~').'i>_ ,.1,.' - ~ ^
c'" "f-c m ", "",. ~ jll III II, I:l~~ ~-'
, U.J "uTI.As n II. ~",," r=- ~T \ / [Ii, ~Ic' IL, II t= 1I.j-:1---- ",1= ~c -.
.L..~.':_H~~REET nlll,1m IlifT.., I---- ~i ~~ RIIIIII 111= ~ vi +0<''''' f1{ ~ ,', 'I ~ 4, ~ ~
" t:: t 3TTTT:1. '" IIIIII-!Ht iLl.. \\~
',' ~ r-- [
~~..I+::
- -II T I, -- -0 7- \\
=-- ta! T' . ...l~L :::': uu 1-- - ~-T -- HELENA ~l!J." '\
~:. ,,] 'ill -- -t 'i-T !" -,.:.:, I t ~ I -=Ii.J AVE ,/f1;;;
~ J rr~~' .." " III 11 II li....ti1~, ,- rl. m: ~' ;:JIIi ~
~..~ ". 1;11 ,1 ~: ~;~:~~J ,... ~~. ~ I::~ ~T:" ,v,
i-I DR rrm w 'r.=r= '''; ~"= = - , TOYON ~ ~ ~;
, , 11--J'l::1t:+::t=P l'~_(:':! -1",:,-'- [Blill- ~'~ ' - _: PLACE 'L- ~ I ~ -
_ "F" STREET .:-:~,,~: -:en: ,~::'.,. :..~~:::::..' .:: J If"" :-Ij ~" I !TIT! , 1. I '<
. _ ~L1J "",1~ - :."" ~ :~ . - ., dr 11;rm '.jl r:a:1 fT
1111 - ~I ::~,'; 2 -l'!~<j~ II'JI.l)ll~ ~~t'~~'~ ~ 1~1:~_TI'II,,~C~l~
I~ -~ -rilllll'll J:'l'~'~ [~ji"!,~_""", c k t ~c > E.... III, :.rg;~ Ill! ,"
.. "f- 1I1!111 ~ 1,lIr,;:' ~~ _::::-:.~'~ ~]:::' ~'~"T' .~~ U-It::J
~ , ~TR,~,~,] 1rI~ u: I ~ ~ Hnll1l1rHIill: 1-1lJlh[J ~J I':"__~ (u: ,rrm- -I~ ~ ~
"1, ,. I H fTTI'Tifv-::. II III~I'''; " :':::IIn111 I (J)1~rTTlll!1 WlR,1J-11 II '\,
DISTRICT BOUNDARY
PROJECT TITLE EXHIBIT · A"
UTILITY UNDERGROUNDIN G DISTRICT - NO. 123
DRAWN BY: M.J.I
.E" STREET - BETWEEN BROADWAY AND TOYON' LANE
DATE: 8 I 14 / 92
INCLUDING TOYON LANE, CORTE HELENA AVENUE AND GUAVA AVENUE SOUTH OF "E. STREET
Resolution No. 16764
Page 4
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, this 25th day of August, 1992, by the following vote:
YES: Councilmembers: Horton, Malcolm, Moore, Nader
NOES: Counci lmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: Rindone
~4~-z-
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16764 was duly passed, approved,
and adopted by the City Council held on the 25th day of August, 1992.
Executed this 25th day of August, 1992.
)S'-)f
J I I '.1' I I I I II :',' " J ~ I I ~ I J I' '11111 \ -l , ~\ 1
..! i'.c. ". '.' "",,,'.' 'i' l'I.J " h
. 0 STREET . II f---. n 1-- _ F" . ,n
l... ~ L-1...LJ ' , I II II II II 1111 , ~ III II , 1 'I --j 111111 tll ,E ~ ::"Jl ,- . p";'. 1-\ ,
m.-.. '. . I I . rem: II ,. ~ t t=l1 III r 'T.~. E'-=-.' T 1I11111L.J!1.i. ~ ,\
.. f---l- ~ _~ ~ .11 e-- r I-~r~~~jijlll rr ,\
. IIlhl~ -. ~ ---; r - -t- \;CORTE .....- ~
~'.: fa!]' Wllli ~,~ ~o~ .-'-'h'C ~ -~-T ~T=::,-HELENA ;,;;;lDF:"
~> ,'- ~ ' - =, I ~ /WJ I - lri AVE; -I,::."t:[;l
~ ~" ~ :~~~W~~~ 11 ~~~ ,. ~ IT' It. 'k~~
I 1_ ILo - . _ ~ - ,~I :- GUAVA: _.1. L, ..,~ rTl\... tl~(
- I _._~ - 1111" c' :T ~YENU~ ~ ~ ~ . _ ;~OYON::~'
['71 OO~* :~:" J:1::::J -u '"7'7~'7 ~. [IB: . . ~'.. ~" ,- - . :PLACE'~ -f ~ '<
-FW STREET ;:.~~t~~ :"1 :, .~:::'.. ::::~~:::.. - - . -: -_ -. ITr ''''IC1\'jL-J"ITTTTI,:l I .
- ....LU~J~lu . :. '''" ~ ~ui ~ W 11 . IluiF' I '0:1- "1
LI il_ ;;~~~I::::'; ~ ~,i~<1 "".\. fJ'U\ ~ ~lrni9 ":' ~.~ IJ-l~ r ~.. ;','[t~ j l ~
.1.0 I L "!'" ,,,, rrZ :::c ' !'.' Yo -1]
FJ :::c ; Tr~ l' . 1-1' I;: :~ -,-' , CI i ~C1 II - I- _ ~ 0
_ W c li!1 _ ~ ',WrJ,:: ' ~ 0 ~'::::- '-:-. ~~ ", " ~] ~-:: "_~: - ~". _ ~
~ , S;rR,E,~,1frl;rn u:: I bIDlIIIIIIIIIli 0 1 fnl!lllrHllKI- ] ~, oJ ~ II III IT~ u:: TTrf,~ I~ =
..--.-.--...-:._ ".Uf LL W ( ~
" I" I H I'll 111111 _0. II 111-=11:::::::.. :,:::::lIrTlll I" wi nn
DISTRICT BOUNDARY
~
~
~
......
-E- STREET - BETWEEN BROADWAY AND TOYON' LANE
~
\\
DRA1flf BY: M.J.'
PROJECT TITLE EXHIBIT -A-
UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT - NO. 123
DATE: 8 I 14 I 92
INCLUD..G TOYON LANE, CORTE HELENA A VENUE AND GUAVA A VENUE SOUTH OF "'E" STREET
ElHIBIT T
10/05/12 T SIREET CONVERSIOI OISIRICl 10. 113 Page
SIIGlE FlUlll RESIDENCES
PIR PIR
10. 155. PIR. 10. 100RESS lllO USE UTIliTIES DISTIl PENIRlS OIlER OIlER'S 100RESS ClTI, S1I TE , lIP 10.
--------------------.--.----.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+--------._-.-.-.----.--.---------._-----+----------------------------------------------
121 SI6-m-JI-00 !II TS1. SF E 1 C J5'/ll050 1111 FAJEORICI DR. SU DIEGO, CI.11101 121
I!! 516-250-J2-00 135 TST. SF E 1 C J5'/1I050 1J5TS1. CNUII 'IS1I, CI. !l!10 I!!
11J 566-250-JJ-00 129 TST. SF E I C J5'/11050 129 T ST. CNUll IISTI, CI. !l!10 12J
111 516-250-JI-00 1!1 1m OIlS II. SF E T C J5'/ll050 111611OIICO 51. 511 DIEGO, CI.12101 111
125 566-150-35-00 211 TST. SF E I C J5'/11050 P.O. 101m PIONEER TOil, CI, 91261 115
121 561-250-J6-00 10J TST. SF E I C 15'/1150 56 T ST.L PIlOIAR DR. CHUll IISll, CI. 11111 111
121 56&-250-Jl-00 116 SECOIO II. SF E 1 C 35'/11050 186 SECOHO lIE. CHUll VlSII, CI. !l!10 111
130 566-251-11-00 185 TST. SF E I C 10'/1600 115TST. CHUlllISTl, CI. !l!10 130
131 568-251-15-00 III TST. SF E I C 10'/1600 181TST. CHUIIIISII, CI. 11910 IJI
IJJ 516-251-11-00 161 TST. SF E I 15' /1150 6J8IRIHURlIE. CHUll '1511, CI, !l!10 I3J
III 56&-251-18-00 163 TST. SF E I C 25'/1150 185TST. CHUll VlS1I, CI. 91110 IJI
IJ5 511-251-11-00 151 TST. SF E I C 15'/1150 5!5HIGHlIIOIlE. IITlOlll CITY, CI. 91950 135
112 566-320-15-00 111 T51. SF E I C 30' /l!00 111 TS1. CHUll IISll, CI. 91110 II!
113 56&-320-18-00 109 TST. SF E T C 30'/1100 101 T ST. CHUll 'ISII, CI. 91910 IU
0\) 111 56&-3!D-11-00 m FIRSII'. SF E I C 3D' /l!00 10IU 8Rom IHEEl RD. l!!ESIOE, CI. 12010 III
115 561-211-11-00 1!1 FlRSIIV. SF E I C 3D' /l!00 1!1FIRSllIE. CHUlllISII, CI. 91110 IC5
, III 56&-111-11-00 m CORlE HElm II. SF E I C 30'/1100 I!B CORTE HElm lIE. CHUll VlSII, CI. 91!10 116
141 56&-191-18-00 I!I CORlE HElm II. SF E I C 25'/1150 I!I COAlE HElm lIE. CHULA IISII, CI. 91910 141
- 118 586-211-15-00 118 CORTE HElm II. SF E I C 25'/1150 186 COAlE HElEHIIIE. CHUll VlSII, CI. 91110 118
III 511-211-11-00 182 COAlE HElm II. SF E I C 15'/1150 182 CORlE HElm lIE. CHUlIIISII, CI. 91110 119
150 56&-211-13-00 115 CORTE HElm II. SF E I C 25'/1150 185 COAlE HElm lIE. CHUIIIISII, CI. 91110 150
151 56&-211-12-00 189 CORTE HElm II. SF E I C 15'/1150 III COAlE HElm lIE. CHUll IISII, CI. 91110 151
152 m-291-11-00 193 CORTE HElm II. SF E I C 15'/1150 193 CORTE HElm lIE. CHUlllISII, CI. 91110 152
153 561-191-10-00 III CORTE HElm II. SF E 35'/11050 III COAlE HElm IVE. CNUll VlSII, CI. 91910 153
~. 151 56&-191-09-00 81 'E'ST. SF E I C 35'/11050 81 T 51. CHUlI VISII, CI. 91910 I5l
151 511-012-02-00 201 ISH II. SF E I JO' /l!00 201 ISH lIE. CHUll VlS1I, CI. 11!10 151
,\ 151 511-0U-01-00 518 TST. Sf E I C 30'/1l00 3111 VIllEY VlSII RO BOII1l, CI. 91102 151
180 5I1-0U-02-00 514 TST. SF E I C 3D' /l!00 511TST. CHUlllISII, CI. lI!lO 110
~ 111 511-043-11-00 510 TSI. Sf E I C 3D' /l!00 15 -033 lIUPUl1 ROIO IINEOHE HI. 16/11 181
II! 511-043-20-00 201 BEECH II. SF E I C 30' /l!00 201 BEECH lIE. CHUlIIISII, CI. 91910 112
tI3 5I1-01I-0HO 205 8EECH II. SF E I C 3D' /l!00 205 BEECH lIE. CHUlIIISII, CI. 91110 163
181 511-011-03-00 SID TST. SF E I C 30'/1900 I I C SERVED FROII REIR 510 T 51. CHUlIIISII, CI. 91110 III
185 517-011-02-00 531 TST. SF E I 25' /1150 531 T ST. CHUlllISII, CI. 91110 185
181 511-011-01-00 201 CEOIR II. SF E I C 15'/1150 IG 201 CEOIR lIE. CHUlI VlSII, CI. !l!10 III
111 517-0Tl-05-00 520 T ST. SF E. I C 25'/1150 520 T ST. CHUll VISII, CI. 91910 111
118 517-0Tl-OHO m T ST. SF E I 30' /1900 SIITST. CHUII VISII, CI. 11910 161
II! 5I1-0Tl-03-00 51! TSI. Sf E I 3D' /l!00 512'E'ST. CHUll VISII, CI. !l!10 169
110 5I1-0Tl-02-00 501 TSI. SF E I C 30' /l!00 3113 1Il0 OIlS ll. 101111, CI. !l!02 110
III 5I1-0Tl-Ol-00 201 FIFTH II. SF E I C 30'/I!OO 10m ElDEII'IOOO ll. 511 DIEGO, CI. 12131 111
111 511-D1!-01-00 110 TST. SF El 35'/11050 SERVED FORN ElDER 114
115 m-D1!-02-00 181 'E' ST. SF E I C 35'/11050 IIITSI. CHUll ITSII, CI. 1I110 115
111 561-012-01-00 m TSI. SF E I C 10'/11100 HOUSE 01 110 lOIS m T ST. CHUll ITSII, CI. 11910 111
!IS 511-011-11-00 210 TSI. SF E I C 25'/1150 210TSI. CHUll VIm, CI. 1I110 !IS
!II 511-011-18-00 201 mOlD Ii. SF E I C 25'/1150 20lTSI. CHUll ITSII, CI. 1I110 218
m 589-010-01-00 201 mOlD Ii. SF E I C 25'/1150 20ISECOI0IVE. CHUll lISII, CI. 9I!10 m
!II 589-010-01-00 III TST. SF E I C 100'/13000 188TSI. CHUll VISII, CI. II!IO 118
m 519-010-01-00 112 TSI. SF E I C 50'/11500 815 OURmo 51. CNUll ITSTI, CI. 1I110 119
m 519-DlD-OB-OO 111 TSI. SF E I C 100'/13000 116 T ST. CHUll ITSII, CI. 91110 !!D
251 51~-nll-01-00 III TST. SF E I C 30' moo 118TST. CHUll ITSII, CI 9I!10 !51
.1IBIT T
10/05/12 T SIREET CONVERSION OISIRICI NO. 123 Page 2
SINGLE FIMILY RESIDENCES
PIR PlR
10. ISS. PAR. 10. ADDRESS LIMO USE UTILITIES DISTIl REMIRKS DINER DINER'S 100RESS CITY, SIITE, lIP NO.
---_.-------------------_.-~----------------------------_._.---.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------.---------------------------------------------------------------
m \69-011-02-00 112 TST. SF E I C 25'/1150 IH T ST. CNUll VISII, CI. !IlIO m
251 \69-011-03-00 131 TSI. SF E I C 25'/1150 !85 EIST 'J' SI. CHUlI VISTI, CI. !Il10 258
251 \69-011-01-00 IJ2 TST. SF E I C 25'11150 IITS ISIH ST. II SIN OIEGO, CI.12115 251
210 \69-013-01-00 12/ TST. SF E I C 25'/1150 121TST. CHUll VISII, CI. 11910 210
211 \69-013-02-00 120 TST. SF E I C 25'/1150 120TST. CHUlI VISII, CA. 11110 211
212 m-013-03-00 III T ST. SF E I C 25'/1150 IIITST. CHUll VISII, CI. 11 liD m
213 m-013-01-00 110 TST. Sf E I C 25'/1150 ITITST. CHUll VISII, CI. !Il10 213
261 \69-013-05-00 202 flRSI IV. SF E I C 25'/1150 3512 PUTTER OR. SONITI, CI. 11102 211
211 569-0S0-0S-00 201 FIRSIIV. SF E 1 C 35'/11050 201 FIRSIIVE. CHUlA IISII, CI. !IlIO 211
217 \69-010-05-00 92 TST. Sf E I 35'/11050 12TST. CHULI VlSII, CI. 91110 212
211 m-OIO-OI-OO II TST. SF E I C 50'/11500 SITST. CHUlA YlSII, CI. 91910 21S
211 \69-010-03-00 SO TSI. Sf E I C 10'/11200 SOTST. CHUlA VISII, CI. 91910 21!
oJ 210 m-010-02-00 11 TST. Sf E I C 35'/11050 23 CITSPII CIPE COROIIOO, CI. 9211S 270
2T1 m-OSO-Ol-00 SI TST. SF E I C 35'111050 IITST. CHUll VISII, CA. 91910 211
212 \69-070-01-00 10 T ST. SF E I C 35'/11050 SOTST. CHULI VISII, CI. !IlIO 212
I 218 \69-010-01-00 30 10YONlI. SF E I C 10'1I1S00 30 TOVON IN. CHUll VISII, CI. 91910 271
\'> 213 \69-010-02-00 52 TSI. Sf E I C 100'/13000 52TST. CHUll VISII, CI. 91910 273
211 \69-010-/1-00 II 101OlLN. SF E I C 100'/13000 II TOYON IN. CHUll VISII, CA. 91910 211
m m-Ol0-H-00 3S 101OllN. SF E I C 10'IIIS00 3S 10YON IN. CHUll VISII, CI. !Il10 m
211 561-010-11-00 21 101OllN. SF E I C 10'/12100 21 101OllN. CHUll VISII, CI. 91910 211
21S m-Ol0-09-00 12 101OllN. Sf E 1 C 25'11150 12 10101 LN. CHUll VISII, CI. !IlIO 218
'--- 219 \69-010-52-00 21 10YON IN. SF E I C 25'11150 21 10YON IN. CHUll VISII, CI. !IlIO 219
10 515-250-22-00 509 TST. SF E I C 30'/1900 509TST. CHUll VISII, CI. !Il10 10
~\ 11 515-250-21-00 507 TST. SF E I C 30'11900 501TST. CHUlA YlSII, CI. 11910 11
12 515-250-20-00 19/ FIfTH AV. Sf E I C 25'11150 I9ITSI. CHULA VISII, CI. !IlIO 12
11 515-211-09-00 IS9 TST. Sf E I C 30'11900 IS! T ST. CHUlA IISII, CI. !Il10 11
"- 19 515-212-01-00 IS! 8RIGHTIOOO AV. SF E I C 30'11100 IS9 8RIGHllooO lIE. CHUlAVISII,CI.91110 19
"J 91 515-2S0-03-00 IJ5 TST. SF E I C 15'111350 IJ5 T ST. CHULI VISII, CI. !IlIO 91
------------------_._-.------------------------.-----..----------.----------------------------------------------------------_.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 sum FIMllY RESIDENCES Tom REIMSURSEMENT , 180,550
~
c ~
- - - - - e = :;:, :0 '" ~ ~ = ~ :: l<: ;;; - ~ - :c ~ :::; ~
~ - - - -
-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e e ~ e ~ :; ~ e :; e - :; ~ :; ~ :; - - ~
~ - - - - - - - - ;;; - - - - - ~ ;; - ~ ;;;
- -
- - - - - - - ;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; -
;;; - - - - - - - - - - - -
~ - - . - . . . . . . . . . .
~ - - c - - c - - - - c
~ - - u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . u u u u u u - ~
~
g ~ c - - - - - - - ~ g ~ g ~ ~ - - g ~
- -- E - ; - -
- - - - - - - - - g
c ~~ - - - - - '" - - - - - -- - - - ~
- '" ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;; ;:: - ;:: ;:: ;:: ;::
- - c - - - - - - ~ - -
- - = ~ c - - - - - - ~ - c - - - - - c - - - - c c ;;; -
= ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- = !i1 = !i1 &' = = = = = = = &' = = !i1 = !i1 = &' = = = - =
= = = = = = = = = = = = ~ = a - a c =
~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ u ~ u u u u u u u U U U U U ~ U U U U U U - U
-
~
=
-
-
= .;
- = e
'" ~ -
~
e a - - = ~ - ~ ~ ~ - ~
~ ~ :;; - ::; - :;; - - :;; - ::;
- e - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
- - - - u - ~
- c - - - :;; - - - - - - '" - - :;; - - ~ :;;
ffi - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
= -
~ = = =' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~
:l! = g
- - a -
:: - ~ ~ ~ - - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - - ~ - - - - c!.c; -
~ - - ~ - ~ - - - - - - - - ~ - - - :::
- ~ - - - ~ - - ~ --
,0
l-
'll
i
"
UI
e
-",
~
=:-
~ -
:;;=
C;~
-
= v>
-
~~
8e
--
_u
~ -
- -
--
-
-
-
-
'"
e
e_
~i
-
~~
ea
:;:
~~
::/-
-
ce
--
~
-
~
-
-
=
1:,
-
-
-
-
=
==
-
=
-
-
=
e
:;,
-
'"
g
c
-
-
-
-
"
:;; "
-
~
- -
li
-
~ "
"
~ "
~ ::
- "
~
-
-
e
.
e
u
--
=-
~-
~S
:;~
_u
~~
u_
-
!
e
ll;
-
--
-
-
=
*
~
u
a _
~~
:::;
l<:
!l
;;;:
i~
_ e
eu
u
-
-'-
-
- -
--
~ ~
::~
~
-~
~~
c;>'"i"
~~
5:~
....................
-----
~~~~~
ggggg
.-.--
CtOQCtQ
~.... u~u
:;;
.....~- ......
-----
- ---
en on"'''' on
.... '^ .... .... ....
....................
~
,
-
,
=
-
,
-
-
-
...............-
!!!!!
. , , I ,
~~~~~
..-... --
.............".....
......- --
.........................
-----
Co 00 QO
-----
..........................
-----
c:> C> C> C> Ct
-----
....................
-,., --
OQC>C>
-- --
..........................
-----
o C>C> C>C>
-----
-
-
~
~
ggggg
-----
BC>C>C>o
c..:ouuu
~
iigggg
;;s____
88888
8
8
88888
-----
_OCtOCt
uuC,;/uu
8888
--., ,.,
B=~~
uuu
=
=:=~-
...........-
-.-.-
---....:-
-----
----
-;;::~
-..........
- - --
-
-
...:_--
___on
-----
-----
-----
---.....-
-
-
:"':-'"':-'"':-'"'
5~:::
~....on~.,.
....................
5:::55
-.......... ........
-- -
~~ -
-
:::
----
!!!..!..'
, "
:::::
.........................
. I . I ,
.............,.,....
___ID_
....................
_..._....~ ::~-:e
..!..' '.!.' ..:...:....:..
. , , , . , ,
Ct C> Ct 0 0 -"'.c ~- ~:: ="'.c.
! : ! :: .:.. :~ -. -. :~
----- ----
...........,........ ~........~
/5 -I ~
...._-:!e~ ::::;::~:::::
--...-
c:"'7"'7"~
:;::~7~
:~~~
--..........
.;..:...;.,.;.
~~::::::::
-
e
*
~
~
.......0_
...................
e=~~::
~
n
10106/92 oE'SHI{[lCOIIV[RSICIIOISW ~O. '23 Page
HHCHD PARenS UD 0
PIA ISSESSOP'S UNGTH or PIA
MO. PIP. MO. SITE 100P!SS LIMO USE UMlTS UTILlT]ES ""C' I I IIE1UIIKS OMP,p OII'P'S looms CITY, SlIn, liP MO.
.n__________ _nd_________________w__ __n______________ _.___n____ >_On.__..___________..._ ____<__________________u_n_.__ --------._-_...--------------- -------------------------
19 \11-110-21-01 m TST.I! COMOO MOM! \61 T ST. 16 C'UII IISlI, CI. mTO 19
10 161-110-11-0' m TST.t1 CONDO NOliE \61 T ST. t1 C'UIIIISlI, CI. 91910 10
11 \61'110-28-01 169 TST.I! CO'OO NONE \6! T ST. I! CNUlI V]SII, CI. 9'910 l'
12 \61.110-21-09 \69 TST.19 CONDO NONE \61 T ST. 19 CNUll VIS II , CI. 91910 12
11 \61-110-21-10 169 TST.II0 CO'OO NO'[ \69 TST.110 CNUII VlSII, CI. mlo 11
]1 \6\-/10-21-" 16! T ST. III CO'DO NONE 10l1l0168 \1M VSlOPO, CI,92111 11
31 16\.11D-2H2 \6! T ST. III CONDO NONE \61 T ST. 112 CNUlI VISTI, CI. ml0 31
]6 \6\-IID-2H3 \69 T ST. II! CONDO 'DN, \61 T ST. 113 CNUlI IIS11, CI. mlo 36
31 \61-1111-28-TI \6! TST.II1 CO'DO 'ONE \69 ',' ST. III CNUll VISII, CI. !1910 1/
31 16\-1ID-11-11 m TS1.II1 CO'OO .0., 169 T ST. III CNUlI VIS II , CI. miD 3B
39 161-11D-28-T6 \6! TS1.116 CO'DO 'ONE III SIN ISIOPO IIVO. SIN ISIOPO, CI. !l11J 39
10 \61-110-21-" m TST.II' CO'OO .ONE 169 T ST. lIT CNUll VIS II, CI. mlo 10
II \61-210-21-'1 \69 T ST. 111 CO'DO NO" 16! T ST. II! CNUlIVlSII, CI. m,o II
12 16\-210-11-19 \6! T SI. "' CO'DD .0.[ \61 T ST. 119 CNUll VlSII, CI. miD 12
Il \11-110-28-20 m T SI.12O CO'OO NONE 119 TS1. 120 CNUlI VlSlI, CI. 91910 11
pu \61-110-11-11 119 T ST. I" CONDO 'ONE \69 TST. 121 CNUlI V]STI, CI, 9]110 U
I II \61-110-28-22 m T ST.122 CO'DO NO" \61 T ST. 122 CNUlI VlSlI, CI. 919'0 II
II 161-110-28-21 m T ST.123 CO'OO NO., 19 POP! Of SPII! PO, CORomo, CI. 91111 II
~11 161-110-21-21 m T SI. 1'1 CO'DO NO" \61 T ST. 111 CNUlI IISII, CI. 9'910 11
II \61-210-21-21 m T SI. 121 COlOO MONE 1911 1121 11II1lCl. 801111, CI. m02 1&
19 \6\-/10-21-2& \69 TS1.m CO'OO 'O'E II! T ST. 126 CNUlI IIS11, CI. mlo 19
\0 \6\-110-28-21 m TST.121 CONOO 'ONE \61 T ST. 121 CNUlI VlSII, CI. mlo 10
II 161-210-2&-2& m T SI.118 CONOO 'O'E 169 -E' SI. 118 CNUlI VlSlI, CI, I1l10 II
12~161-210-18-29 m TST. m COlOO ,ON[ m T ST. 119 CNUlI VIS II , CI. !Im \2
\i-
II ' \65-2/0-2&-10 II! TST.1l0 COlOO 'O'! II! TST.IlO CNUlI YlSlI, CI. 91110 11
\1 .......16\-110-2&-11 m TST.1l1 CONDO 'O'! II!TST.Il' CNUlI YISTI, CI. mlo II
II'-.f) 11I-210-21- 32 m TST.1l2 CO'OO NO., 111 TNlAO IVE. CNUlIIISII, CI, 91910 II
16 \61-110-2&-11 II! TST.1ll COlOO NON[ II! T ST. III CNUll VISII, CI. m,o 16
II 161-110-21-11 m TST.tlI COIOO NON! II!TST.tlI CNUlI VlSII, CI. miD II
1& \11-210-28-11 II! T ST.1l5 COIOO ION[ 119 T ST. III CNUll IIS11, CI. 11m 1&
19 161-210-21-11 m 'E' ST. III CO'OO lONE mTST.ll6 CNUlIYlSII, CI. 91910 19
60 161-210-21-31 169 T ST. III CO'OO .ONE IJ6\JICISOINIGK1SCT. !l CIJO., CI. !2021 60
II 11I-2/0-21-11 169 TST.1lI CO'OO 'ONE \61 T SI. III CNUII VlSTI, CI. 91110 It
II \61-210-21-19 119 TST.1l9 CO'OO 'ONE 169 T ST. 139 CNUlI VlSTI, CI. miD 62
11 11I-110-28-10 m T ST. liD CO'DO .ONE 1311 JOTN ST. SIN DI!GO, CI.92101 61
II 165-210-29-00 III T S1..l-Ir IPT E 1 C 2191ClllES!A[" SIN OI!GO, CI. 92139 61
lOIO!/!! .~. S:RHT COIIVfASIO~ DIS!llICT NO. 111 Pa9t 1
.HEeTED PAR~ElS AND Ol.EII'S
PlI ISSESSOA'S lEI(GTH o~ PIA
AD. PIA.AO. SITEIOOAESS lIAOUS! UAITS UIIlITI!S TRENCH/l IIE"AA~S OINEI OIAIA'S 100AESS CITI, SlllE, lIP '0.
------_._~_.. .------.---------_._----- ------------------ __.n._____ ___u_________.______n__ _________________n______..n__. ------------------------------ ---------------------_.--
II 515-210-32-00 m T 51. 11-110 IP110UI! lAH} 10 C m91 OUAIIGO OA. on MIA, CI. 92011 !!
!1 515-210-11-00 51! TSI.I1-U !PI IlIAOI YlSllJ 21 C '2/1 11M 51. 811111, CI. 91901 !1
131 TSI.I10-121 C
II 515-110-21-00 m TSl.lll-118 !PI 30 C P.O. 8011108 II lOlli, CI. 92038 !8
m TS1.181-1821 C CAUll Y1S11, CI. 91910
!9 185-210-13-00 519 TSI.IC1-IC8 !PI 28 C C'Ull YlSII, CI. 91910 69
519 TSI.I01-I012 C C'Ull YlSll, CI. miD
10 515-210-22-00 m TSI. Sf ! 1 C 10'11900 mTSI. CHUll YlSll, CI. 91910 10
11 585-250-11-00 101 TSI. Sf E 1 C 10'/1900 109TS1. C'Ull YlSll, CI. 91910 11
12 515-250-20-00 191 fifTH IY. Sf E 1 C 21'/1150 1!ITSI. C'UII YlSll, CI. 91910 71
13 515-181-11-00 m TSI. C'UACH I 1 C mTSI. C'Ull YlSll, CI. 91910 IJ
11 111-281-0l-00 m TS1. Sf I C 30' /1900 189TS1. CHUll VlSII, CI. 91910 11
II 515-111-10-00 18\ TSI. ,1A,tI !PI 3 C 181TS1. C'Ull YISII, CI. 91910 15
11 111-281-11-00 419 T ST. lI,n,IC IPT 1 C 108! CAll! I!SI1I BONITA, CI. 11902 11
r\11 165-111-12-00 m TS1. Sf II APT 5 C 863 OUAIIIO 51. C'Ull YlSII, CI. 91910 11
I 191-8 8AI&'T1OGD II.
W
18 111-281-13-00 188 8AI&HlIOOD 1I.1,8,C APT. I 1 C 101 m'8AOOI m. CIUIAlllO, CI. 93010 18
190 8A 1&' T1OGO II.
19 515-212-01-00 189 8A1C'IIOOD II. SF C 10'/1900 119811&"1000 m. C'ULI IISll, CI. 11910 19
80 515-212-08-00 111 TSI. PAESCHOOl C I"TSI. C'Ull YlSll, CI. miD 80
\'---
":\ 15! TS1. COAOOIIIIIlI 11 AOAE
81 ~ 515-212-It-Ol 15! TSI.II CO.DO 'OIE 19 POAl Of SPill AD. COAOIADO, CI. 921t8 !1
82 515-m-It-02 113 TS1.12 COIOO AO'E III T 51. 11 CHUII YlSII, CI. 91910 82
8!~ 515-m-It-03 15! TSI.I! COAOO .01E I5J T SI. I! C'Ull YlSII, CI. 91910 81
84 511-m-It-01. I5J TSI.II COIOO ADA! I5J T SI. II CHUll YlSII, CI. 11910 81
81 515-282-1t-01 I5J TSI.II COAOO ADA! I5J T SI. II CHUII VlSII, CI. 1I!10 85
81 515-m-It-OI III TS1.I1 CO'OO IIOI! III T SI. 11 C'Ull VlSII, CI. 91910 81
11 515-212-11-01 III TS1.11 COADO 10'E 155TS1.12 CHUll YlSII, CI. 91910 81
88 515-212-1t-08 III T 51. I! COIOO 'OIE III T SI. t! C'Ull YISII, CI. 91910 88
89 515-m-l1-09 III T ST. II COADO AOHE lilT 51. II CHUll YISII, CI. 91910 8!
90 515-212-It-l0 III TS1.1\ COAOO AOHE 30011 TESSI!A SI 1118 lICUIA, CI. 92811 90
91 515-m-It-II III TS1.11 COAOO AOIE 155TS1.11 C'Ull YlSII, CI. miD 91
92 515-280-01-00 III TS1.ll-Il IPT. ICISI YlSlll 1 C 1l5T 51. C'Ull IISll, CI. 91910 92
!! 515-180-02-00 113 TS1.11-I8 IPT. ICISI CHUll1 8 C 111 CHUIC' m.1I C'Ull YlSII, CI. 91910 93
10/A6m
T STAHT CAMVlASIA' OISlr '0. III
lffWEAPlACElS"AC
Page (
PIA ISSESSOA'S
'0. PIA. '0. SITE 100RTSS
llIO USl
ll'GTHOI
UIITS UTI 1I T 1!S TAl 'CH / I AEVIAlS
AIMEA
AIMEA'S IAAAESS
CITY, STIlE, liP
PlA
.,.
------------- -----------_.------_..--. -----------------.
__________. _____.._____________.____ ________________________________ _.___ ____________u______.____ __________..n___________
14 511-110-01-00 III TS1. SF E T C 15'111350 IlITST. CHUlI YISII, CI. 61110 61
6\ 561-110-21-00 166 GUlYIlI.IHI2 IPT. 11 C 3616 IllEI SCHmll AD. BONITI. CI. 61602 6\
66 56\-110-18-00 195 GUlYIlI, DUPlE! 2 C P.O. BO'361A CHUIIYISII, CI. 616A6 66
191 GUIYIII.
61 56I-1TO-16-AA 181 GUlYIlI. AUPlE! T C JI6 U1NOT Ill. CHUlI YISII, CI. miD g)
116 GUlYIIY.
9! \11-210-lT-00 111 TST. IPT. l T 11101 SIMllTHl lYE, SU OllGO, CI.62126 6B
121 TS1.
9! 515-2BO-II-00 lOT TST. mo HOlE P.O,BOllll\ LOS IIGHES, CI. 60051 69
100 56&-190-11-00 m TST. YICm NO.E 111 CEOlA ST. II SmICAU1, CI.95060 100
101 111-190-31-00 m TS1. CIlM1IEACIll T C \09 ClAYIllOS OA. CHUlI VIm. CI. 91910 101
3BI TS1. COVVEACIIl
102 561-190-11-00 11I TS1. COVVEACIlI 1 C \09 ClAYIllOS OA. CHUII VIm. CI. 91910 101
101 \6&-190-10-00 3Tl TST. COlIIIlACIll 1 C 2320 FIFIH Ill. '301 Sll OllGO, CI.91I01 101
313 TST. COUIIlACIIl
('
, 191 Olom II. 11,18 _lAC III
.c101 \1&-190-01-00 l!l T ST. II,II,IC COUIIEACIll I I C SEAYICE FADM IllEY !Ill IIlO III liS YEGlS, CI. !9102 101
10\ 566-211-10-00 11\ "E'ST. COUIIEACIll I 1 C SEAYICE FROM IllEY P.O. !Ol 1611 BONITI, CI. mOB 10\
101 516-211-01-00 13\ T 51.11,11 COUlIEACIll 2 T C Ill! COAll DE II FOIOI 511 DIEGO, CI.91110 101
101 m-211-01-00 131 TST. COUIIEACIlI I 1 III T ST. CHUII YISII, CI. 619lO 101
lOB 516-21t-OB-OO 129 "E'SI, COIIIIEACIll C II! T 51, CHUll Ylm, CI. 91910 lOB
111 TST. COlIIIlACIll
109 561-232-11-00 121 TST. COUIIlACIIl E 1 1 SEAVlCE IAOM lllOIS 10lTIJll RD. FIllBROOI, CI. 6102! 109
\{\ 1I1 TST. IPT.
II! TSI, IPT.
~
1IIl,5!!-2IH2-00 10\ TST. COWERCIll SERYICE FADM THIAO 15\11 BIlIIClE OR. MOllACH BElCH, CUlm 110
III 561-111-1\-00 COUIIERCIll 15511 BlMIIClE OR. MOmCH!EICH, CU1629 111
112 566-2IHO-00 COUIIEAClll 15\11 !""ClEOR. MOIIACH BElCH, CU2629 112
III 566-210-21-00 181 lHIROIY: FEORlClmOR E 21021 YElIURl8lYO. SIE 100 looOlllO HillS, CUIIU 111
III 566-210-10-00 m TST. B OF I lORE P.O. 801 11000 SU FRlICISCO, CI. 91131 III
11\ m-210-28-00 21\ TST. COIIII[RCIIl RO.[ P.O. BOI II! DHUS, TEllS 15221 11\
I" 566-210-29-00 161 TST.tHE IPl NO'l 115 FOURTH lYE CHUII VISII, CI. miD 116
111 566-240-11-00 25\ TST. COUlIERCIIl E 1 C P.O. 801 101 BOMm, CI. 91908 III
II! 566-250-1B-00 2\3 T ST. tHO COM/IPT T C SEAYICE 01 PRIYlTE OAIYE 219 T ST. e'UlIYISTI, CI. 61910 118
II! \66-2\0-26-00 219 TST. COIIIIERCIIl E 1 C P,0.BOII115 CHUlIYISII, CI. 91912 119
1010!m T STPHT C3"1'I10' oISI'ICf '0.113 P!9' I
AFFECTED P~R~HS UO OOfR'S
PIA ISSESSOA'S. tElIGTHOF PIA
'0. PIA. '0. SIT! IDDAm LARO USE UAIlS UTIliTIES rllfltCll/S IIf'JII~S 0'''[11 OIRE"S 100Rm CITY, SIITE, lIP '0.
------------- --------------------_.--- ----.-.--.--.---.- ----_.----.--...._-----.------------ ____u___n________.u..._______ ------___-.-0-------.--------- -------------------------
120 m-250-]0-00 m T ST, OffiCE P.O, 101 1115 CHULI YlSII, CI. mil 120
III m-250-]1-00 211 TSI. Sf C 31'111010 1111 fRl[oRlCI oA. SIR DIEGO, CI. 92101 121
112 5!!-15H2-oo 2]5 TST. Sf C 31'111050 215TSI. CHUlI YISII, CI. 91110 112
12] \!S-15o-]]-00 129 TST. Sf C 35'11'050 129TST. CHULlVlSII, CI. 91910 113
121 5!6-250-]l-00 191 "IR OIlS IY. H 35'111010 1U6 lomo ST. SIR DIEGO, CI.92101 III
125 \!S-250-]5-00 211 TST. Sf 1 C 35'111010 P.O. 101m PIO'EEA lOlA, CI. 9126! 125
II! m-250-3!-00 201 TSI, Sf I C 15'11750 5! T ST.E. PAlOlIA oA. CHULI YlSII, CI. 91911 116
111 566-25Hl-00 116 SECO'o IY. Sf I C 35'111010 I!! SECO'O AYE, CHULI YISII, CI. 91910 111
III m-lll-I1-00 191 SECO'oIY,II-lo IPI, 1 C P.O. 101 m CHULI YISII, CI. !IIIl II!
119 566-251-Jl-OO 199 SECO'O IY. 11,18 IPT. 1 C 211 CHUlI YlSII ST. CHUlI YISII, CI. 91910 119
110 m-251-11-00 1!5 TST. SF I 1 C 10'11600 1!5TST. CHULI VlSII, CI. 91910 110
III 566-251-15-00 III TST. SF I 1 C 10'11600 IIITST. CHULI YlSII, CI. 91910 III
132 566-251-16-00 11\ T ST. 11-125 IPT. 15 1 C III I. THOAI SIR DIEGO, CI.91101 III
IJJ m-15f-lI-oo 161 TST. Sf I I 15'11150 !ll ImUA lYE. CHULI VlSII, CI. 91910 III
III 566-251-1!-00 163 TST. SF I 1 C 15'11150 1!5TST. CHULI YISII, CI. 91910 III
135 m-251-19-00 159 TST. Sf C 25'11150 525 H1GHLlAO AYE. RlTIORll CITY, CI. 91950 115
136 5!6-251-20-00 198 IIROI "E. 11,11 'DUP C 911 IAAOIO OA. CHUlI YlSII, CI. 91910 136
~1J1 566-]20-10-00 191 VlROIIYE. oUP C 15]TS1. CHUII VISII, CI. 91910 131
I 15] TST.
1\1J! 566-320-11-00 151 TST. Sf C IIISIAYICIFAOIAEIA IlITST. CHUll YlSII, CI, 91910 Il!
IJ9 568-]20-12-00 III TSr. Sf C I II mVlCE fAOM AEIR 115 TSI, CHUlI YlSII, CI. 91910 IJ9
110 561-320-1l-00 III TSr. Sf C EllSEAYICEFAO'REIR IIITSr. CHUlI VlSII, CI, 91910 110
III 566-320-29-00 111 TSI, OUP C IlITST. CHUlI VISII, CI. 91910 III
119 TS1.
lI! m-320-15-00 111 TSr. Sf C 10'11900 IlITSr. CHUlI VlSII, CI. 91910 112
~
III \ 516-]20-16-00 109 TSr. Sf I C 10'11900 109 T ST, CHUlI YlSII, CI, 91910 III
III ~61-320-1I-00 191 f1ASI ". SF I C 30'11900 10911 !ROm 11Im AD. lAlESIOE, CI. 91010 III
115/--'561-291-1!-00 191 FIRSIIY, Sf I C 30'11900 191 FlASIAYE, CHUll YlSII, CI, 91910 115
116 516-291-11-00 I9B CORlE HHElI ". Sf 1 C 30'11900 I9B COATE HHEII AYE, CHUlI VlSII, CI. 91910 111
111 566-291-11-00 191 CORlI HHEII ", Sf I C 15'11750 191 COATE .ElElIlYE. C'UlI YISII, CI. 91910 lIT
III m-291-15-00 III CDAII 'HElI ". Sf I I C 25'(1150 116 COAlE .HEII m. C'UlI VlSII, CI. ml0 III
119 566-291-11-00 112 COAlE 'HEII II, Sf E I C 25'11150 111 COAII REtEll lYE. C'UlI YlSII, CI. 91910 119
150 561-291-11-00 115 COAlE 'HEII II. Sf E I C 25'11150 115 COAlE REtEll lYE. C'Ull YTSII, CI, mID 150
151 566-291-12-00 119 COAlE 'HEII IY. SF E I C 1\'11150 119 COAlE mEII lYE. CRUll YlSII, CI. 91910 151
152 566-291-11-00 19l CORlE 'HE" IY, Sf I I C 15'(1150 19] CORTE ~HEII m. CHUll VlSII, CI. 91910 152
15] 566-291-10-00 191 COAlE HllEII II. Sf ]5'/11050 191 COAlE RHE" lYE. CHUlI YlSII, CI. 91910 1\3
151 m-m-09-00 !1 TSI. Sf I C ]5'/11050 61 T 51. CHUll VlSII, CI. 91910 151
10/06/91
. E. S fl~EfT COM'IfRS ION r! t.. .0. 12 J
HnCT~O PAQCHS I~",
P!9!
PAl ISSESSOA'S
MO. PIA. 10. SITE 100AESS
LIIOUSI
tFN~a OF
UIITS UIIlITI15 "E'C' I I 'EV"'S
'.'HII
OINEA'S 100AES5
CITY, STlTE, liP
PIA
MO.
155 166-191-09-00 t99 CORT! MIAIIIY.
SF
10ME
mCOAIIllAIllYL
C'U1IYISlI, CI. 91110
155
SOUl' SlOE Of T STOff!
-_..- ---- .__.___n_____
- - __~+_ - - _. n_
156 561-011-16-00 101 BROIO.IY UMOCIl SlIlIOI SE~VED fPQII Eo PAR~ lN, P.O, BOl1600 lOS IMGHES, CI. 90051 156
157 561-012-01-00 581 TSI. COIIIIEACIIL P.O. 801 7110 C.U1IYISII,CI.mll 157
15B 581-011-01-00 101 IS.IY, SF 30'11900 101 IS. IYL C'UII YISTI, CI, 1I910 158
159 561-013-01-00 5!8 TST. SF 30'11900 3616 YAllEY YlSII RO 80M1II, CI. 1I901 159
180 561-013-01-00 561 TST. SF 30'11900 581TST. CHULI YlSTI, CI. mlo 160
161 561-013-19-00 560 TST. SF 30' 11900 15 -013 L1L1PUII ROID mlOHI NI. mil 161
181 561-013-10-00 106 BHC.IY, SF 30'11900 106 BEECH IYL C'ULI YlSlI, CI. mlo 161
183 567-011-01-00 105 BHCM IY, SF I I C 30' 11900 105 BEECH m, C'ULI YlSlI, CI. 1I110 113
161 561-011-03-00 510 TST. SF E 30'/1900 11 C SEAVED fROM REIA 510 T ST. C'Ull YlSTI, CI. 1I110 181
165 567-011-01-00 531 TST. SF I 15'/1150 531TST. C'ULI YlSlI, CI. 1I110 165
('\ 166 561-011-01-00 106 CEOIR IY, SE E C 15'11150 106 CIOIR IYI. CHUll YlSTI, CI. 1I110 166
1161 56/-071-05-00 510 TSI, SF E C 15'/1150 510 T ST. CHULI "SII, CI. 91910 167
.....
l>
168 511-071-01-00 516 TST. Sf I I 30'11900 !18 T ST. CHUII YlSTI, CI. 91910 118
169 561-011-03-00 51/ TSI. SF E I 30' 11900 511TST. CHULI YlSlI, CI, 1I110 169
ITO 561-011-01-00 506 TST. 1: I I C 30'11900 311l 'IlD OIlS II. 8011I1, CI. 91901 170
ITI 511-071-01-00 106 rtFTN IY, E I C 30' 11900 10m HOEAlOOO LI, SII DIEGO, CI. 91131 171
IT! 568-011-15-00 191 TST. CHURCH I I C u. ..__u. .........._ 6"__H 191 T ST. C'UlI YlSTI, CI. 91110 IT!
III 568-011-11-00 101 ELDIR II. Sf C E SERilD fROM ELDER 10ITSI, CHUII YlSII, CI. !l1I0 III
171 568-011-01-00 110 TSI, SF E' 35'/11050 SEAVEO fROM EIOER 1009 CHIROOllII TER. C'UII YlSlI, CI. 1I913 111
115 568-011-01-00 166 TST. SF E I C 35'/11050 168 T ST. C'UII YlSII, CI. 91910 115
ITI 568-011-03-00 m TST. SF I C I SlAilO FROM AEIA mTST. C'UlI YlSII, CI. 91910 111
1T1~568-011-01-00 156 TST. SF I C 10'111100 'OUSE OA 1'0 LOIS 151 T ST. CHUll YlSII, CI. 91910 IT1
,\
17~18-011-05-00 111
m 568-013-01-00 105 FIG IY, SF C I SlAVED fROM REIR 105 FIG m. CRULl YlSlI, CI. 91910 m
180 5!8-013-01-00 III TST. SF slmo fROM RIIR III T ST. C'ULI YlSlI, CI. 91910 180
181 561-013-03-00 110 TST, SF SEAVIO FROM RElA 1I0TS1, C'UlIYlSTI, CI. 9I1I0 181
18/ 518-013-01-00 131 TSI. SF C III T ST, CHUll YlSTI, CI, 91110 18/
181 518-013-05-00 116 Gum IY. SF 1011 O.H. LIlES ICAOSS GUIYI 116 Gum lYE. CHUlIYISTI, CI. 91110 III
191 568-011-13-00 115 Gum IY. SF NOlI O.H.lINESICAOSSGUIYI 18 lIlE HIlIl DR. lIMISI,CI.mll 191
113 568-0U-OI-00 103 Gum IY, SF I .OUSI 01 1'0 10lS 103 Gum IYL CHULI YlSII, CI, 91910 183
181 561-0U-01-00 181
~ ~ = = ~ - ~ = = - ~ ~ =
= = = ;;; =
~ = = - - - - - - = = = :e = = = =
-
~
:;: ~ - - = = e 0 ~ ~ ~ = = = ~ - = 0 = =
- ;;; ;;; = :. ~ :. ;;; ;;;
- ~ - - - = - - - - - ~
- - ;;; - ;;; - ;;; ~ ;;; :. ;;;
- - - - - - - - - - -
" - - -
- - ~
~ ~ - - - - ~ - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - -
~ ~ = = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-
~ - - - :f - - - -- g g ~
~ ~ ~~ - - - - - -
- - ;;: = - !!! -
= = ~ = = ~ = - = = ~ =
= - = - - ;;: ;;: ;;: - ;;: ;;:
- - ;; = - - - - - -
0 = - - :.
- - ~ = - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - -
~ - ~ ~ ~ ;; ~
- = = = = = - - = = = = = s. ;0 ;0 ;0 ;0
e - - = '" = = = - li: g li: = '" '" '"
~ ~ = = ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- -
= =
- -
= - -
.; - ~
= : ~ - -
~ 0 ;;; = ;;; - 0 -
= - -
= = ~ ~ - - - '" lii - .; l!i
~ ~ ~ ~ - 0 - ~
- - .. - - - ~ ~ ! 0
- = - a 0 - -
= ~ 0 0 - = ~ E ~ :e li: = = - - - ~ ~
;;; - ., ., = = ~ ~ ;
~ = ~ ~ = - ~ =
~ - ~ - -
~ = - = ~ c: = - - - ~
. = '" 0 li: ;:; - - 0 0 ~ :< 0
= ~ = ~ ~ ~ a - =
= 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 = - - = - - :e 0 ~ :: ::
~ :5 - ., - ~ =: ., = =
~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~
~ '" - ~ ~ -
.,. ~
-
.
~
N
~
C' ~
0 ~
= =
= .
'" =
-
V' " -
0 -
- ~
. ~
= =
~
~ :; -
0 - ~
~
~
,..
~
-
:;
=
c:
-
-
e
=
- =
0-
=
=
~~
~~
!:lie
~ -
= - - -
~ g ~
0 - - - -
a l' a a a a -
[ e 0 0 0
. E E E E -
0
= ~ 0 ~ ~ - '"
- = ~ .
- -
:;; = :;; :;; ~ -
~ ~
- -
............... '-"
~~~
~
~~
~
~ ~~
~
.
~
--
-~-
.. .
~~~
~
=
=
o
;
~
~-;-
=
~ ~~
a:. a: a:. a:.
~!:ii
~o <=> C>
...................
~
~~~
~.....-
..........uA.
II: o a:. _
I~ ...df:: _
00.... A.
.::......oc
~f!~~
C> C> c;. C>
.........,<..>u
....J .............
-... -...-
uuuu(...J
a:. a:: a:.a:.CI::
iiiii
u u...............
.... ..............
-----
uuuuu
a: a: a: a:. a::
i'J~is:
CoOC> C> &::>
...............u.....
~
-
u
-
Ii
~~~
-----
.....uuu;:;
a:: a: a:....a::
iiii~
~ C> 0 00
......................
-
~
~
-
=
o
=
=
~
-
o
::i
-
=
-
-
.
~-
~
..........,............
o
..... .............
=
::
::
===
-~:-:
on..... _ =-::llII
~~-
.......... .....
000
- --
-- -
o-::s :::0::
-................
eo: CI: GO a:.
-. ::> ==
:;;0::.....:0:::=:0::-
_. .........u
-
-
--
....................
- - -
........................
- -
........................
- --
....................
:;
_ .....ClCO
......:e:::;;:;;
00 =
= ~
...................
~~~~~
.....~~~
_ _.. 00
..............~~
0...........
:::~::::e:e
0=
:.;~~~
o
.,.
-
!
;
occo.:>
cr''"i'"C;><;''
;~!7
'7'7"7''=
~~~~
o
~
,
-
~
o
.,.
~
;
:::
~
.,.
=
:::
~-
0"7''71
co C> .... C>
, ,
..............
"r''7"7'"'i''
;!!!
o
~
.,.
;:
C> co co C> 5!:, "',
0_, cr~! --
- .". !!=!:::-.
"7'~~~ ~~
'7"7'"'7"'7' '79
..--- --
::::: ]5-.,2~
co'>........ c> Co C>
~ ~~
- ~=
::e:e:ere
o
.,.
-
,
-
::::
:::
000
"7''?-
--~
~!Z
- --
C;:>"T''T'
;;~
-
:e
~
'"
:....::;
~
-
^--
=
-
o
~
~--
- --
101061!1 T STIIEff CO"VflISr~" O!~.. lfO.I2: Page !
HrEC'EO P&PCfLS Aile '..
P" lSSISSOA'S . LfltGTIlOr Pi'
NO. PIN. NO. sm iOOOfSS lIMO US( UMlTS UTllIT![S "INCHII R[VJIl(S OW~ER O'm'SiOO'rSS CITY, Sl1ff,llP NO.
.------------ -------------------.---.- ------------------ __________> .________n____________d ---.------.-_.-.-------_.-_----- _____ ._._______n_____________ -------------------------
108 m-Dll-Ol-01 2lI TST. CONDO NONr IS16G'OYflVE. SIN OliGO, CI.91ISI 108
109 m-Dll-OI-06 131 TST. CONDO N')ME 18 HIlLlOP DR. CHUlIVISl1,CI.91910 103
lID 168-Dll-OI-Ol ll2 TST. CONDO C IS16GRCYfIVE. SIN DIEGO, CI.911SI lID
III 568-013-01-08 130 TS1. CONDO NC'I I! NIlLlOPPR. CHUlIVIS11, CI. 91910 III
111 568-013-01-09 118 TST. CONDO NOllE I!HIlLlOPOR. CHUlI VIS 11 , Ci. 91910 111
III 568-D1J-OI-IO 116 T ST. CONDO 116TST. CHUlIVlSl1,CI.91910 III
111 568-01H8-00 101- Tm OUSlY. IPT 10 NONI 1151 HORN81lNO ST. SiN OlIGO CI.91109 111
111
101 11IN OUS lY. I-J
115 568-01Hl-00 110 TST. Sf I C 15'11150 110TS1. CHUlI VlSl1, CI. 91910 115
116 S68-01H6-00 101 SICONO lY. Sf I C 15'11150 101TST. CHUlIVISl1, CI. 91910 III
111 m-OIO-OI-OO 109 mONOlY. Sf I C 15'11150 20! SECOND lYE. CHUlIVlSTI,CI.91910 111
118 519-010-01-00 186 TSI. Sf I C 100'/13000 1!6TST. CHUIIVISTI, CI. 91910 218
m m-010-Ol-00 112 TST. Sf I C 50'111500 115 OURlIRO ST. CHUlIVlSTI,CI.91910 m
220 56!-010-08-00 118 TST. Sf C 100'/llOOO I16TST. CNUlI VlSl1, CI. !l910 220
0221 U8 TST. CONDOMINIIJII 35 'ONI
m-0I0-09-08 118 TST. II CONDO I NONI 118TST.I8-1 CHUlI VlSl1, CI. 11910 221
1m m-010-09-09 U8 T ST. 82 CONDO I NONE 118 T ST. 18-2 CHUlI VlSTI, CI. 91910 m
CO
m m-010-09-01 150 TST. II CONDO NONE 1181 SUNDO'N I;N. CHUlI VlSTI, CI. 91911 m
221 569-010-09-01 150 TST. 12 CONDO NONl 150 T ST. 11-1 CHUlIVISTI, CI. 91910 221
125 m-010-09-03 lID TST. Il CONDO NONI 150 T ST. 11-3 CHUlI VlSTI, CI. 11910 125
228 569-010-09-01 150 TST. " CONDO NONl 12 l1NIlPIIS ROIO JIIRm, CI. 91930 226
121 m-010-09-05 150 TST. IS CONDO NONI ISoTST.II-5 CHUlI VlSTI, CI. 11910 121
\:r
\
228' 569-010-09-08 lID TST. .. CONDO NONE 1220 POlITIS RD. CHUlI VlSTI, CI. !!lID 128
m?-.., \69-010-09-01 lID TST. II CONDO NONE IIOTST.II-T CHUlI VlSl1, CI. 11910 m
230~69-010-0HO liD TST. CI CONDO NON I 160TST.IC-1 CHUlI VISTI, CI. 11910 230
131 S69-010-0HI liD T ST. C2 CONDO NONI 18STST. CHUlI VlSTI, CI. 11910 231
231 69-010-01-l! 160 TST. C3 CONDO NONE 18S'E'ST. CHUlI VIS 11 , CI. !llID 212
23l 56!-010-OH3 liD TST. CI CONDO NONI 1115 NINm 81VO. If SIN OliGO, CI.12101 23l
231 569-010-09-11 160 TST. C5 CONDO NOVI 160 T ST. IC-5 CHUlI VlSIl, CI. !I!IO 231
m 569-010-0H5 160 TST. C! CONDO NONl 1I0TST.IC-I CHUlI VlSl1, CI. 91910 135
m 519-010-09-16 160 T ST. Cl CONDO NONE 160TST.IC-I CHUlI VIS II , CI. 91910 131
131 56!-010-09-11 160 TST. C! CONOO NONE 160'1'51. IC-I CHUlI TIST!, CI. 91910 131
23! 56!-010-0!-l! 160 TS1. 10l CONOO NONI 160 TST. 1101 CNUlI YlSII, CI. !IlIO 2l!
m 5!9-010-0H9 160 TS1. 101 CONDO NONE 2815 NIN1T1 81TO IF SIM OlIGO, Ci.92106 239
~
~
~ .
.0
~ -
o
-
:;C>
;;......
~
-
- --
UUU
~
-
-
-
~~-
---
;;;;
- -
~
= ==
s __
UUU
i
;:;
-
~
-
o
o
-
,.
~
~
-
.
o
- -
....~~
0' ,
=~~
- --
---
:"":-""'~
!;e:
i
.
0
-
0
- -
'" ~
-
~ .
- 0
0
0 -
- - -
'" -
- u ~
~
> ~ ~
- ~
0 0
u
U -
0 -
~ - - -
U
; i
-
~
- lO' ~ -
-
lO lO lO
=
:e
-
=
-
~~
~~
--
~.
-
-
-
e.
:=
~ .
::li
~
-
=
o
.
::I
000
000
- --
800
uu
--
~2e
:::
I
--
---
~
-
-
~==
i~i
-;O~"T
000
aoc
, , ,
;;;
!;::-
..........~-.....
'"
C
co C> co C>
:-;;a..
......-- ...
-
o
-----
<J""....~....
- - - --
-__c:>_
~"'cn:::~
=----:;;-
_ _ C>_
_ ~s
::> => ="'" =>
:z =:z.....:
<J .... .... = ....
o
__..ii'
C> C> co _ ..
=:~~~:.:
-- -.....-
on ..... ..... .... .....
. . . ....'
................. ....
. . . c..>.
~==~~
u
.........................
,.,....,.,.... ...
C> C> Oc> <;>
"'::r,.,,., .,
ggggg
_a___
c>coooo
.... .... .... .... <J
-- -
co C> C> _ .....
_-coco
- -
..... ...... on ..... .....
a_CoC>Co
==~:::::
...._....~
.... .....--.....
cr-9c;'"cr'"T
0::> C> C> C>_
cecco
I , , I ,
=:=:=
.....,..............
- - -
-
---
~~~~:
C>.... co co
0_
...........-
--...;;;-
..-
_ U
--
uu
--
_<J__
=- -
Clr on _ en
- - -
.... - ~_:-
= -
-- --
= -
-=>,., ==
--'= 0= =
c ...._........
~
-
-
-' , - , 0-
_ "'" 0- C> on
~:=:;-"
~.....~cn
-'0 .... ...,
- ...............-
..... A.. ....
.. co.... co 0-
co___o
~-~--
.........................
-----
~~~~~
ggggg
-----
0000 00
....................
....-....--
____co
- --
_ on... on.....
:=:=:e:=:=
~=?7~::::
... ....-........
cocco_C>
I It. ,
CI Co co C> co
coccC;
, , I , .
-.............-
-----
....................
:_C>....:::
.... ..............
-
-
--
=::::~
=.....-
---
- --
UUu
- .-
;~-
:.:;-
~ =s
=- =
s __
u_ U
Of
~
:;;r;:;;
o Co
~-~
o 00
__0
---
---
-
:=
,
~
-
-
-
__0
.............--
....................
,...,....-....-
:;:-:;:~:e
--.....--
__c__
_e.......e.
_e._.....
.. -.
~~ .u~
::f~=~
::c::
~~
== - ==
:::0::::0: 0::0:::0:
~~""UU
-~~
. .-= =:
-- -
....,""'...--
---
. . __a:
........=--
. . -.......
- -.....--
=~~~
_ c__
_c__
.........................
eee-e
-..-- ...
-- -.....-
-_..._-
..- -
~u~_u
U
_.c_
---
....,...,,,,,, -.....
- 0_
:.-:.~-
-----
................c
===a:=
lZ::O:::O::O:
~u~~u
~
.
-
~
..:..:-:=..:
:n:n:ne:n
...............
. . . u.
....._-~-
---.....-
--
--
00
;;-
--
- -
uu
,,-
;:
- -
~
~~
uu
- -
-~
~~
coo 0:::> 0:::> -
~ :g 00
~~~~~ ~~~ ....0:::>0........ _0
0 ~~~~~ ~~
-
- ::~~~~ -
-
i;: ..................... --- - =:;:::~;q~ ~~
.......................... --- -
U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
~ - lO' - - - - - -
. - - - - - - - - -
0 0 0
. - -
- ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ggg
. --
800
,",u
o
---
000
- -
---
~::::::
777
---
'fer"i"
000
II!
---
---
---
=c..........
:=
-
-
ee....oc
..........--
-----
-
U
.cc__
~c..>c..>~~
-
-
-
;:
-
=
s
U
- - ---
;~~;...,
:.:.---
o
............ --
==-==
:::0:: =- _::0:::0:
c..>uvouc..>
--
--
-
-
......- . .
-. ...,--
:n=~:n:"
~~=:""~
-
-
..........-- -
:::!=:;~~
-
-
....................
...,...,...,....,....,
.;
-
-_..:_-
...,...,""'....,....,
...............~
::
......_....._ 0
_~C"lO..........
o
'i'
~
-
'i'
;
_0___
_0_0_
, , ,
.....~- -.....
_0_0_
, , , , ,
_ _C"lOC"lO
-----
_000_
, , , . ,
--..--
---- -
....................
-
-
-
---
.......... --
...
....................
....,on....,....,....,
:.::0::.:
. ---
-
...,-- -
---
......===
_ 0.....__
_ ---
-...............
..................
-----
-----
-...,....,-"'"
......----
-----
__0__ go__c
!!!!! .;.!!:E!
_ C> C> CI 0 _._ _ __
, , , " .,.,.
::::::n= :::::
'f"f"-C;-'f 'f"i"'fcro.,.
___e._ _.........
----- -----
: :Lf-~~:::....
::-~:;:~ :::e:e;;......
--
--
--
00
!!
crT
:::~
00
, ,
;;
--
--
~
:; 0 ;! ~ :;; ~ ~ :: ~
~ ~ - :::; ~
~
0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ;;: ~
- -
- - - - ;; ;; -
~ - - - - - - - -
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- - - - -
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ - - - ;: ;: - -
- - - - - - - -
- ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
z ~ z z z z Z Z
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
o
~
'"
~
-
o
- --
~--
-
~~~
:=:=:=
:~:;;.
~
.
0
;::
:i1
,
;; =
-
- ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ .
. -
. ~
~
::; 0
~ :5 - 0 0 0
0 0
. . - = =
e ~ - - -
~ ; 0
~ :;: 0
.-
~ ~ ~ ~
-
~
~
~
~
-
~
~
~
o
-
-
~
- --
~ ~~
~
i
-
~
~~~
- -
000
> >
e:=e
:~~
~
~~
E~
000
!!!
~"":'"cr'
:=:e~
"T'"T'7
;:E~
-
o
-
~
- .
_ 0
~-
~~~
~~~~~
-----
CIoC>C>C>O
>- >- >- >- >-
:=e:=:=e
-..... -....-
....... - ~~...,
o
000
---
:-:-:-
:=~~
--
- -
.....~~
on "" eon..., ""
~~~~~
- -
00
> >
ee
- --
000
> > >
eee
- ~-
~~=
__coC>C>
?'9'Cf''i'''T
..... _ ...._e>
"":""f'~"f'''f'
:=:::::=:e:=:
'TC;>C;>?'7
;~~;:;:
_ co.... co_
__ - co_
..........................
C-ID
1_5 r,;2 7
MAILING LIST
Dottie Bacarti
Pacific Bell
5601 Grossmont Center Dr, RID 226
La Mesa, Ca 91942
Brenda Nehme
Pacific Bell
5601 Grossmont Center Dr, RID 226
La Mesa, Ca 91942
Paul Thompson
San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
4901 Morena Blvd, Suite 210
San Diego, CA 92117
Benny Pepe
San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
4901 Morena Blvd, Suite 210
San Diego, Ca 92117
Bill LeVeau
Cox Cable San Diego, Inc.
5159 Federal Blvd
San Diego, CA 92105-5486
Christine Andrew
Cox Cable San Diego, Inc.
5159 Federal Blvd.
San Diego, Ca 92105-5486
Gary Potter
Chula Vista Cable
253 Third Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
Ken Morehead
Chula Vista Cable
253 Third Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
Patricia Barnes
San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
436 "H" Street
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
(MI\UUAC.MTG)
p-\
) ~-- c2 g"
5b5240170h
_01 L.
575EST.
CHULA V IS tA
., ...u J~ Jho
.A ql ql0
.. ..
5b52401705
I
575 EST '5
CHULA VIStA
:
CA qlql0
5b5240170q
n. ~
575 E ST .q
C HU LA V IS TA CA ql ql 0
.
5b52401713
-- J..
575 E S TR EE T 113
C HULA VISTA CA nql0
5 b52401 71 7
1 m A!6~~
'dEL CAJOt< CA qZOlq
,
)J
5 b5 2401800
_n~"''' .,
lq314 HIGHLAND HILLS OR
RAMONA CA q20b5
~'S
"JM 24b2802
I .._
5 bq E S TR EE T .2
CHULA VISTA CA q1910
.5~52402.01>
-
5 b9 E S TR EE T .b
CHULA VISTA CA 91ql0
~
5b9 E STREET '10
CHULA VISTA CA qlql0
. 5b5f~02814
5 bq EST II 4
rHULA VISTA CA qlql0
5b 52 40 1702
. -
575EST.i
CHULA VISTA CA qlql0
.
5b5240ltlib
... .....-~
575[ST'b
CHULA VIST A LA
q 1 q 10
~
5b52401710
I _~
575 E STREET '10
CHULA VISTA LA Qlql0
~
5b52401714
h_ _ 1
575 E snEEr 114
CHULA VISTA CA Q1910
.'
5b52401718
-- - ..-..."
575 E STREET 118
CHULA VISTA LA QlQl0
t .
~b52402400
440 PARK WAY
CHULA VISTA LA QlQl0
!lb52402803 '
,. - -
P 0 bO X 31 '12
CHULA VISTA CA QlQOQ
'1>52402807 . .
5bQ E snEET .7
CHULA VISTA CA QlQl0
j!>52402811 '.;"
PObOX 4302b8
SAN YSIDRO CA 92143
5b52402815
-
5b'l [ ST 115
CHULA VISTA CA Q1Ql0
~b52401703
11 I _1.11--',
!5 EST 13
.HULA VISTA CA QlQl0
5b52401707
,
575EST.7
CHULA VISTA CA Q1Ql0
.
.'
5b52401711
.. ,_ ,,_ I
575 E STREfT .ll
CHULA VISTA CA '11Ql0
.
t.
5b52401715
575 E S TR EE T 11 5
CHULA VISTA CA Q1Ql0
.",.
c
5b52401719
- ... -" -
575 E STREET '19
CHULA VISTA CA Q1Ql0
-
511'} 2402 804
.
P 0 eox 845\13
SAN DIEGO CA Q2138
.
. _ U~fi1_._.._..~ ..
5bQ E STREET .8
CHULA VISTA CA Q1Ql0
5:ail4728jF
" ,
5bQ E STREET I1Z
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5b5240281b
! -
815 SAN YSIURO 8LVD
SAN YSIURU CA Qi173
5b52401704
1 1 J . ..' _ _
;75 E ST .4
CHULA vnTA CA Ql,>..1
..
5b5240 1708
-
575 E ST .8
CHULA VISTA CA
Q
Ql910
.
5b52401712
. - - .- - .. -. , !.~
575 E STKEET '12
CHULA VISTA LA 91910
.
5b5240171b
r I I 1
575 E STKEET lib
CHULA VISTA LA QIQIO
5b5240 17 20
~"_ .r.__ .. ~...
575 E STKEET '20
CHULA VISTA LA Ql910
5b52402801
- . - - .. h ~ ~ ~.lJi 11
5b'l [ KE 11
LHULA VISTA LA Q1910
5b52402805
, .... _ T! I
5b9 E ShEET '5
CHULA VISTA LA QIQIO
5b5iiC0280Q
. r 'MD' .......
5bQ [STI<E '9
CHULA VISTA LA QlQl0
~;
5b9 E STREET #13
LHULA VISTA LA Ql910
5b52402817
- . - -.-
5bQ E ShEET 117
CHULA VISTA LA Ql910
;~
i6'l E STREET 118
:HULA VISTA CA 'll'l10
:~
'6'l E STREET 'll
:HULA VISTA CA 'l1910
i&52io~'826
.____ II
i69 E STREET .26
:HULA VISTA CA 91910
i 6?f'li1l2113 0
. _I .._ _.. . _... .. _
i69 E STREET .30
:HULA VISTA CA 'l1910
i652io028H
; 11 ...~ ..... ___...._ ....
i6'l E STREET '310
:HULA VISTA CA 91910
,
~
.-'.€
i 65H02 838
.liIIIoIIld ..__
'6<r1: S TR EEl .38
:HULA VISTA CA 91910
?---...
~
9~10
:tifiHU?O
,07 E STR EE T
:HULA VISTA CA
t'.
.-.. '-'"
i65251lZ500
~. '!I___ ..__n.._ _
.271 T1l'1 ST
IONITA CA 91902
"',<--,~f.
i652611000
"'~.i _ "'_
. 8 E S TR EE T
:HULA VISTA Ct
IL
~1910
....."" ,--~
"-;":1-
l
i
5652100281'l
.... .
569 E STREET '19
CHULA VISTA CA 'll'l10
li652io02823
11I-- _ .. ..--
15-91
79 PURT OF SPAIN RD
CORONADO CA ~211b
66521002827 .'._._
j Ifl 'r .. h...
RUST 05-17-89
56'l E STREET .21
CHULA VISTA CA 'l1910
51>521002831
I . - T
569 E STREET .31
CHULA VISTA CA 'll'l10
~652100'2835
T I
569 E STREET 135
CHULA VISTA CA 'll'l10
5652io028H
L __ .
56'l E STRE ET . 3'l
CHULA VISTA CA 'll910
-- - -.-
5652502200
'.. T I
509 E STREET
CHULA VISTA CA
-. ...-.. _
91910
I
5652502'lOO
.._~ '0- I I Tr
21091 CALLE SERENA
SAN DIEGO CA 91139
5652611100
. ....... ..----.
1086 CALLE MESITA
1l0NITA CA 91'102
IL
56521002820
----..- - ...
56'l E STREET .20
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
56521002.6.210 ..
07-' ___no .
56'l E STREET .210
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
, f,5652100~828
....
5b'l E STREET '28
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
. 5 b521002 832
6,'l 3RD AVE
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
." ....-
'1'--.
56521002836
-, '---".'
569 E STREET .3b
CHULA VISTA CA 'l1910
.
921010
..
565250~00
~ -::.1:
POBOX 230b
LA JOLLA CA 'l,038
--
.
5652503200
I I ._ .... ...._w.... I
j I'
I i --.....-
13991 OURANGO DR
DEL MAR CA 920110
r;..~'
5652611200
ur ._ ___nl II I. .__
863 DURWARD ST
~ULA VISTA CA 91910
..,.
... .-
56521002821
"'_n. __ .___.-_ _
56'l E STkEET .,1
CHULA VISTA CA 91'l10
t-... .~651.2ioO.2825
,. --
li' .....
5'llol LAZY TRAIL CT
80NI TA CA 91'10,
565210028i9 .
J__..._.. .. __. __ ___ .
569 E STkEET 'l'l
CHULA VISTA CA 'l1910
,
56521002833
1_ .._JU" ._.._ ..
569 E STREET '33
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
56521002837
I . __u, .. .
8365 JACKSON HEIGHTS CT
EL CAJON CA 92021
. . ,
5652502000
.ITT'" .. ....11 ( .,.u._. _
- 1910 5TH AVE
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
. .
('J
...
.. ..
'" .>
5652610900
- . P'- - - ..--
1089 E STREET
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
.
5652611300
T II I ,. ...
105 GLENIlROOK AVE
CAMARILLU CA 9? 1
,..c,",
91916
51>52&<1102
-'-
"~3 EST .2
..l;Ijl)L~ VISTA CA 9\910
51>52& 2110&
I...... ....... . ~ ...... .
"55 E S TR EE T U
.~~LA VISTA CA 91910
5 &52& 2111 0
- __, I
300101 TES51ER ST U78
. LAGUNA CA 92& 77
5 &5 2 701900
!. _,.. ...__ I 1
31& I'IINOT AVE
.CHULA VISTA CA 91910
1
5&52800300
_ __ _ .,L1 I
I _..
, "35 E S TR EEl
. CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5&&1903000
. ....... u.... __ J
2320 5TH AVE .30&
5AN DIEGO CA 92101
J
'-
\0
~\
~
L
5&&2310700
- - -- . -.. .
333 E S TR EE T
.; CHU!.A VISTA l;A
~1910
I l
5&52b2j!100
I _.. '.. " ...1 J
189 BR IGHhOUO
CH UL A V I 51 A LA
AVE
91910
~V ....
, .
,
5& 52&211 03
Li ..<u <-
"53 E 5TREET 0
CHULA VI5TA CA 91910
.
5&52b21101
__ _ _ u'.... ..
"55 E 5 T 'l
CHULA VIHA CA 91910
5& 521>21111
T - -- ~~
"55 E HREI: b
CHULA VI5TA CA 91910
5&52702700
__. __ _. n
391& ALLEN SlHOOL RO
. 80NITA CA 'I190l
_.1
.
. n.....,
5&5280 1"~0
."
._' ,Mn u.' . .
P 0 80 X 2" 115
L05 ANGELE~ CA 90051
5&&1903100
I I _ _ ..' ,nu',
I>>-
509 CARVALL05 OR
CHULA VI5TA CA 91910
5&b2310800
un.. ,_ II ,."U"h
"3"8 CORTE OE LA FONDA
. , 5AN DIEGO CA 92130
~~~H2~t~~ "__'
2011 WI L T RO
FALL 8.ROOK CA 92028
5b52&20800
... MaL. r"L.~~,'ullL.
"11 E STREET
CHULA VI5TA CA 91'110
,.
51>52&2110"
. -- . -.. - -' ~. -
"~3 E STREET ."
CHULA VI5TA CA '11910
.
%52b21108
. ... .... ... ........... -
"55 E 5TREEl .3
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
.
5&52101700
I L. __. .w_ .__'
13"01 SAI'IANTHA AVE
5AN DIEGO CA 92119
,.
5&52800100
.. . ___ ...w... 1
""5 E STREET
. CHULA V 15TA CA 91910
---
5&&1900bOO
.. 1
2831 III LO WAY
LAS VEGAS NV 89102
..
5&&1903200
2- ... I. . . .. . nU.' _
509 CARVALLOS DR
CHULA VISTA CA' 91910
.r
5b&2 311 000
. ..._... IU
P 0 80X 11>17
80NITA CA 91908
.
5bb2321500
~ ~~I ..~~ =_:1
33531 81NNACLE OR
1I0NARCH 8EACH CA 92&29
5&52&21101
.___.. '_"'. 1 T
'11
79 PORT UF SPAIN RO
",ORONADO CA 92118. .
.1
5&52&21105
r r... ....l..."u.. L, ~.'._' y-
"53 E STREET '5
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5&52b21109
1.11._ .1 I
"55 E STREET ."
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
..
5&52701800
IT C ____
P 0 80X 39"0
CHULA VI STA CA 91909
,
--S
."
CA 91910
5&&1901&00
.. T Ii.
C._T 1..
1012 CE OA R ST IA
SANTA CRUZ CA 950&0'
5&&2310&00
11- T I ,. .
"89 E ST
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
#
5&&23210UO
...... ...n........... ... '''VA''.~ ..
33531 81NNACLE OR
1I0NARCH 8EACH CA 92&77
.~"'
5&&2"01100
. - ..-- "..-... ..
P 0 80X 103
80NITA CA 91908
t>t>2"02700
ACI F IC HOliES
10U ".ENr.URA BLVD. S.U.Io00
OOQ,L AN'lf HILL S CA' :cf):) t>". .
tot> 25 02 800
ILII _.._ .....___ .
49 EST
HULA V IS TA l;A 91910.
t>b2503200
__ __ __.. n.. p'. I
35 E S TREE T
HLIoLA VIS,JACA ,91910
t>b 2503 bOO
~. .. '" - .
t> ~ PALO liAR DR
HU,L.A V IS TAC A 91911
t>b2511iOO
I:::III&/h_".'_
61 E S TR EE T
HU,~A VISTA CA 91910
,
,
t>b2511 900
II I
25 HIGHLAND AVE
ATJO,,!A~ CJTY f.A 91950
':--...
t>b2911000 ~
n... _ 1 [lilT _ \ '.
97 CORTE HELENA AVE (0
HULA VISTA CA 91910 }J
bb2911400
1 [ I. .__... ._
82 CORTE HELENA AVE
~LA VISTA CA 91910
t>b2911BOO
"[ -. .,. "i-"- L. _""_
97 1ST AVE
Hlt,tA VISTA Cf '910
5bt>2402800
SOUTHLANU CORP THE
PObOX 719
OALl.~S.pTX 75221
5bt>2502900
J .........~"""'" ",_..IV r,J........ j
PObOX 1115
CH4~A~VISJA C~ 91912
5bb2503300
- -' -. -
22'1. E STRElT
CHUL.AcYISTA CA 91910
5b b2 5037 00
[I
18t>t2NO. AVE
CHUA VISTA
CA 91910
5t>b2511bOO
-- --
"3" W THORN ST
SAN..pIEGO (.A 92103
~b~~~~~~O
981 ARROVO DR
CHULA VI STA (.A
.'
II
91910
5bb2911100
1 _ . L
193 CORTE HELENA AVE
CHULA VISTA LA 91910
.~,
5bb2911500
J I __ ,,_..~__
18b CORTE HELENA AVE
CHU.l.A VISTA CA 91910
.- ...
5b b2 92 09 00
11111 1111
199 CORTE IlARIA AVE
CH~LA VISTA CA 919,19
. A
.... '1
"'b. W
51>1>2"02900
CENTER STREET APARTIlENTS SITE
C/O ,IlR RICHARD G LOGOe
315 ""IH 'ST" ' . ..
CHult"vrSTA CA 91910
5t>b2503000
I I - II "
P 0 80X 111~
CHULA VISTA CA 91912
, ...'t
5t>b 2503 "00
-
""4t> ilONA CO ST
SAN,~L~Gq CA 92107
5t>b 2511100
I
POBOX 17t>
CHULA VISTA
,.-,;--,,,,,, '-."
CA 91912
51>b2511700
.
b38 ARTHUR AVE
CHV~i.VISTA CA 91910
.~
5t>t>2513400
r....... .~_............ .........L.'...IL.~~"
. ._, . U.. -."
233 CHULA VISTA ST
CHUtoll'..STA CA 91:910
5t>b2911200
-
lb9 CORTE HELENA AVE
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
.,. . ,'. ...
5t>b2911t>00
I _ . ._
194 CORTE HELENA AVE
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5t>b3201000
l!.. I ~..._ . [Ii .- ...p. I.... ..
1~3 E STREET
lULA VISTA CA 91910
.-",.,1.._ . . ....._. ~..
.A."7 ...... FA
-
5t>b24030UO
HOIl LEU TR
C/O 8ANK OF AIlERICA
P U 80X 37000
SAN'p...nSoCo. CA 9",111~
5t>t>2503100
liT .u -. . I
1811 FRIEDRICK DR
SAN DIEGU CA 921U4
- I
5t>t>2503500
T 1 . .._J. _I i
..
53520 COVOTE RO
P 0'80X "t>3 '.
PIONEER TOWN CA 922b8
5bt>2511400
f1 11__ ..~n I
18~ E SaEET
CHUL'" VISTA CA
f ,.,....
I 1
91910
.
5bb2511800
J L Ll
lb3 E STREET
CHUtA VIHA CA 9191-0
- ,
5bt>2910900
-..--....... --.'.
t>7 E STREET
CHULA VISTA CA
.,.....
JI ....u. I
91910
5bb2911300
niT .. L II I . H T
185 CORTE HELENA AVE
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
,"",
:','.<:.-;c.;"
5bt>2911700
-n L ilL
198 CORTE HELENA aVE
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5t>t>320 11 UO
&1.11. r r niL" rn.n U'Ii"-
114 E ST
CHULA VISTA CA . '10
.. ..
5663201200
_ . 'I h.... _ " . -
145 EST
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
, ". ..... i
5663201700
I _ .. .
109~~ BROKEN "HEEL RO
L AU S 10 E CA qzO~O
.
5670~20200
bv. . _ _ l . . - . ..
2U~ ASH AVE
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
,..:S/. ....
5670~ 32 000
. n_ IL I . - . n_ -- J
206 BEECH AVE
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5670 710 ~O 0
n n .. ___.. ... "n II L
5 16 EST
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
f1 . ,
I
(>
5670H0300
. . .... __.Il
5~0 E STREET
'(HULA VISTA CA
..
I _
..
91910
'-
\
.J'.
5680120100 \ \
2009"CHARi>~~N~Y TER ~
.CHULA VISTA CA 91~13~
5680120500
ITIII __
~ 56 E S TREE T
'CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5680130~00
--.-....... ---......
~3~ E STREET
CHVLA. V ISTA C~ 91910
5663201300
HI ~ STREET
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5663202900
In... _. .i.
11~ E ST
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5670~30100
In.. _
3616 VALLEY VISTA RO
BONITA CA 91902
5670 71 0100
n ..
10993 ELOERWUOD LN
'SAN DIEGO CA 91131
t.
5670710500
520 E STREtT
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
.
56 707~0~00
_n ._
205 BEECH AVE
CHULA VISTA loA
.
L
91910
56B0120200
r'LLIJ n ...... - TT
~6b E STREET
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
. .
5680130100
I J
-
205 FIG AVE
· CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5660130500
flU I. L I ~LI ... .
21b GUAVA AVE
CHULA VISTA.CA 91910
5b6320~
I n_ _ __
III E S TR EET
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5670H1600
UNION OIL CU OF CAlIFURNIA
A UNOCAL>
POBOX 7600
LOS ANGELES CA 90051
56 70~ 30 200
_IL
5 b4 E S TR EE T
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
.. ,:.
5b70710200
- ---..-
3763 WiLD OATS IN
'BONITA CA 91902
to
5670740100
,,'.".n__ .n. ..,
-
206 CEDAR AVE
. CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5680112500
rlnt- - --If- "'''-11' 1'- 1....1.
~ a_ . .
~9~ E STREET
· CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5680120300
11-15-90 I _n_ .. .. 'j'-' ,'"
~62 E STREET
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
.
I
5680130200
".n L _ __II l.....__ IJ
~~6 E STREET
~CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5680130600
OUH I Ii' .n
220 GUAVA AVE
CHULA ViStA CA 91910
566320.11>..00
_n ._ "l'l!'JII. _0 no.1 _ ...5
109 E S TItEET
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
56 70 ~201 00
<01 .. n' 0 .. ..... _
POBOX 72~0
,CHULA VISTA CA
.
-
91912
5670~31900
..___I ... II .n .. ...
~5-033 LILIPUNA ROAD
KANEOHE HI 967~~
5670710300
[0 -"-[l'Ioooil' .... '.
512 E S.RTn
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
"
56 70 7~02 00
.111 L I "_n _ L _o."n"
5H E STItEET
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
.
5680112 I> 00
;)f ... ._ft. nO n. ..
20~ ELOE It AVE
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
51>80120~00
l!'!Irn..... n_ I I
~5b ~ STREET
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
rc
51>80130300
_lLTU.. ....,.......... ,.
~~O E STItEET
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
~&80130700
f _1 I n, 'lef'"'
12~ GUAV A E
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5&80130800
11 ii I J..._. ..
ll& GUAVA AVE
CHULA VISTA, CA q1q10
tw"....-......1o <_" ".' "
5&801 ~0300
..,.-- .-.
~ lO E S TR EE T
CHULA VISTA CA
c<~'.J..,
.
q1q10
5&801~00
~ .,.._... .... .v._,
2~3 GUAVA~E
CHULA VISTA EA 'llq10'
5 &80 i~2 000
5 ... 0'_..1
5841 IIH'~LY8IRO WAY
BaNI TA C q1q02
1....."-.... -.....-..~', """-.- lo"',- ;
..J
5b801tl1800
, _w.. ...__ .., _. _._
311 0 AVE"UE
C!:lJlLIo.V IS T.A.. CA, q.1 ~1,Q,
5 &80~~1 qOO
. - ...........--- -
370 E S TR EET
CHULA VISTA CA q1q10
" .
5&80442300
[f . 'W' ..
3qO~ FEATHER ROCK
BaNI TA CA q1q02
~
CT ~
,
5&80722&00
571 CORTE HELENA AVE
CHULA VISTA C 'lq10
-"'Y:--."
.
5&80130 00
230 (,UAVA
C t1yl,. ~~IS ..
~.1 q 10
5&801 1300
l~6 .liUA AVl
C~U.L" Vi TA..J.A Q1.91.p
4,'__,
L
---- --.
,w''','_ ._~
5&80140400
I _"
~2 0 EST
CH~LA VI STA t.A Q1Q19,.
-. .,
~...
lH GUr.v A AV E
CHULA VMTA LA
, '""
n910
56801 100
ZZ 3 (,UA AVl
CHULA VI A LA Q1nO
.
5680 7Z 2800
-
2&~ l STREH
CHULA VISTA CA
ua""",fio!-A~. ,},;;;:.
.~
Q1Q10
5& 80 7101 00
UNION OIL CO OF CALIFORNIA (cn
RP I
I C/O PROPERTY TAX OEPT
P '{P6t).~""7I>OO '" - ..'~.
LOS ANGELES CA Q0051
.L
5680430100
.. -
l72 CHURCH AVE
CHULA VISTA LA
(.-._' ~.< .. '--- - -'~
Q1Q10
.
5&801' 000
234 GUAV AVE
CHUI,A..,!.IS A. CA.n,Q10
5&80140100
. --r -",
203 GUAVA AVE
CHULA VISTA CA
.~ ......9 'loO'_.. , _.'>
__ :..J....,.. I " lIIIl
nQ10
5&801~0500
-. - .
5180 HAPPY
FORESTHILL
.. ~.- ,.~' "" - . ..
_w __
PINE S DR
CA Q5&31
. .
5&80 ~1800
235 GUA
C tflfllWl V I
qJqJO
",
5&8014 00
21Q GUAVA VE
C~I,.A."VISTA CA QJq10 V'.
5&8041l:Ri~
~ ~ : ~.-
1BOOO CHATSIIOKTH ST .~8Q
G"'~HllAi~CA Qli4~;
5&80432200
_.._-~.. -- --..
11& W PALOMAR 51
CHULA VISTA CA Q1Q11
..";W,,,........ ,_~_~~, ..
5&80712400
I _ "
31&& CASA 8UNITA DR
BONITA CA Q1Qu2
5&8~3~0
_ .. .. .1.11 _.._v..
Zl& E S TR EE T
'HULA VISTA CA Q1Q10
568 131100
2311 AVA AVE
CHULA VISTA CA QlQ10
,..,;-j .-.- ~'-....,;"
5680140200
..-' ,
203 GUAVA AVE
CHULA VISTA CA
. "
nno
.
l~ 7 GUA AVE
C~LA,VI.~ CA Q1Q10
56801 QOO
275 F S EE T
CHULA VI A CA Q1Q10
>
5&80142300
11 _'" _ . _ ..
l8 LAKE HELIX DR
LA MESA CA Q1Q~1
'-.-. ~
5&80421800
- __..........__ II
P 0 60X 2718
ESCONDIOU CA Q2033
..
5&8044010r
L _ ~ ''''
3&34 7TH AVE
SAN DIEGU CA
f" . .~....._ .
HO-D
n103
.."',-,....,.
5&80722100
'-1 ....
55Q PORT HARWICK
CHULA VISTA CA Q1Q13
--
AVE
CA
no
:-4
56807301 2
1516 (;ROV~
S AI!( DIEGO C
5680730J
21.7 DEL II A
CHULA VISTA
5680741600
204 2 NO AVE
CHULA VISTA
--
CA 91910
5690100"00
8 -
166 E S TR Eel
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5690100902
* - .
150 E STREET .A-2
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
tJ
CQ
56'10100906
(I L 1- Ai
lao POSITAS RO
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
56111)1 00 91 0
. --'" -
160 E STREET 'Cl
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
,-
56901009l1t
- I . I
160 E STREET 'C-5
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
"
5690100918
. n.' - .
160 E ST 1101
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
"-
\1.\
\
~
\
5680 13
,11 DEL I<
CHULA VI S
AH
l.A 91910
56801301 7
P 0 60 X 10 'I
80NI TA CA "06
56607" 1700
ho ~ STI<E~T . ----.. -
CHULA VISTA l.A 91910
5690100700
_ IL
6" 5 OU R WAR 0
CHULA VISTA
J
ST
l.A 91910
~90100903 - -
r . _ _ ._..
150 E STKHT U-3
CHULA VISTA LA 91910
5690100907
L I L II
150 E STREET 'A-7
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
~
5690100911
.-.. -.... - , -.. -. -
"85 E STREET
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
..
1690100915
_...___ _ .d ~
160 E STREET 'C-6
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
.
5690100919
L I ._.._n__
26"5 NIIIITI BLVD .F
SAN DIEGO l.A 92106
56807 11"
213-DEL AR
CHULA V I TA
AVE
CA 91910
5660130 6
0' 22"6 OCEA
OCEANSIDE
56607101600
t:.'---- _.___....<.I~,"'
1151 HOI<N6L~ND ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92109
'1~~~~00~~~_. _
176 E STREET
CHULA VISTA CA '11910
',569010090"
. .-.... .-, - . _....c-~
"2 TAIIALPAIS ROAD
FAIRFAX CA 9"930
5690100906
.. n _ "8 "-IllI:>..
1"6 E STREET '8-1
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
H
5690100912
. _I _. ...._ ..._".r--v..,-.lu......,.~
"65 E S TR EE T
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
h
5690100916
'" I I I [u....nl L.
160 E ST .C7
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
..
5690100920
I - II u........ I-
160 E STREET .103
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
.."^
566013 15
~ U BOX lit &
CANYUN L E CA 92380
.
5660130 9
12062 SEI< NA RD
LAKESIDE C 920"0
5&90100100
20'1 2ND AVE
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
,. ' _5690100901
I. _ _ n
1181 SUNDOWN LN
CHULA VISTA CA 91911
5690100905
1.[1 IIr L 1 n_ I
150 ~ STREET 'A-5
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5690100909
.....~_..__ T1 i . ...."
lIt6 E ST '8-2
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5690100913
_ [I _ 1-"'''' J
28"5 NIIIITI 8LVD 'F
SAN DIEGU CA 9210&
5690100917
J' M......... I II L. II
160 E ST 'C8
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
. .
5690100921
. ....... r...... ,. r a
160 E STREET 'C-I0"
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
,091.1 1 1.10 92 2
, '8n.. r_ - I
o EST 'C-105
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
...,.
51>9010092 I>
~._...~-
51>90100923
. l
11>6 [ STitCH 'H}.&
CHijLA VI SH--LA '11910
4?7-; j-4..t4 51"
J'~", c...."~'lr- "''''.
9~ CAL CENTENARIO
HERi'lO SILL U SONORA i'lEX ICO 00001./
S
~
1>17 3RO AVE 116
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
ro-.
~
3015 PLAZA ANITA
BONITA CA 91902
.. 51>901'OO9H
1321>3 OAX CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92129
51>90H0300
I
1>85 EAST J STREET
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
~300
-T
..1'l11~ E STREET
CHULA VISTA CA
- -
91910
51>901>00200
.
23 CATSPAW CAPE
CORONADO CA 92118
i 1>901> 1.101>00
-
.. 201 1ST AVE
CHULA VISTA
- n___,_ ..
CA 91910
H90700900
12 TDYON LN
CHULA VISTA
CA 91910
51>90705000
.. ~Ml- ...
31 TOY LN
CHltLA V ISU'
~
~
~
__ _...... F
91910
............ .
51> 901009 31
170 ~ ST 'GI>
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
.
51>90100935
- ~. .
170 ~ STKE~T '0-10
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
'51>90~ .
nl.~ ... "_n._.
~~78 ~8TH ST '1
SAN UIEGo LA 91115
11>90~30~00 _
--1 -., _
ll~ ~ ST
CHULA VISTA
CA 91910
51>90000300
... . .-
80 E S TR EE T
CHULA VISTA LA 91910
51>90700100
.1, _n_ - I L _. ......._
1>0 E STREET
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
51>9070UOO
.. _n ___
'i8 TOyoN Lh
CHULA VISTA LA 91910
}1>90705!00
,15 TOyoN Lh
CHULA VIST~ CA 9i910
..
51>9010092~
I
100 E STREET 1107
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
--w..........'
51>90100928
. . .. ..
119U8 CALLE ZAGAL NE
ALBUOUEKOUE N" 87111
"",.
5090100932
J _
707 EAST J STRE~T
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5090~10100
- --..
1~0 E STREET
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5090430100
r ! ._.. _n .!.F'
12~ E STREET
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
- 'II
511'l0H0500
I I ..
3512 PUTHR DR
BUNIlA CA 91902
51>901>00~00
80 ~ STREET
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
51>90700200
4ft'" --
5l E STRE
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
51>9070~200
nn.. _ _1. IL ill
38' TOYoN' LAhE
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
51>90705200
. '1... ." n u &..
,TOYON LN
, JLA VISTA CA 91910
II
.-[
51>90100925
. I . I
11>0 E STKEET IC 108
CHULA VISTA LA 91910
v~ t .'~.
51>90100929
Ii.. rl __...un..._'__ .--.
-
170 E ST 10~
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
.' ,.",.
51>90100933
I . "" _
170 E ST 108
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
51>90H0200
, '"''
H2 E SHEET
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
51>90~302UO -.,
~inrTI __... LlIJ"
120 ~ STkEET
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
51>90"00100 --
_L_.~ -....'""....... ...........
1>1> E STREET
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
51>9~00i:la..'
I 't . oJ,...... n
92 E STUET
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
51>90700l>UO
.._..,.. ....~. _. T I... _ _
30 TOYON LN
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
51>90 70~8 00
~_I..."..,.lIJll...."'r..:
2~ TlnON LN
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
,
17/92
OCCUPANT WAILING lIS7
PIge
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
2 3
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1995ROAom S93T ST. SSST ST. , 1
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
3 3 3
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUpANT
585T S1. I 2 S8ST ST. , 3 S8ST ST. , 4
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
3 3 3
C NT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
S8p t ST. , 5 S8ST ST. '6 S85T ST. I 7
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
3 3 3
OCCUPAHT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
585T ST. 18 585T ST.' 9 S8ST ST. , 10
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
3 3 3
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
58ST ST. , 11 S8ST ST. , 12 S8ST ST. , 13
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
3 3 3
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
S85T ST. , 14 SSST ST. , 15 585T ST. 116
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
3 3 3
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
, . ST. , 11 585T ST. , 18 585T ST..',19,
t., o VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
3 3 )~ / ) 7 3
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
585T ST. , 20 S8ST ST. I 21 585T ST. , 22
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 1)-10 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
. -.-. -
3 3 3
. OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
585T ST. t 23 58ST ST. t 24 58ST ST. t 25
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
3 3 4
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
s8sT ST. . 26 S8ST ST. . 27 57ST ST. tl
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
5 6 7
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
S7ST ST. .2 575T ST. t3 57ST ST. U
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
8 9 10
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
5TST ST. tS 575T ST. .6 57ST ST. t7
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
11 12 13
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
57ST ST. .8 575T ST. t9 575T ST. tl0
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
14 15 16
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
5TST ST. tl1 575T ST. .12 57ST ST. t13
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
17 18 19
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
57ST ST. t14 S7ST ST. .15 S75T ST. t16
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
20 21 22
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
575T ST. tI7 S75T ST. t18 575T ST. t19
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
23 24 25
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
ST5T ST. t20 569T ST. tl 569T ST. t2
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
26 27 28
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
569T ST. t3 S69T ST. U 569T ST. 't5
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
I~Jr
29 30 31
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
569T ST. t6 569T ST. t7 1:>-\ I 569T ST. .8
rUIII'Vl(.H rI QfQln r""1 V1!TI N QtQtn r~1I11 VT!TA. CA. 91910
32 33 34
. OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
5i9T ST. 19 5i9T 51. 110 5i9T 51. 111
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
35 36 37
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
5i9T ST. 112 5i9T ST. 113 5i9T ST. 114
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
38 39 40
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
569T ST. 115 5i9T ST. 116 569T ST. 117
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VlSTA, CA. 91910
41 42 43
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
569T S1. 118 569T S1. 119 569T ST. 120
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
U 45 46
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
569T ST. 121 5i9T ST. 122 5i9T ST. 123
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
47 48 49
HT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
5iST ST. 124 569T ST. 125 569T 51. 126
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91S10
50 51 52
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
56ST ST. 127 569T S1. 128 5i9T S1. 129
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
53 54 55
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
5i9T ST. 130 5i9T ST. 131 5i9T ST. 132
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
56 57 58
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
569T ST. 133 5i9T ST. 134 5i9T ST. 135
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
59 60 61
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
5' ST. 136 569T ST. 137 569T ST.138
CH,.. VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 )5'~J~ CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
62 63 65
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
569T ST. 139 569T ST. 140 1> -12- 553T ST. IA
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
65 65 65
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
553T ST. tS 553T ST. tC 553T ST. to
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
65 65 66
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
553T ST. IE 553T ST. tF 545T ST. t1
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
66 66 66
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
545T ST. t2 545T ST. t3 545T ST. t4
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
66 66 66
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
545T ST. t5 545T ST. t6 545T ST. t7
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
66 66 66
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
545 T ST. t8 545T ST. t9 545T ST. tl0
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
66 66 66
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
545T ST. tl1 545T ST. t12 545T ST. t13
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
66 66 66
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
545T ST. tl4 545T ST. tiS 545T ST. t16
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
66 66 66
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
545T ST. tl7 545T ST. tl8 545T ST. t19
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
66 66 66
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
545T ST. t20 545T ST. t21 545T ST. t22
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
66 66 66
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
545T ST. t23 545T ST. t24 /5-10 545T ST. 't25 .
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
66 66 66
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
545T ST. t26 545T ST. t27 '1"\-1'" 545 T ST. t28
tlIllI,. ,n,.,., .. "'.11.... ""'''' ",,.,., .. 'HII." "."" t "t"~1 .. l\'l\tll
66 66 66
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
545T 51. 129 545T ST. 130 545T 51. 131
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
66 66 66
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
545T ST. 132 545T ST. 133 545T ST. 134
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
66 66 66
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
545T 51. 135 545T ST. 136 545T ST. 13T
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
66 66 66
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
545T 51. 13S 545T 51. 139 545T 51. 140
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
66 66 66
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
545T 51. 141 545T 51. 142 545T ST. t43
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
66 66 66
0,," ^NT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
545T ST. 144 545T ST. 145 545T 51. t46
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
66 66 66
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
545T ST. t4T 545T ST. 14S 545 T 51. 149
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
66 6T 67
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
545 T ST. 150 529T ST. II 529T ST. 12
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
67 67 67
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
529T ST. 13 529T ST. 14 529T ST. IS
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
6T 67 67
OC^"^\NT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
5. ST. t6 529T ST. t7 529T ST. IS
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 /5/1/ CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
6T 6T 6T
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
529T ST. 19 531T ST. 110 'P-I~ 531T ST. III
CHULA VISTA" CA" mID CHU1UlSTA. CA. 91910 CHUlA V.lSTA. CA.. .91119 _
67 67 67
OCCUPANT OCCUPAN7 OCCUPANT
531T S7. 112 531 T S7. 113 531T S7. II.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
67 67 67
OCCUPAN7 OCCUPANT OCCUPAXl
531T S7. liS 531T ST. 116 531T ST. 117
CHUlA VIS7A, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
67 67 67
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
531T ST. 116 531T S7. 119 531T ST. 120
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
67 68 68
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPAN7
531T 57. 121 525T ST. fA-I 525T ST. IA-!
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VIS7A, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
68 68 68
OCCUPAN7 OCCUPAN7 OCCUPANT
525 T S7. IA-! 525T ST. IA-! 525T ST. fA-5
CHUlA VIS7A, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VIS7A, CA. 91910
68 68 68
OCCUPAN7 OCCUPANT OCCUPAN7
525T ST. IA-! 525T ST. IA-! 525T S7. fA-8
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 919~0 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
68 68 68
OCCUPANT OCCUPAN7 OCCUPANT
525T ST. IB-I 525T ST. IB-2 525T ST. IB-3
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
6B 68 6B
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPAN7
525T ST. IH 525T ST. IB-5 525T S7. IB-6
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
6B 68 68
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
525T ST. IB-7 525 T ST. IB-8 525 T ST. 'B-9
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
6B 68 68
OCCUPANT OCCUPAN7 OCCUPANT
525'E' S7. 'B-IO 525T ST. IB-ll 525T ST. "B-12
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 ;3--YO< CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
68 68 68
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPAN7
525T ST. IB-13 525'E' ST. 18-14 525'E' ST. IB-15
CHUlA VISTA. CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA. CA. 91910 1'>-15_ _ CHUlA VISTA. CA. 91910
68
68
68
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
525'E' ST. tB -16
525'E' ST. t8 -11
525'E' ST. #B-18
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
68
68
68
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
525'E' ST. 16-19
525'E' ST, tB -20
525'E' ST, tB -21
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
68
69
59
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
525'E' ST. tB -22
5191' ST, IC-1
519'E' ST. tC -2
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
CHULA VISTA, CA,
91910
CHULA VISTA, CA,
91910
69
69
69
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
519'E' ST. IC-3
519'E' ST, IC-4
519'E' ST, IC-5
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
CHULA VISTA, CA,
91910
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
69
69
69
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
519'E' ST. IC-6
519'E' ST. IC-7
519'E' ST. tC -8
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
69
69
69
C AT
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
519'E' ST. ID-1
519'E' ST, ID-2
519'E' ST. tD-3
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
CHULA VISTA, CA,
91910
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
69
69
69
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
519'E' ST, ID-4
519'E' ST, tD -5
519'E' ST, i0-6
CHULA VISTA, CA,
91910
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
69
69
69
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
519'E' ST. 10 -7
519'E' ST. t0 -8
519'E' ST. iD -9
CHULA VISTA, CA,
91910
CHULA VISTA, CA,
91910
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
69
69
69
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
519'E' ST, ID-10
519'E' ST. 10 -11
519'E' ST, ID-12
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
69
59
69
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
5 ST. t0 -13
519'E' ST. tD -14
519'E' ST.'10 -15
CHULn VISTA, CA.
91910
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
// q3
l5
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
59
69
69
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
519'E' ST, ID-16
519'E' ST, ID-1T
t
'D ��L
519'E' ST, 10 -18
CA.
91910
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
CHULA VISTA, CA.
91910
CHULA VISTA,
- -. ----~ - _ u_____
69 69 69
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
519'E' ST. '0-19 519'E' ST. tD-20 519'E' ST. '0-21
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91~10 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
70 71
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
519'E' ST. '0-22 509T S1. 507T ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
72 73 H
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
194FIFTH AV. 497T ST, 469T ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
75 75 75
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
485 T S1. 485 T S1. fA 485 T S1. .8
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
76 76 76
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
mT ST. 'A mT S1. 'B 479T S1. 'C
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
77
OCCUPANT OCCUPAHT OCCUPANT
mT S1. 192BlIGhTWOOD AV. 1948RIGHTWOOD AV.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
78
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
196BRIGHTWOOD AV. 198BRIGHTWOOD AV. 188BRIGHTWOOD AV.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
79 80
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
190BRIGHTWOOO AV. 189BRIGHTWOOO AV. 471T ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
81 82 83
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
4S3T ST. -1 453T ST. -2 453T 51. -3
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
84 85 86
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
453T ST. -4 453T ST. -5 mTST.~l'
CHUlAVISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 /f/ L/{ CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
87 88 89
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
455T S1. -2 455T ST. -3 455 T S1. -4
CHUlA VISTA. CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA. CA. 91910 1'>-11 CHULA VISTA. CA. 91910
... ~---.-- . . - .~. ~ - .~_. .
90 91 92
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT occumT
455T ST. -5 mT ST. -6 445T ST. 11
CHUlA VISTA,CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
92 92 92
occumT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
445T ST. .2 UST ST. .3 445T ST. f4
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
92 92 92
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
445T ST. 15 445 T ST. 16 445T ST. f7
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
93 93 93
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
443T ST. II 443T ST. 12 443T ST. 13
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
93 93 93
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
WT ST. f4 443T ST. 15 WT ST. f6
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
93 93 94
C NT OCCUcANT OCCUPANT
443T ST. .T 443T ST. 18 435T ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
95
occumT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
Imum AV. II 1963UAVA AV. .2 196GUAVA AV. 13
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
196GUAVA AV. f4
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
196GUAVA AV. 15
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
196GUAVA AV. 16
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
196GUAVA AV. f7
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
196GUAVA AV. 18
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
196GUAVA AV. 19
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
OWIPANT OCCUPANT / OCCUPANT
1 VA AV. 110 196GUAVA AV. 111 / 5/~} 196GUAVA AV. 112
Ch,., VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
96 9T
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
195GUm AV. 191GUm AV. 1:>-\i 181GUAVA AV.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
98
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
189GUIVA AV. 421 T ST. mT ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA ilSTA, CA. 91910
99 100 101
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
407T ST. 397T ST, 379T S7.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA, 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
102 103
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
381 T ST. 377T ST, 371 T ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
103 103 103
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
373T ST, 191GlOVER AV, 'A 191GlOVER AV, '8
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
104 104 104
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
363T ST. fA 363T ST. f8 363T ST. 'C
CHUlA VISTA, CA, 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA, 91910
IDS 106 106
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
34S T ST. 33S T ST. fA 33ST ST, ,B
CHUlA VISTA, CA, 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA, 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA, 91910
107 108 108
OCCUPANT OCCUPAN7 OCCUPANT
333T ST. 329T ST. 331 T ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA, 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
109 109 109
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
321 T ST. 317T ST. 319T S1.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CNUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
110 111 112
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
30ST ST. 30ST ST. 305T ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA, 91910
113 114 115
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
THIRD Ai '. 295 T S1. 275T ST."
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA, 91910 J yL/f CHUlA VISTA, CA, 91910
116 116 116
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
265 T ST. fA 265T ST. ,B ~-I" 265 T ST. 'C
NIIII.l U T~TI " Q1QH\ N.lIIIJ \/tcTlo rJ Q1IJln NIIII! VT<:Ti N. Q1Qln
116
116
OCCUPANT
265 T ST. 10
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
265T ST. IE
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
118
118
OCCUPANT
253T SUA
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
253T SUB
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
lIB
119
OCCUPANT
253T SUO
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
249T ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
121
122
OCCUPANT
241 T ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
235T ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
124
125
OCCUPANT
Im.IN om AV.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
211T ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
12T
128
Oe. ..NT
186SECONO AV.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
1915ECONO AV.I!
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
128
128
OCCUPANT
1915ECONO AUC
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
1915ECONO AUO
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
129
130
OCCUPANT
1995ECONO AV.la
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
185T ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
132
132
OCCUPANT
115T ST. .1
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
lT5T ST. .2
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
132
132
ocr''"INT
r ST. t4
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
mT ST. .5
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
132
132
OCCUPANT
lT5T ST. 'T
(lULlU \ITCH '" QtQfIl
OCCUPANT
lT5T ST. IS
fll,IlIl' 11TH' (Ii OlOtn
;5- i?
1). .JO
III
OCCUPANT
255T ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
118
OCCUPANT
253T SUC
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
120
OCCUPANT
245T ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
123
OCCUPANT .
229T ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
126
OCCUPANT
203T ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
128
OCCUPANT
1915ECOND AV.IB
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
129
OCCUPANT
1995ECONO AV.'A
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
131
OCCUPANT
181T ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
132
OCCUPANT
115T ST. .3
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
132
OCCUPANT
115T ST. .6
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
132
OCCUPANT
115T ST. .9
rU11I I VIOl rl 11110
f32 132 132
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
f15T ST. tl0 f15T ST. tlf f15T ST. t12
CHUlA VI5TA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 9f910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 919fO
f32 132 132
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
f15T ST. tl3 115T ST. t14 tl5T ST. t15
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 9f910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
132 132 132
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
115T ST. t16 t75T ST. tl1 t75T ST. t18
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
f32 132 f32
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
175T ST. t19 115T ST. t20 f15'E' ST. t2f
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
132 132 132
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
tl5T ST. t22 115T ST. t23 115T ST. t24
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
132 133 f34
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
f15T ST. m 161T ST. 163T ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 9f910
13S 136 136
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
159T ST. 198WINOT AVE. tA 198WINOT AVE. tB
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
f31 137 138
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
f93WINOT AVE. tA f93WINOT AVE. tB 151T ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
139 140 14f
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145T ST. 14rE' ST. tt7T ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 9f910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 919fO CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
141 141 142
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
tt7T ST. 119T ST. lIlT ST.."
CHULA VISTA, CA. 919fO CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 J5-Vi CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
143 144 145
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
109T ST. 198FIRST AV. t97FIRST AV,
....",. ......, .. ..."". ....... .. ..... "'\\ '''''''1 II'"'''' .. IIftIH\
146 147 14B
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
198CORTE HELENA AV. 19~CORTE HELENA AV. 18SCORTE HELENA AV.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
149 150 151
OCCUPANT occumT OCCUPANT
lB2CORTE HELENA AV. 185CORTE HELENA AV. 189CORTE HELENA AV.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
152 153 154
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
193CORTE HELENA AV. 19TCORTE HELENA AV. 67T ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
155 156 157
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
197CORTE WARIA AV. 2018ROAOWAY 584 T ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
158 159 160
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
204ASH AV. 56ST ST. 56~T ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
181 162 IS3
0,... .NT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
560T ST. 206BEECH AV. 205BEECH AV.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
IS~ 165 166
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
5~OT ST. 53~T ST. 206CEOAR AV.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
167 16S 169
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
520T ST. 516T ST. 512T ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
170 171 172
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
506T ST. 206FIFTH AV. 494T ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
173 174 175
W"\NT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2. ,ER AV, 470T ST. /5' tit 466T ST. .
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
176 177 178
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
46rE' ST. 456 T ST. h- '_2..-
t'1,I!!I( VTC:Ta ^' ~LQlf1 f'l,111t' VIC:TJ rl QIQln ml A VISTA. CA. 91110
179 180 181
OCCUDANT OCCUDANT OCCUPANT
205FlG AV. Hi'!' 51. 440 T 51.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
182 183 184
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
434 T 51. 203GUAVA AV.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
185 186 187
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
420T ST. 400 T ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
188 189 189
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
396T ST. 380T ST. 380T 51.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
189 189 189
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
382T 51. 384 T 51. 386 T ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
190 190 190
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
204GLOVER AV. 3T8GLOVER AV. 'A 378GLOVER AV. .8
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
191 192 193
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
370T ST. 360T ST. 350T 51.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
194 194 194
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
326 T 51. 332 T ST. 334T 51.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
195 195 195
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
314T 51. 316T 51. 31ST ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
195 196 197
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
320 T ST. 300T ST. 201THIRO AV.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 /j/50 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
198 199 200
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
280T 51. 203CHURCH AVE. 1"\_' ~ 205CHURCH AVE.
"LlIII' U f~Tl " OHIt^ ,.unl I IIf{'TI " OU1" "UlIII II'''T. " OHIlI'\
200 200 201
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
207CHURCH AVE. IA 207CHURCH AVE. IB 264'1' ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
202 202 203
OCCUPANT OCCUPAHT OCCUPANT
260T ST. 2020El WAR AVE. 206DEL WAR AVE.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 . CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
203 204 205
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
208DEL WAR AVE. 244'1' ST. 242T ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
206 207 208
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
240 '1' ST. 231'1' ST. 236'1' ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
209 210 211
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
234'1' ST. 232T ST. 230'1' ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
211 212 213
0 17 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
mE'ST. 226'1' ST. 20IT.IN OAKS AV. IA
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
214 214 214
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
20tTWlN om AV. IB 20lTWlN OAKS AV. IC 20IT.IN OAKS AV. to
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
214 214 214
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
201TWlN OAKS AV. IE 20IT.IN OAKS AV. IF 201T.IN OAKS AV. tS
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
214 214 214
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
201T.IN OAKS AV. tH 20IT.IN OAKS AV. tI 201T.IN OAKS AV. tJ
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CNULA VISTA, CA. 91910
214 214 214
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2' 10m AV. 20ST.IN OAKS AV. 207T.IN OAKS AV.
Ch._.. VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 / ,) CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
/5/5
214 214 214
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1>-2-1 OCCUPANT
209TWIN OAKS AV. 211TWIN OAKS AV. 213TWIN OAKS AV.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 919.10 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
- -. - - ~ -
214 21( 21(
. OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
215T.IN OAKS AV. 2ITT.IN OAKS AV. 219T.IN OAKS AV.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
214 215 216
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
221T.IN OAKS AV. 210 T ST. 204SECONO AV.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA YISTA, CA. 91910
217 218 219
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
209SECONO AY. 186T ST. 182T ST.
CHULA YISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA YISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA YISTA, CA. 91910
220 221 222
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
176T ST. 148T ST. , Bl 1(8T ST. , B2
CHULA YISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA YISTA, CA. 91910
223 224 225
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
150'[' ST.' Al 150'E' ST.' A2 150T ST.' A3
CHULA YISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
226 227 228
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
150T ST. , A4 150T ST.' A5 150T ST.' A6
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA YISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA YlSTA, CA. 91910
229 230 231
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
150T ST.' A7 160T ST.' Cl 160T ST.' C2
CHULA YISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA YISTA, CA. 91910
232 233 234
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
160 T ST.' C3 160T ST.' C4 160 T ST.' C5
CHULA YISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA YISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA YISTA, CA. 91910
235 236 237
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
160'E' ST.' C6 160T ST.' C7 lBOT ST.' C8
CHULA YISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA YISTA, CA. 91910 CHULA YISTA, CA. 91910
238 239 240
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
160T ST. , 101 160T ST. , 102 160T ST. 1103
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910 CHUlA YISTA, CA. 91910 ;5'''5)- CHULA YISTA, CA. 91910
241 242 243
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
160T ST. t 104 lBOT ST. , 105 1>-015 IBOT ST. , 106
CHULA YISTA. CA. 91910 CHULA YISTA. CA. 91910 CHULA YISTA, CA. 91910
244
245
OCCUPANT
150T ST.' lOT
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
150'E' ST.' 108
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
24T
248
OCCUPANT
170T ST.' 02
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
ITO'E' ST. t 03
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
250
251
OCCUPANT
lTOT ST. t 05
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
lTOT ST. t 06
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
253
254
OCCUPANT
noT ST. t 08
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
lTOT ST. t 09
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
255
25T
OCCUPANT
ueT ST.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
142T ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
259
260
OCvAn
132T ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
124T ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
262
253
OCCUPANT
I14T ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
110T ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
256
261
OCCUPANT
20lflRST AV.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
92T ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
26'
m
OCCUPANT
SOT ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
T4T ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
272..
2TJ
or ~T
6, 5T.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
52T ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
271"
2TI
OCCUPANT
38Tom LN.
OCCUPANT
30TOYON LN.
"UIII. Ull:TI f'j GHH/\
"lJlJl( Ilft'''1 fll f\4!'141\
} {/SJ
1>- d-.l.P
w
OCCUPANT
lTO'E' ST. t 01
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
249
OCCUPANT
nOT ST. t 04
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
252
OCCUPANT
lTOT ST. t 07
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
255
OCCUPANT .
lTOT ST. tOlD
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
258
OCCUPANT
13ST ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
261
OCCUPANT
120T ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
264
OCCUPANT
202fIRST AV.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
26J
OCCUPANT
S5T ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
271
OCCUPANT
66T ST.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
2Tf
OCCUPANT
48TOYON LN.
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
27r
OCCUPANT
24TOYON LN.
r~11I1 VIIT! rI Q.Q,n
27'
, OCCUPANT
12TOYON IN.
CHUlA VISTA, CA, 91910
OCCUPANT
mOYON IN.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
281
OC~T
CHUlA ~CA, 91910
OCCUPANT
31TOYON IN.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
OC~UPANT
lAN~
CHUl~ VISTA, CA. 91910
\
\
; 283
OC UPANT
224 m AV.
CHUlA,\SIA, CA, 91910
286
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
282
OCCUPANT
220GUAVA AV.
CHUlA"~:TA, CA, 91910
~285
OCCliPANT
230GlM,VA AV.
CHUlA t~CA' 91910
288
OCCUPANT
234~VA AV.
CHUlA ,VISTA, CA, 91910
\
289
OCCU?ANT
248GU~VA AV.
CHU,A '{SIA, CA, 91910
OC6JPANT
242GUm AV,
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
"
,
"
291
OtCUPANT
219G\iAVA AV,
CHUlA IISTA, CA, 91910
".
294
~CUPANT
231~UAVA AV,
CHUl~ VISTA, CA, 91910
.~
"
OCCUPANT
223GUm AV.
CHUlA~ISTA, CA, 91910
,
,
\
OCClIPANT
235GUm AV.
CHUlA '-iISTA, CA, 91910
\
297
OCCUpANT
243G~VA AV.
CHUlA Vl~!A, CA. 91910
OCCUPANT
247GUAVA ~V.
CHUlA VISTA, CA, 91910
27'
292
295
298
~-::l'"
2.
OCCUPANT
25TOYON IN.
CHUl~ VISTA, CA, 91910
OCCU~T
CHUlA V~ C~, 91910
281
OCCUPANT
216GUm AV.
CHUlA VISTA, CA. 91910
284
OC PANT
226G VA AV.
CHUlA ISTA, CA, 91910
287
OCCUPANT
238GU~A AV.
CHUlA V~TA, CA, 91910
290
OCCUPANT
215GUm AV.
CHUlA VISTA, CA, 91910
293
OCCUPANT
225GUm AV.
CHUlA YISIA, CA. 91910
\
\
296
OCCUPANT
239Gum AV.
CHUlA,TA, CA. 91910
15~i
Rr-"r-,="IVFn
\ ,_...... !_.~ t ."_.'~
#~l5
'92 OCT 20 AS :5_
CITY OF :; .\ T A Constance J. Parsley. Co-Owner
CITY CLEKf..:FFIcE Judy A. Cartwright - CO-Owner
1) ."/) . )i,g'i/?
f,~'cpd~lI f}.hJ~~tTiv ~6-:' /i % 1, SJ tu~ ~
'-/0 )/~ ~~.
Dv ~ ~dtJ~~:dYo Yh7~~
~ ~ ~ uI~ ~AdJ!
" II l' .
!I<t- J) ~ (rAJ E 4t!~1 -S) /?~ CV
~7~' SJa6 ~
~ ~ (( ,k(~--G ~ ~
W chtv M.f/~ ~d .,L/~ Ilidf~ ~ /'//;m/0
,/~ ,.'
tvn/ ~~ II~~~. M7 If f/~ .au:.- ~/~
~)04--~a>-e-. J)Cl4?v ~ c4a/~
--:(. ~ /nu1...1 A-frehJ,~
J~' ;"T-v-,,-'-- ~ Oa:-u.Lc.
W/v ~ ~~ ~J ~;/~ ~aJ:/
?/L€- ~J.~ ~ r~~'<L.J?Ve- ~/Ce-.
,
471 "E" Street, Chula Vista, CA 92010 J~-:-'<<
,~2
Constance J. Parsley - Co-Owner
Judy A. Cartwright - Co-Owner
~ tu~ ~~c/ WId ~ M1 r:kJcu/~
~O?-- (!bJICUf1-- ~ tv ~ VLt0 ~~.<<v Mc~
vf u~c7 k u/I~ % Ad /-tA ~ f4
~ ~ ~~#t~ ~ttJ~ /~
aV ~ -~/<pv~~ ~
~~~(]~~.
9~~r
a -~/ a:u/en-
471 "E" Street, Cbula Vista, CA 92010
/3r~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 10/20/92
ITEM 1TILE: Review and Consideration of the Growth Management Oversight
Commission's (GMOC) 1991 ~ual Report
,-"";I .,
SUBMnTED BY: Director of Planning. (:1('/
REVIEWED BY: City Manag~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X)
Attached is the GMOC's 1991 Annual Report on the City's compliance with the Quality-of
life Threshold Standards. Since this is the first report under the change from a calendar
to a fiscal year basis for review, it focuses on the period from January 1 through June 30,
1991, although issues identified in the second half of 1991 and early 1992 have also been
discussed. The cover memorandum to the Report provides a summary of the GMOC's
findings and recommendations.
The GMOC is scheduled to commence its next review cycle in October 1992, which will
cover the period from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992.
RECOMMENDATIONS: That Council accept the 1991 GMOC Annual Report and direct
staff to take the following actions outlined in the Report:
1. Prepare the necessary Statements of Concern for issuance by the Mayor regarding
the Water, Schools, and Air Quality Thresholds.
2. Endorse in concept the proposed revision to the Parks and Recreation Threshold
Standard, and refer the matter to the Parks and Recreation Commission and staff for
finalization and preparation of the required implementing resolutions and ordinance
amendments revising the Standard for subsequent Council action.
3. Authorize staff to begin work with the Parks and Recreation Commission on the 20-
year implementation strategy to address existing parkland deficiencies for Western
Chula Vista.
4. Refer the matter of increasing code enforcement staff to address visual impact issues
to the Building and Housing Department for consideration in its FY 1993-94 budget
proposal.
J~"I
Page 2, Item...L&
Meeting Date 10/20/92
5. Support reevaluation of the Fire and Emergency Medical Service threshold standard,
but defer such review for at least two years to allow for evaluation of changing
service conditions.
6. Support reevaluation of the Police threshold standard, but defer such review for at
least one year to allow for evaluation of operational changes which are currently
being implemented.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS:
At a joint meeting with the Montgomery Planning Committee on August 26, 1992, the
Planning Commission voted 5-0 to accept the 1991 GMOC Report as presented, with an
additional recommendation that the City Council direct the GMOC to re-evaluate the
performance standards of the Police Threshold (minutes attached). RtJr St!AN/II Ell
The Montgomery Planning Committee endorsed the same recommendations but was unable
to take action due to lack of quorum at that meeting and their two subsequent meetings of
September 2 and 16, 1992.
DISCUSSION:
The GMOC approved their final 1991 Report and recommendations on July 23, 1992. The
principal conclusions of the Report, and staff responses, are as follows:
A The City is in compliance with the following thresholds:
Fire and Emergency Medical Service
Libraries
Sewer
Drainage
Traffic
Fiscal
Parks and Recreation
However, the GMOC made these related recommendations and comments:
1. Consideration should be given to having separate threshold standards for fire
calls and emergency medical calls, given the fact that emergency medical calls
now constitute a larger percentage of total calls than in the past.
1~-;2
Page 3, Item J {,
Meeting Date 10/20/92
Staff response: The Fire Department concurs that this issue should be
evaluated, but recommends that such evaluation be deferred based on the
following:
a. current fire service conditions within the City are variant, given the
increasing use of fire sprinklers in new construction, and the
uncertainty of the future timing and location of new fire stations to
serve the developing eastern area. Another factor affecting the service
needs of the eastern area will be increased development in hillside
areas, which involves use of different types of building materials and
construction and possibly slower response by fire apparatus in hillside
areas. Time is necessary to evaluate these conditions, and to allow
additional development to occur in the eastern area so as to establish
a more complete long-range service picture upon which to adequately
evaluate amendments to the threshold standard.
b. the current county-wide standard for emergency medical service (EMS)
response is 10 minutes, compared to the City's 7 minutes. Recent
discussions at the county-wide level have indicated the desire for a
quicker response standard, although no conclusion has been reached
to date. As the City's EMS providers serve areas throughout the
county, any further change to the City's EMS standards should be
coordinated with regional efforts.
At this time, it is estimated that 2 to 3 years may be necessary to satisfactorily
resolve the above matters, and as appropriate, they will then be brought back
before the GMOC for consideration.
2. Potential traffic conditions on 'H' Street both east and west of 1-805 may soon
exceed threshold standards if proper action regarding widening and project
review is not taken.
Staff Response: Actions are currently underway by the Engineering Division
to address conditions in the short-term through the elimination of on-street
parking along certain segments, and the alteration of signalized intersection
geometrics and signal timing to improve traffic flow. For the segment west
of Fourth Avenue, the City is requiring widenings and dedication as a
condition of development. In the long-term, the Engineering Division
recommends study of a General Plan amendment for redesignation of "H"
Street to a six lane facility between Hilltop Drive and Third Avenue.
3. The GMOC continues to be concerned with deficiencies in park acreage west
ofI-80S, and again recommends changing the Parks and Recreation Threshold
I~ -3
Page 4, Item~
Meeting Date 10/20/92
to require a City-wide standard of 3 acres/WOO population both east and west
of 1-805. A draft revised Threshold Standard is included in Appendix F.
The GMOC recommends that a 20-year strategy for land acquisition, facility
construction and funding to attain the standard for existing deficiencies be
developed, which strategy should also consider the joint use of school sites,
and a method of crediting major facilities such as pools, gymnasiums and
community centers for more acreage than they actually occupy. A
reassessment of the appropriateness of "mini parks" in assisting remedy of
existing deficiencies is also recommended. While such parks are more
expensive in per acre costs to develop and maintain, they may present one of
the only feasible method to remedy deficiencies without the need for
significant condemnation of existing development.
Completion of a Parks and Recreation Implementation Plan would provide
the foundation for directing land acquisition and development, and is
necessary as a basis for creation of any impact fee program for parks in
Western Chula Vista. The GMOC's recommendations are more specifically
outlined on pages 18 and 19 of the 1991 Report.
Staff Response: Staff concurs with the need for innovative steps to alleviate
the shortage of park lands in older parts of the City, and if directed by
Council, will work with the Parks and Recreation Commission to finalize an
amended Threshold Standard, and prepare the necessary resolutions and
ordinance amendments for subsequent Council review and action. Based on
general direction provided by the GMOC, staff has prepared the attached
draft revised Parks and Recreation Threshold Standard, which contains the
following changes:
1. establishes a standard for new development west of 1-805;
2. establishes a 20-year goal for provision of parkland to serve
existing residents west of 1-805;
3. clarifies related financial considerations, including the
application of development fees, and possible payment of a
park equivalency fee in-lieu of land dedication for new
development;
4. calls for the preparation of a long-range implementation plan
for the provision of additional park facilities west of 1-805,
including consideration of applying park equivalency credits for
schools and active recreational facilities such as gymnasiums
and community centers.
/~"'I
Page 5, Item~
Meeting Date 10/20/92
Staff is prepared to initiate work in conjunction with the Parks and Recreation
Commission on preparation of the 20-year implementation strategy. Council
approved funding with the Fiscal Year 1992-93 budget for development of a
Parks Implementation Plan for Western Chula Vista. It should be noted that
staff continues to have concerns regarding the cost-effectiveness of developing
"mini-parks" as compared to traditional neighborhood parks.
4. Recent uncertainty regarding the State budget may impact the City's sound
fiscal condition reported in April.
Staff Response: Information regarding the impact of recent State budget
actions and their fiscal impacts on the City will be presented to the GMOC
in its next review cycle.
5. With regard to last year's recommendation to consider adding a Visual Impact
Threshold, it was determined that formulating and quantifying such a
threshold would be too difficult. Alternatively, it was recommended that the
City Council strongly consider allocating additional staff resources to code
enforcement, which to-date has performed well given the amount of ground
they are required to cover.
Staff Response: The matter should be referred to the Building and Housing
Department and Budget staff for consideration in Fiscal Year 1993-94 budget
requests.
B. The City is not in compliance with the standard for Police:
The threshold for Police services was not met for Priority 1 (emergency) calls,
although the shortfall was slight. The Police Department has taken steps to remedy
this situation through full staffing and beat reorganization, which should allow the
threshold to be met. However, the City should analyze the possibility of a long-term
increase in the Police Department's workload which may result in the need for an
increased police force to meet the threshold standards.
The GMOC further recommended that the City monitor response rates on a
quarterly basis to confirm whether actions underway by the Police Department to
remedy the condition, as indicated in the 1991 Report, will result in the Threshold
being met in 1992.
Staff Response: The Police Department has been monitoring monthly response
statistics for some time, and will report to the GMOC during their 1992 annual
review cycle.
/t'5
Page 6, Item~
Meeting Date 10/20/92
C. The GMOC recommends issuance of Statements of Concern for the following
thresholds:
Water
Schools
Air Quality
Staff Response: Staff will prepare the Statements for the Mayor to forward to the
respective agencies, and will continue to work with those agencies in a cooperative
manner toward resolution of threshold concerns.
Phmnine Commk~ion Comments
On August 26, 1992, the Planning Commission met in to consider the 1991 Report, and
recommended to accept the report and its recommendations as presented, with the following
additional recommendation:
. That the City Council direct the GMOC to review and re-evaluate the performance
standards of the Police Threshold. Common concern was that the current Standard's
sole focus on response times may not be an adequate measure of overall
effectiveness of police service in maintaining resident's quality-of-life. Some
additional emphasis toward crime prevention, rather than simply response times, was
felt to be needed.
Staff Response: While the Police Department agrees that re-evaluation of the
threshold to better address the overall effectiveness of Police service may be
beneficial, consideration should be deferred to the GMOC's review cycle
commencing in October 1993. This one year deferral will allow for the Police
Department's new administration to fully establish itself, and implement revised
management techniques directed at altering current service conditions. Steps have
already been taken toward more frequent response time monitoring, revision of beat
structures, change from a squad to a shift basis of operation, and hiring of a full
staffing compliment. As several of these efforts will not become fully functional until
January 1993, deferral of the threshold re-evaluation until October 1993 will provide
time for them to take effect, and establish more accurate service conditions from
which to work.
In addition, staff wishes to emphasize that any future revision to the police threshold
standard should continue to focus on the link between growth and quality of police
/(,-~
Page 7, Item~
Meeting Date 10/20/92
service, rather than on measures of service which are more directly related to factors
other than growth.
FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. However, amendment of the Parks and Recreation
Threshold Standard will commit the City to a long-term park implementation plan in
Western Chula Vista which may have significant fiscal consequences. Such impacts will be
further delineated for Council when staff returns with the proposed Threshold revision, and
the 20-year implementation strategy.
~o{ 'f,tJ
t1~
StJ-
Attachments:
A. Unofficial minutes of the August 26, 1992 Planning Commission/Montgomery
Planning Committee meeting.
Chairman's cover memo and 1991 GMOC Annual Report.
Draft revised Parks and Recreation Thresholds Standard.
Appendices to the 1991 Annual Report.
B.
C.
D.
(gm0c91.a13)
/t~7 /16-1.3
ATIACHMENT A
) b--1
~ ..t~ov~'CnAl fv^\~NU1'eS
JOINT MEETING OF TIIE
GROwrn MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMlllbE
AND
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
TO REVIEW TIIE GMOC 1991 ANNUAL REPORT
August 26, 1992
5:00 P.M.
MINUIES
MEMBERS PRESENT: GMOC
Will Hyde
Joanne Carson
Chuck Peter
Steve Hann
Ricardo Reyes
Harold Coleman
Frank Tarantino
PC
Joe Casillas
William Tuscher
Susan Fuller
Lavern Decker
Joanne Carson
MPC
Tony Castro
Phil Scheuer
AS. McFarlin
MEMBERS ABSENT:
GMOC
Nancy Palmer(resigned)
PC
Tom Martin
John Ray
MPC
Clay Platt
STAFF PRESENT:
Gordon Howard
Ken Lee
Ed Batchelder
The meeting was a dinner meeting, and the GMOC meeting was called to order at 5:50
P.M. Minutes for the meeting of July 23, 1992 were unanimously accepted.
It was questioned by Chairman Hyde when in October the GMOC should start its work
given membership vacancies. As there would be a quorum even with the vacancies, it was
unanimously moved that the GMOC commence its work as early in October as staff is ready
regardless of membership appointments, with the first meeting devoted to organizational
matters. It was agreed that the meetings be held bi-weekly on Thursdays at 7:00 P.M.
/? ~/O
4, I
The GMOC meeting was adjourned at 5:55 P.M.
The Joint Workshop meeting was called to order at 5:57 P.M. Chairman Hyde gave a brief
overview of the GMOC's work, noting an error on the first page of the 1991 Report
summary regarding the fire and emergency medical service threshold, and distributing a
revised page to all present. He indicated that this year's review had been unusual in that
the evaluation period was only for 6 months due to the change from the calendar to fiscal
year reporting cycle, and the economic recession which presented an other-than-normal
sample of growth. He noted that all "city-responsible" standards had been met, except
Police which despite being explainable, was still of concern as it indicated marginal
operation with the Standard. While this year's Statements of Concern are again all to
external agencies, Chairman Hyde wished to note that they are not being singled out, and
each of those agencies supported issuance of the Statements. There being no introductory
remarks from other GMOC members, Chairman Hyde opened the meeting to discussion of
the 1991 Report and its recommendations. The following summarizes those discussions:
POLICE
Joe Casillas stated that the threshold should be revised to add emphasis toward crime
prevention, and provide a basis from which the Police Department could work to lowering
the crime rate. It was suggested that information regarding crime rates be provided, and
possibly used as a basis for developing a revised threshold. William Tuscher stressed
involvement of the Police Department as there may be other considerations in enhancing
service. Tony Castro emphasized that response time is not a true measure of effectiveness,
as in most instances the crimes have already been committed. He indicated the City needs
to look at cost effective methods of crime prevention, including possible increased use of
Community Service Officers. He offered the idea of forming assessment districts to pay for
officers to serve that area, and noted this had been considered elsewhere.
It was agreed that the Police Threshold should be re-evaluated to add focus on crime
prevention, and Will Hyde therefore indicated that the Montgomery Planning Committee
and the Planning Commission should indicate such in their recommendations to the City
Council.
TRAFFIC
Laverne Decker questioned whether the roadbed construction standards for certain streets
are coordinated with the type of vehicular use, citing deteriorating conditions on portions
of East H Street. Will Hyde indicated he felt the matter outside the GMOC's purview.
Ken Lee stated it was more an Engineering Department issue. It was concluded that the
matter should be brought up and referred independently through the Planning Commission.
SCHOOLS
Susan Fuller drew attention to recommendation #4 on page 6 of the Report regarding
rezonings and school impacts in Western Chula Vista. She felt the Planning Commission
/? "/ /
f} ~
had adequately addressed this issue through efforts on the Zoning Consistency Program, and
related commitments to work cooperatively with the School District. She also questioned
the accuracy of related statements in the District's report (appendix C). Gordon Howard
indicated that staff is currently working with the District and SANDAG on a study of the
issue. He added that the District report was written prior to these and the Planning
Commission's recent actions which would explain the apparent inconsistency. It was
concluded that while strongly worded, the recommendation should remain, as it was not in
conflict with City's current efforts with the District.
AS. McFarlin inquired as to what steps are proposed to bring Castle Park Middle School
to capacity, as the District's report indicated it was currently operating below capacity.
Joanne Carson indicated that condition was partly attributable to the grade level structure,
and that the issue should be deferred as the pending unification decision could .drastically
alter capacity conditions throughout the District.
PARKS
Regarding the proposal to consider establishing a system of parks credit for eXIstIng
recreational facilities in Western Chula Vista, Laverne Decker asked whether the YMCA
and Boys and Girls Clubs would be considered. Will Hyde answered that at this point, no
specific decisions had been made in that regard.
On the same topic, Tony Castro inquired whether the entire acreage of the proposed Otay
River Valley Regional Park would be considered, and voiced his opposition to such, citing
the functional difference in passive .vs. active open space. Gordon Howard and Ken Lee
responded that larger areas designated for permanent open space are not intended to be
credited as "parkland".
There being no other comments on the 1991 Report, the joint workshop meeting was
adjourned at 6:51 P.M. to separate meetings of the Montgomery Planning Committee and
City Planning Commission for their actions on the 1991 Report.
It was noted that the Montgomery Planning Committee did not have a quorum present, and
would place the Report on their agenda for action at their first meeting in September.
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:52 P.M.
It was moved by Susan Fuller and seconded by William Tuscher to accept the Report as
presented.(5-0-0). It was further moved by Joe Casillas, and seconded by Laverne Decker
to recommend that the City Council direct the GMOC to review and re-evaluate the
performance standards of the Police Threshold Standard.(5-0-0).
The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 6:53 P.M. to their regular business
meeting of September 2, 1992 at 7:00 P.M.
Prepared By:
Ed Batchelder
;iP-Ie?--
fl- 3
ATIACHMENT B
/6-/)
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
Auqust 1, 1992
FROM:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Growth Management oversight Commission
1991 GMOC Report
!rO:
SOBJECT:
The Growth Management Oversight commission (GMOC) is pleased to
present its 1991 Report to the Mayor and City Council. The Growth
Management Program has now had several years to evolve into an
effective measurement of the various quality of life thresholds
which must be maintained in order to accommodate the City's
continued growth and development.
Changes in the GMOC review for this year include moving from a
calendar year to a fiscal year reporting period and a significant
change int he scope and objective of the new fiscal thresholds.
Unfortunately, delays in appointing new Commission members did not
allow for completion of this report prior to Fiscal Year 1992-93
budget deliberations, as was originally intended. Hopefully, this
scheduling issue will be rectified for future GMOC annual reports.
Highlights of the report include the following:
1. The City is in compliance with the following thresholds:
Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Libraries
Sewer
Drainage
!rraffio
Fisoal
Parks and Recreath
Upon recommendation of the fire department and concurrence of
the GMOC, it is suggested that a study be conducted to
determine the appropriateness of establishing separate
criteria for fire and emergency medical services.
Potential "H" street traffic problems on both sides of 1-805
were the focus of special concern regarding the traffic
threshold during this reporting period. If proper action
regarding widening and project review is not taken, the
) h -/ 'f
f3 - I
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Page 2
August 1, 1992
traffic thresholds on this street may soon be exceeded.
In the course of our deliberations, the Commission continues
to be concerned about the deficiencies in park acreage on the
west side of the City. We repeat our recommendations from
last year's report with respect to changing the Parks and
Recreation threshold to require a citywide standard of 3 acres
per 1000 population both west and east of 1-805. Innovative
steps need to be taken to alleviate the serious shortage of
park lands in the older parts of the City.
The GMOC's review of the Fiscal threshold this year was much
simplified by the modification in the threshold standard.
Nonetheless, recent uncertainty regarding state subventions to
Chula Vista have cast doubt upon the sound fiscal condition
reported to us in April.
2. The city is not in compliance with the following standard:
Police
The threshold for Police services was not met for Priority 1
(emergency) calls for the first time in the growth management
oversight process, although the shortfall was slight. The
Police Department has taken steps to remedy this situation
through full staffing and beat reorganization, which should
allow the threshold to be met. However, the city should
analyze the possibility of a long-term increase in the Police
Department's workload which may result in the need for an
increased police force to meet the threshold standards.
3. GMOC recommends that the city Council issue statements of
Concern for the following threshold standards for reasons set
forth in the report:
Water
Despite improvements in the local water situation, both in
terms of the easing of drought conditions and the increased
coordination between the City and the two major water
districts which provide service to Chula Vista residents, the
GMOC recommends the issuance of another statement of concern
for the water threshold. Specific steps regarding alternative
supplies and emergency storage must be taken by the County
Water Authority and the local districts to remedy the
threshold deficiency.
. ~
/ ~ -/}7
/3_2
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Page 3
August 1, 1992
Schools
Schools serving Chula Vista residents continue to suffer from
increased overcrowding. The recommended issuance of a
Statement of Concern highlights the need for the two school
districts to address at a policy making level the methods of
or manner. by which the overcrowding of their facilities is
addressed and the need for the city to fully support the
school districts in all ways feasible.
Air Quality
The Air Pollution Control District has recently adopted a
revised Air Quality Plan, which sets a goal of 3' reduction in
air emissions annually to the year 2000, and l' reduction
annually thereafter. A Statement of Concern from the City is
recommended in order to urge the APCD to implement the plan,
and support the APCD's legislative program in Sacramento.
In conclusion, the Commission members wish to note the high quality
of the written and oral presentations received for all of the
threshold issues, both from city Departments and outside service
agencies. These reports helped to focus the GMOC' s attentions upon
relevant issues related to each threshold. We are grateful for the
excellent service and assistance provided by Gordon Howard and Ed
Batchelder from the city Planning Department serving the
Commission.
Sincerely,
~~~~
Chairperson, GMOC
, / 6 ~ I?
13-3
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
1991 REPORT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBMITTED
JULY 1992
/b)7
8-s
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
1991 REPORT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
commission Members
will T. Hyde, Chairman
Joanne Carson
Harold Coleman
steve Hann
Nancy L. Palmer
Chuck Peter
Ricardo Reyes
Frank Tarantino
Robert A. Leiter, Planning Director
Gordon H. Howard, Principal Planner
Ed Batchelder, Associate Planner
July 1992
/&~/~
b-rP
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
'1'oDic
Introduction
Process
Development Forecasts
Annual Review of Thresholds
police
Water
Schools
Air Quality
Fire
Libraries
Sewer
Drainage
Fiscal
Traffic
Parks and Recreation
other Areas/ Visual Blight & Housing
Threshold/Annual Review Summary
Appendix
A. Police Department Memorandum
B. Water District communications
c. School District communications
D. Air Pollution Control District 1990 Annual Report
E. Engineering Traffic Reports
F. Parks & Recreation Memorandum & Proposed Threshold
IG!
1
-1
2
3
3
4
5
8
10
10
11
13
14
16
17
19
20
/~-/~
0-1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
1991 REPORT
Auqust 1, 1992
INTRODUcnON
In November 1987, the City Council adopted the Threshold/Standards Policy for Chula Vista.
Eleven issues are addressed in the Policy Statement and are discussed in tenDs of a goal,
objectives, threshold or standard, and an implementation measure. Adherence to these Citywide
Standards is intended to preserve and enhance the public services, environment, and quality of
life of Chula Vista residents.
To provide an independent annual City-wide threshold review, a Growth management Oversight
Committee (GMOC) was created. The Committee was appointed by the City Council in the
summer of 1988. It is composed of nine members with geographical balance as well as a cross
section of interest including educational development, environmental interest, and business
interest. There is also representation by the Planning Commission. In April of 1991, the
Council changed the designation of the Committee to the Growth Management Oversight
Commission. As vacancies occur it is recommended that they be f1l1ed reflecting the geographic
or special interest designation which they represent.
The responsibilities of the Commission include the following: a determination as to whether
each threshold is appropriate for its goal, whether any new thresholds should be adopted for any
issues, whether any new issues should be added or deleted to the threshold group, whether or
not compliance with the thresholds has been maintained over the prior year, whether compliance
is likely to be maintained based on both short-term and long-term development forecasts, what
the fiscal impact of compliance may be, whether the City has been using developer fees for the
intended purpose, and whether the means of achieving compliance are appropriate.
In April 1991 the Council incorporated the threshold standards into the Growth Management
Program and Implementation Ordinance. In November 1991 the Council amended the Traffic
and Fiscal (Economics) Thresholds. Future development projects in Chula Vista will include
measures to assure that the threshold standards are maintained as growth occurs. This
.concurrency. policy will promote the continuation of a high quality of life for existing as well
as new city residents.
PROCESS
The Growth Management Oversight Commission met from February through July 1992. The
fIrSt several meetings were spent reviewing the threshold policies and determining compliance
with those policies based on reports that were received from individual departments and
agencies. Background information and presentations were made by representatives of the three
water districts, both school districts, San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, and City
1
Jt/20
~-F
staff including Engineering, Traffic Engineering, Parks and Recreation, Library, Fire, Police,
Finance, Administration, and Planning. As each issue was reviewed, the GMOC determined
whether or not it was appropriate to issue a statement of concern or make other
recommendations regarding that issue. Following completion of the individual threshold
reviews, this annual report was prepared, and adopted by the Commission.
This review period was supposed to begin in October 1991 so that the annual report coUld be
completed prior to Fiscal Year 1992-93 budget deliberations. However, delays in appointment
of GMOC members did not allow the process to begin until February 1992. The next review
period will begin in October of 1992. Officially, the review period for this report is January
through June 1991, due to the change from calendar year to fiscal year reports. However,
problems and issues identified during the second half of 1991 and early in 1992 have.also been
discussed in this report. .
DEVELOPMENT FORECASTS
In order to look ahead as well as back over past performance, the threshold/standards policy
calls for City staff to prepare development forecasts at the beginning of the annual GMOC
review process.' These forecasts were prepared in September 1991 and distributed to the
respective agencies and departments for evaluation and report back to the GMOC.
12-18 Month Forecast
In response to the current economic climate, two sets of forecast figures consisting of a range
with a high end and low end are included in this report. The high end forecast reflects
anticipated construction schedules, and projects 1,973 dwelling units to be permitted for
construction and 2,174 dwelling units expected to reach occupancy over the next 18 months.
The low end forecast, based on an 18-month trend analysis of prior construction activity,
projects 1,075 dwelling units to be permitted and 1,861 dwelling units expected to reach
occupancy over the next 18 months. The forecast range reflects the uncertainty in the timing
of development and in the amount of construction activity that may take place. Construction
activity slowed considerably in 1991 as a result of the current recession causing a lack of
demand in the housing market, and the difficulty or inability of builders to secure financing for
construction loans.
5-7 Year Forecast
During the next seven years, a total of 10,823 dwelling units are projected to reach the
construction phase, representing a potential annual average of approximately 1,500 units. This
forecast takes into consideration known facility capacity limitations, particularly related to traffic
circulation. This forecast has considered only those projects within the Eastern Territories which
have received Sectional Planning Area (SPA) approval and possess an approved Public Facilities
Financing Plan, if required. Development projected for Western Chula Vista is predicated
2
/ b ~;2 /
13,1
primarily on historic development trends, which show an average of approximately 300 new
dwelling units constructed annually.
ANNUAL REVIEW OF THR'Fc;HOLDS
nmESHOLDS REFLECTING STATEMENTS OF CONCERN
Police
THE GMOC FINDS THAT THE POLlCE THR'F~C;;HOLDHAS NOT BEEN
MAINTAINED ON A CUMULATIVE OR PROJECT BASIS. ALTHOUGH SPECIFIC
REMEDIES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND IMPLEMENTED BY THE POLlCE
DEPARTMENT WHICH SHOULD ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT TO MEET THE
THRESHOLD STANDARDS. THE CITY SHOULD CLOSELY MONITOR THIS
THR'F"HOLD IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
In 1991, the threshold for Police services was not met for Priority 1 calls, but was met
for Priority 2 calls. The threshold for Priority 1 (emergency) calls requires that 84% of
these calls be responded to within 7 minutes and that an average response time to all
Priority calls of 4.5 minutes or less be maintained. The actual performance for 1991
indicates that 83.2 % of all Priority 1 calls were responded to within 7 minutes and that
the average response time for all Priority 1 calls was 4.7 minutes. The standard
deteriorated as the year went on, with the December 1991 figures being 78.8% of all
Priority 1 calls answered within 7 minutes and an average response time for all Priority
1 calls being 5.2 minutes.
With regard to Priority 2 (urgent) calls, the threshold standard requires that 62 % of all
Priority 2 calls be responded to within 7 minutes, and that an average response time to
all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less be maintained. The actual performance for 1991
was that 67.3% of all Priority 2 calls were responded to within 7 minutes and the
average response time was 6.5 minutes. The data indicate that the threshold for Priority
2 Police services is being met.
While the department did not meet the Threshold measure for Priority 1 calls for service,
the department was, in absolute terms, within 1.5% of meeting the measure in 1991.
This means that had the Department responded to only one more Priority 1 call for
service per day within the 7 minute time frame, the threshold would have been met.
Factors which prevented this from occurring were as follows:
1) The noted increase in total call for service volume, both in the growing Eastern
Territories and in the developed western area of the City;
2) An effort to encourage citizens to report criminal activity; and
3
/& -.AL
8 _10
3) no increase in Patrol staffmg for the year.
The most influential factor contributing to the unfavorable response statistics is that the
Department operated with a 5% to 6% vacancy rate in the sworn ranks throughout the
year. The department has made recruitment a top priority and has changed its approach
to the recruitment process. Additionally, new administrative arrangements have been
made by the Chief of Police to operate at a near zero vacancy rate, with 152 sworn
personnel. This will be accomplished during the Summer of 1992.
Also, over the last twelve months, staff has been developing a proposal to change the
existing police beat structure to more closely resemble the calls for service volume
pattern. In essence, this means using more natural beat boundaries (i.e. geOgraphic
features and arterial thoroughfares). This results in an additional beat east of I-80S.
The GMOC recommends that the City Council closely monitor the response rates on a
quarterly basis to calls for service during 1992, to confirm whether these measures will
result in the threshold standard for Priority 1 calls for service being met. Also, the
GMOC recommends that the City analyze long-term factors such as population growth
and increasing calls for service which may result in the need for an increased police force
to meet the threshold standards.
~
THE GMOC RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ISSUE A STATEMENT
OF CONCERN TO BOTH THE SWEETWATER AUTHORITY AND THE OTAY
WATER DISTRICT.
Although several issues relating to water service remain unresolved, leading to the
recommended Statement of Concern, the GMOC is pleased at the progress which has
been made by both the Sweetwater Authority and the Otay Water District in meeting past
concerns of the GMOC expressed in prior year reports.
Both the Sweetwater Authority and the Otay Water District provided the GMOC with
excellent written and oral reports regarding Chula Vista's threshold standards for water.
The two districts are working cooperatively on efforts to provide for additional water
storage for South Bay water customers. Most promising is a tentative agreement to
establish a ground water "bank" in the Jamacha Valley, which will help the Otay Water
District provide emergency storage, and increase the ability of the Sweetwater Authority
to transport water from Loveland Reservoir downstream to Sweetwater Reservoir. The
two districts have also agreed to provide for joint water supply facilities in the vicinity
of Proctor Valley Road, and have established similar water conservation requirements
for customers. The Otay Water District is also dispersing water storage facilities
throughout their service area, in order to avoid the catastrophic effects a natural disaster
might have on a single water storage facility.
4 /6')..)
f3 -II
Long-term water supply for Chula Vista remains an issue which merits a Statement of
Concern. Despite the easing of the drought which continued to afflict Southern
California in 1991, the amount and reliability of imported water for Chula Vista and
Southern California is still a problem. The GMOC recommends that the City take the
following actions relating to this issue:
1. Strongly support the proposed South Bay Demineralization Plant, which would
provide a steady supply of demineralized sea water for San Diego County.-
2. Support prompt construction of the proposed Clean Water Program Water
Reclamation Plant in the Otay River Valley, which would provide a steady supply
of reclaimed water for use in landscape irrigation and other appropriate
applications.
Also of concern for the City of Chula Vista is the provision of water storage for
emergency purposes. Both the County Water Authority as a whole and the Otay Water
District are lacking adequate emergency water storage facilities. The GMOC
recommends that the City take the following actions relating to this issue:
1. Request the Otay Water District to work cooperatively with the city to plan for
future sites need to provide emergency storage reservoirs in the Otay Water
District's area of service. Urge the District to review its policy decision to
provide for five full days of emergency storage in underground water reservoirs,
as opposed to pursuing cooperative arrangements with either the Sweetwater
Authority or the City of San Diego to make use of existing reservoirs and water
treatment facilities for emergency purposes.
2. Urge the County Water Authority to speed construction of emergency storage
reservoirs in Northern San Diego County
Schools
THE GMOC RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ISSUE A STATEMENT
OF CONCERN TO THE CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
THE SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.
a. Chula Vista Elementary School District
Based upon the City's 12 to 18 month growth forecast, the Elementary School
District has estimated that 158 new students would need to be accommodated west
of 1-805. Only two schools in this area are not currently at or over capacity, so
this growth will contribute to further overcrowding of the affected schools, and
can only be accommodated through a combination of busing, facilities
modifications, and program changes.
5
/? ~ J-I-/
{8-/..:;.
East of 1-805, growth in school enrollments through new development can be
accommodated by existing schools and schools which are being planned and
financed through Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts.
The report from the Chula Vista Elementary School District staff described a
number of activities the District is undertaking to keep abreast of Changing
conditions, including boundary/attendance area adjustments, residency
verification, and requests that the City require full mitigation of school impacts
from new residential and non-residential development.
The GMOC recommends that the City Council take the following actions related
to the statement of concern regarding the Chula Vista Elementary School District:
2.
4.
1.
Assist the School District in adopting and implementing expansion of
schools in Western Chula Vista, particularly Vista Square School and Rice
School, which have existing space.
Urge the School District to maximize the use of school facilities through l
multi-track scheduling and other innovative methods. The School District ~
acknowledges that much of the overcrowding problem in Western Chula
Vista schools might be relieved by implementing a multi-track year-round
schedule for schools, but such a solution is not supported by the School
Board at this time because of parental and staff opposition. Adoption of
multi-track school schedules are also a strong factor in the provision of
state financing for new school facilities, which the School Board should
consider in its decision.
3.
Support the School District in its efforts to change State law to lower the
required vote on school construction bonds from two-thirds to a simple
majority .
Deny applications to rezone any property in Western Chula Vista which
would increase allowable density or intensity of use unless no aggravation
of existing threshold standards related to schools will result.
s.
Study the impacts of new non-residential development upon City schools,
and consider adoption of measures which would fully mitigate such
impacts.
6.
Require full mitigation of school impacts from the Bayfront project, and
recommend to the school district that this mitigation measure be
implemented by building a new school or expanding existing schools in
the northwest quadrant of Chula Vista.
6
/0/;Z~
8 - 13
b. Sweetwater Union High School District
The Sweetwater Union High School District reported an overall enrollment of
28,306 students throughout the district. 13,653 of these students, or 48% of the
total, attend four high schools and four junior high schools in Chula Vista.
Enrollment increased 1.5% in 1991-92 over the previous school year. The
District as a whole has 1,488 students more than its physical capacity si!ould
allow.
Given the 12-18 month forecast provided by the Chula Vista Planning
Department, the District projects an increase of 750 students in Chula Vista
1unior High and High Schools in the 1992-93 school year. This is a higher
increase than in previous years, which has traditionally been approximately 500
new students per year.
Specific schools which are currently over their capacity in Chula Vista are Bonita
Vista Middle and High Schools, Chula Vista High School, Hilltop 1unior High
School, and Castle Park High School. Hilltop High School and Chula Vista
1unior High School are projected to be above capacity within the next two years.
Only Castle Park Middle School will have enrolIment which is less than existing
capaci ty .
The report from the Sweetwater Union High School District describes several
measures the district is taking to alleviate overcrowding. These include, opening
of EastLake High School in the Fall of 1992, continued establishment of Mello-
Roos Facility Financing Districts for new development in the Eastern Territories,
participation in the state lease-purchase program for new schools, establishment
of a Marks-Roos Facility Financing district, a new method available to reduce
financing costs and leverage additional monies, adjusting attendance boundaries,
and requesting the City require developers of the Mid-bayfront to provide a site
for a new high school, or commensurate mitigation.
The GMOC recommends that the City Council take the folIowing actions related
to the statement of concern regarding the Sweetwater Union High School District:
1. Urge the School District to maximize the use of school facilities through
multi-track scheduling and other innovative methods.
2. Support the School District in its efforts to change State law to lower the
required vote on school construction bonds from two-thirds to a simple
majority .
7
I ?r;2?
r8- / Y
3. Deny applications to rezone any property in Western Chula Vista which
would increase allowable density or intensity of use unless no aggravation
of existing threshold standards related to schools will result.
4. Study the impacts of new non-residential development upon City schools,
and consider adoption of measures which would fully mitigate such
impacts.
S. Require full mitigation of school impacts from the Bayfront project, and
recommend to the school district that this mitigation measure be
implemented by building a new school or expanding existing schools in
the northwest quadrant of Chula Vista.
6. Support the Sweetwater District Board's efforts to end the moratorium on
residential development on Otay Mesa in the City of San Diego, in order
that the District could construct new schools in the area which would
relieve overcrowding pressures on Chula Vista schools.
7. Request the Sweetwater District to adjust mandatory attendance boundaries
for EastLake High School, in order to relieve the over-crowding at Bonita
Vista High School and Middle School.
8. The City Library and the Sweetwater District should study the possibilities
of creating a program which would provide work study experience for
high school students within the proposed joint library facility to be located
on campus (see report on library threshold).
9. Include the Sweetwater District in on-going discussions with the Chula
Vista Elementary School District regarding a program to fully mitigate
impacts to schools from new development in western Chula Vista.
10. Recommend the Sweetwater District institute residency verification as a
standard element of the student registration process.
Air Ouality
THE GMOC RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ISSUE A STATEMENT
OF CONCERN TO THE AIR POLUmON CONTROL DISTRICT.
The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) provided the GMOC with a voluminous and
thorough report for this year's threshold analysis. Their full report is on file with the
Planning Department. In addition to an update on the progress of the Revised Regional
Air Quality Strategy, the APCD provided a list of all stationary air pollution sources in
Chula Vista, a breakdown of types and amounts of pollutants emitted by major sources
8
/!pr~ 7
/6_ IJ
within Chula Vista, and a list of all enforcement actions taken in Fiscal Year 1990-91
against facilities located in Chula Vista.
The San Diego region experienced a significant improvement in overall air quality in
.1991; however, much of this improvement was probably due to meteorological conditions
relating to El Nino and the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines. While the long-
term trends for reducing air pollution are favorable in some respects (reducing staticmary
emissions from industrial and commercial sources, better motor vehicle pollution
controls), the increase in population and the increase in automobile miles driven (which
is increasing at twice the rate of population growth) have made attainment of air pollution
reduction goals more difficult.
On June 30, 1992, the APCD approved a major revision to the County Air Quality Plan,
originally adopted in 1982. This revised plan is necessary to implement more stringent
California air quality standards adopted in 1988. The trip reduction sections of the plan
will require businesses with 60 or more employees to boost the average vehicle ridership
of their morning commuters from a countywide average of 1.18 commuters per car to
an average of 1,5 commuters per car by the year 2000. Next, the APCD must consider
completion of a land use element to the overall plan which would be implemented by
local jurisdictions, and enforceable measures to implement the Air Quality Plan.
State law requires air pollution to be reduced by 5 % annually, but this requirement may
be waived if the County Air Quality Plan implements all feasible measures to control air
pollution. The adopted plan includes all feasible measures, but due to population growth
in San Diego County and the continued transport of air pollution from the Los Angeles
metropolitan area, the proposed plan should result in only a 3% annual reduction to 2000
and a 1 % annual reduction thereafter.
The APCD is also working on State legislation or a shift in administrative procedures
within the Department of Motor Vehicles which would require Mexican vehicles
regularly used in San Diego County to meet San Diego County air quality standards.
The GMOC also discussed the potential need for a second air quality monitoring station
in the Eastern portion of Chula Vista. While federal and state criteria do Rot support the
siting of such a station at this time, the GMOC will continue to analyze this issue and
may make further recommendations in future annual reports.
The GMOC recommends the City Council take the following actions related to the
Statement of Concern to be submitted to the Air Pollution Control District.
1. Urge the APeD to complete the remaining elements of the County Air Quality
Plan, including land use and implementation mechanisms.
9
/~ cJ~
I~ ~ II.
2. Support the APCD's efforts to obtain additional state funding for mass transit
programs which would reduce air pollution, and change federal and state tax laws
which encourage private automobile use over use of public transit.
3. Support the APCD's efforts to change state administrative procedures, or adopt
new legislation, which will require automobiles registered in Mexico but used
frequently in the United States to meet San Diego County requirements for
pollution controls.
ISSUES WHERE THRESHOLDS ARE MET
m
THE GMOC FINDS THAT THE FIRE THRESHOLD HAS BEEN MAINTAINED ON
BOTH A CUMULATIVE AND PROJECT BASIS
The threshold standard requires that 85 % of all emergency fire and medical emergency
calls be responded to within 7 minutes. The actual performance for Fiscal Year 1990-91
was that 90.4% of all emergency calls were responded to within 7 minutes. These data
indicate that the threshold for fire response was met during the first six months of 1991.
The Fire Department will be opening a sixth fire station in the EastLake Business Center
in late 1992, which will allow the Department to maintain the present level of service
regarding threshold standards.
The Commission notes that, given the diverging nature of fire emergency calls, which
are decreasing, and emergency medical calls, which are increasing, the GMOC suggests
that the City investigate separate threshold standards for fire calls vs. emergency medical
calls in the future.
Libraries
THE GMOC FINDS THAT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE STATE LffiRARY
FUND GRANT OF 6.75 MILLION TO CONSTRUCT A NEW LIBRARY IN
MONTGOMERY. THE CITY HAS ACHIEVED CONFORMANCE WITH THE
LIBRARY THRESHOLD ON A CUMULATIVE BASIS
The threshold standard for libraries requires that 500 square feet of library space
(adequately equipped and staffed) be provided per each 1,000 population. Based on a
population estimate of 140,277 as of November 1991, a total of 70,138 square feet of
library space is required. Currently 57,329 square feet is provided by the Chula Vista
Public Library with 55,000 square feet in the largest library building at 365 "F" Street
and a combined 2,329 square feet in two small branches, Castle ParklOtay and
Woodlawn Park. This 57,329 square feet results in a shortage of 12,810 square feet in
10
/t~02~
;3 - /1
library space. The objectives expressed as thresholds for libraries were foreseen in ll1:
Library Master Plan of 1987, which recommends the City supplement the library at 365
"F" Street by providing a new area library facility in the Montgomery/Otay Planning
Area and two new library buildings in each of the planning areas east of Interstate S05.
An additional 35,000 square feet will be added to the Chula Vista Public library's
inventory on the completion of the new library in the Montgomery/Otay planning.area
in late 1994. This area library has been made possible by a grant from the California
library Construction and Renovation Bond Act. This award of $6,747,528 provides
65% of the cost of the project. The remaining 35% is from a combination of
Community Development Block Grant funds for land purchase, and Development Impact
fees and credits. Although not the official name, the grant was applied for under the
name of the South Chula Vista Library. The architectural firm for the project was
recently selected.
East of Interstate 805 the next permanent area library will be at the comer of "H" Street
and Pasco Ranchero in the Sweetwater/Bonita planning area. This Library is being.
planned at 29,000 square feet. The City has allocated $200,000 in the Capital
Improvement Program to hire an architect for the initial design work. This project is
funded by Development Impact Fees and is scheduled to completed in 1997. Although
not the official name, this library is referred to as the Rancho Del Rey library.
A permanent library in EastLake is now being planned at 20,000 square feet for the
planning area known as the Eastern Territories. Since the permanent facility will not be
completed until 2005 or 2006, several considerations for temporary library services in
EastLake are being studied. The preferred alternative, tentatively approved, is for
limited public library services from the EastLake High School Library which will open
in September of 1992.
Sewer
THE GMOC FINDS THAT THE SEWER THRESHOLD HAS BEEN MAINTAINED
ON BOTH A CUMULATIVE AND PROJECT BASIS.
There were no major problems attributable to new growth in the City during the first half
of 1991 with respect to the established thresholds for sanitary sewers. The City design
standards for sewers limit the flow in sewers up to 12" in diameter to 50% full and to
75% full for sewers larger than 12", The City has also allowed flow up to 75% full in
S", 10", and 12" diameter sewers if it can be shown that ultimate development has
already occurred.
However, there were two major developments in the planning stage during 1990 and one
during 1991 which would discharge into sewers flowing near or over capacity. These
are the Palomar Trolley Center, which will discharge into the Industrial Blvd./Hollister
11
It--3D
16-/9
Street sewer, and the Scripps Memorial Hospital expansion and Chula Vista Mall
expansion which will discharge to the "H" StrcetlChula Vista Mall sewer. Discharge
from the Hospital expansion project may be made to the "0" Street basin also. A
technical report analyzing impact of flows from the hospital expansion and recommending
necessary improvements has been required. Construction of a parallel sewer along
Industrial Blvd. under our Capital Improvement Program is expected to be completed
before the Palomar Trolley Center begins construction. If the developers wish to
construct the Center before our parallel sewer is complete, they will be required to install
a temporary sewage holding tank.
The City is using several methods to identify and determine the Cause of peak flows
exceeding City standards in existing sewers. The flow monitoring program has been
continued and several problem sites have been identified. The City's sewer TV
inspection crew continues to monitor problem sites in order to determine if the condition
of the sewer lines has affected the flow. The Wastewater Master Plan prepared by
Engineering-Science includes an analysis of current projected future flows for all City
trunk lines and provides recommendation for construction of new and upgraded sewers
and preliminary cost estimates. In addition, adequacy of sewers must also be addressed
in the environmental documents of proposed new developments.
Sites identified through these methods may be considered for inclusion in the Capital
Improvement Program or the Sewer Rehabilitation Program. New developments will be
required to pay a proportionate share for the construction of new sewers needed.
The City is currently under contract with Willdan Associates for preparation of the
Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and Financing Plan. This plan will
estimate current and ultimate sewage flows, recommend necessary sewerage system
improvements, and determine fees or a funding mechanism to finance these
improvements. The Scope of Work has been amended to include pumped flows from
EastLake and Salt Creek Ranch Developments not within the basin. This additional flow
may increase the need for improvements in the Telegraph Canyon Sewer.
San Die~o Metrooolitan Sewer Authority
At present, the City's total daily wastewater flow into the Metro sewage System is
approximately 10.737 million gallons per day (mgd). This includes 8.808 mgd of
metered flows discharged directly to the Metro sewer line and 1.605 mgd metered and
0.324 mgd non-metered flows discharged through the Spring Valley Sewer outfall.
Wastewater flows have decreased by approximately 1.6 mgd over the past year due to
water conservation. The reduction of estimated flows to Spring Valley is due to the
availability of actual metering results.
Five of the six new permanent wastewater metering stations to measure the Spring Valley
flows are in operation. Installation of the remaining one is in process.
12
)&-)/
/3-11
The City's existing sewage capacity reservation with Metro is 19.2 mgd including the
Montgomery area. The Engineering Science plan predicts that the flow rate would reach
the available capacity by the year 2000. However, since the plan uses an existing flow
of 13.5 mgd for 1990, 2.7 mgd more than actual current flows, the projected dates for
reaching capacity flow will need to be re-evaluated.
Our calculations have indicated that we have sufficient capacity for the upcoming year.
We have received written verification from the San Diego Metropolitan Sewer
Authority's Clean Water Program that our capacity is adequate.
It is projected that the ultimate average daily wastewater flow of 25.1 mgd will be
reached in about the year 2020. Luke-Dudek Civil Engineers is currently completed a
study which will evaluate wastewater treatment, disposal and reclamation alternatives,
and determine the most cost-effective method of providing for the City's current and
future needs.
Construction of a wastewater treatment facility in the east Otay Valley is included as part
of the Clean Water Program. The original proposed start-up date of this facility was
1998 and the initial capacity will be 6 mgd. However, recent actions of the San Diego
City Council reducing the scope of the Clean Water Program may significantly delay this
proposed plant. The timing of construction will be a consideration in the development
of the southern and eastern portions of Chula Vista.
Drainai!e
THE GMOC FINDS THAT THE DRAINAGE THRESHOLD HAS BEEN
MAINTAINED ON A CUMULATIVE AND PROJECT BASIS.
No major problems can be attributed to new growth in the City concerning the threshold
standards for drainage. One reason for this is that developers have constructed detention
basins such that downstream flows are not increased. Each new subdivision is required
to construct all drainage facilities to handle storms of a certain magnitude and discharge
the flows into a downstream facility. The Environmental Impact Report for each
development must address any possible drainage problems either on-site or off-site. The
developer is required to implement mitigation measures, ifnecessary.
In addition to the construction of drainage facilities, developers are now faced with a
need to obtain National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits for each grading
operation affecting an area of five acres or more. The requirements for these permits
are based upon the need to prevent pollutants from reaching drainage ways. These
permits are issued by both the Regional Water Quality Control Board and this City.
13
) ~ ~ 3-2
13./)tJ
Developers will be required to dedicate land and construct facilities necessary to serve
their proposed developments. Facilities benefiting an extensive area with multiple
owners may be financed through assessment districts.
EiD1
THE GMOC FINDS THAT THE FISCAL THRESHOLD HAS BEEN MAINTAINED
ON A CUMULATIVE AND PROJECT BASIS.
The Fiscal threshold standard was created as a revision to the former Economic threshold
by the City Council in November 1991, in order to refme the scope of the GMOC's
review to address the impacts of growth on the City's fiscal well being, particularly the
collection and expenditure of impact fees from new development. The previous
Economic threshold's orientation to evaluating the overall fiscal health of the cOmmunity
was felt to be too broad for the GMOC as it was not limited to growth issues, and that
overall economic health would be more appropriately evaluated by the new Economic
Development Commission. The Fiscal threshold calls for the preparation of a report to
the GMOC which evaluates the fiscal impacts of growth on operations and capital
improvements over both the previous 12 months and projected over the next 12-18 month
period, including an analysis of development impact fee collection and expenditure over
the previous 12-month period.
The report prepared by the City's Finance Department indicated that a variety of
anticipated General Fund revenues were lower than originally estimated, due primarily
to the ongoing recession and related slowdowns in development and home purchase
activity. Lower than projected revenues included sales tax (down $700,000 to
$900,000), real property transfer taxes (down $75,000), and subdivision and development
processing fees. Anticipated investment earnings were also down ($100,000) due to
lower interest rates, and property tax revenues were reduced by $118,000 due to the
charging of administration fees by the County of San Diego.
Despite these shortfalls in projected revenues, Mr. Lyman Christopher, the City's
Finance Director, indicated comfort with the fiscal situation as the shortfalls will be
offset by surpluses in the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), resulting in over
$2 millon in savings to the General Fund in fiscal year 91-92. The Finance Department,
in conjunction with the current 12-18 month development forecast, is analyzing revised
revenue projections and strategies with the Building, Planning and Engineering
Departments, and will continue to do so on an annual basis employing the growth
forecasts prepared for the GMOC. To-date, no significant fiscal concerns have arisen
from those discussions, and in general the development forecasts indicated gradual
improvement in development activity as fmance and lending conditions stabilize, and
consumer confidence in the housing market regains. However, these new development
oriented conditions do not address recent budget cuts proposed by the State of California
which will have direct impacts on the City's overall fiscal conditions. While final word
14
/fc-J;
6./)./
regarding the nature and level of such cuts has not been received from the State, the
anticipated "worst case" scenario is an II % loss (approx. $6 million) from the City's $52
million dollar fiscal 92-93 operating budget recently approved by the City Council.
Based on the final level of State cuts, the City Manager's office will develop a revised
City budget for consideration by the City Council. The extent to which that revised
budget affects growth management programs will be better known, and appropriately
addressed, when the GMOC begins its next review in October 1992.
The City's Development Impact Fee (DIP) Programs for Public Facilities and
Transportation are in sound financial shape. According to Mr. Cl!ristopher, the DIP's
along with the various special assessment and financing districts which are required of
major new developments in Eastern Chula Vista, result in no negative fiscal impacts to
the City from new development. The Public Facilities DIP is applied to new
development within the entire City, and although it has only been in place for 2-112
years, some substantial expenditures have been made. Recent purchases include
$225,000 for a fire truck for the new Eastlake Interim Fire Station, and $500,000 for a
new mainframe data processing unit for the City. Several hundred thousand dollars were
also expended on the Police Facility remodel and upgrade. The Transportation DIP is
currently applied only in Eastern Chula Vista; staff is currently working on development
of a transportation development impact fee program for the western area of the City.
The Transportation DIF is paying for the construction and expansion of road projects in
Eastern Chula Vista, either directly or through credits and reimbursement for roads built
by developers. An annual DIF funds financial report is prepared to review the funding
status of each DIF project, and to update the associated costs for these and any new
facilities necessary to support future development. The report then analyses the
apportionment of these costs to projected development in order to adjust the DIF's to be
applied to new development. The 1991 DIF update report is currently being finalized
and should be available shortly.
At the project level, each of the major developments in Eastern Chula Vista is required
to prepare a Fiscal Impact Analysis (PIA) and Public Facilities Financing Plan (pFFP)
to ensure that any negative fiscal impacts to the City will be ameliorated, and that needed
facilities will be provided in advance of or concurrent with new development.
The GMOC concluded from the report and Mr. Christopher's presentation, that there are
no significant fiscal problems from new growth which currently warrant special attention.
As the long range DIF Programs are still in their relative infancy, and this year
represents the first review of the new Fiscal threshold, the GMOC will continue to
monitor the collection and expenditure of DIP funds, and track development forecasts
over time to identify any potential problems before they become serious.
15
It -' 3'--/
/3- :; :L
Traffic
THE GMOC FINDS THAT THE TRAFFIC THRF~HOLD HAS BEEN MAINTAINED
ON BOTH A CUMULATIVE AND PROJECT BASIS.
The GMOC reviewed two reports from the Engineering Department related to the Traffic
threshold, one entitled "1991 Traffic Monitoring Program," the other entitled "H Street
Corridor Traffic Impact Issue. "
1991 Traffic Monitorinl! Prol!ram
The 1991 Traffic Monitoring Program is an abbreviated study of city traffic conditions,
focusing on an analysis of conditions along "H" Street between I-80S and 1-5 and Third
Avenue between "H" Street and Moss Street. The analysis was conducted using the
recently adopted Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method of measuring traffic impacts,
which defines a roadway's level of service as a function of vehicle Stopped Time delay.
The Engineering Department is in the process of preparing a comprehensive study of
major city roadway links as part of the 1992 Traffic Monitoring Program.
The study shows that both of these segments of roadway are operating at overall level
of service "C." A local problem exists on "H" street immediately east of 1-5 due to the
confluence of the freeway interchange and the Light Rail transit line at-grade crossing.
The only long-term solution to the problem, construction of a grade-separated crossing
for the light rail transit line, would be extremely expensive and is not proposed by the
Metropolitan Transit District Board.
"H" Street Corridor Traffic Issue
In response to concerns raised by the GMOC in its 1990 report, the Engineering
Department prepared this specific study of the "H" Street Corridor. The report indicated
measures implemented by the Engineering Department since last year's recommendations
are as follows: 1) development of a typical cross-section for "H" Street as a 6-lane
roadway, 2) requirements for dedication andlor construction of road widening for three
projects along "H" Street, most notably the Chula Vista Mall Expansion and the Scripps
Hospital Expansion, 3) proposal for a widening of "H" Street at Hilltop Drive to provide
for two left-turn lanes for the westbound direction, 4) a request to CALTRANS to rectify
problems at the intersection of "H" Street at Bay Boulevard, S) progress on the
improvements at the 1-80SI"H" Street interchange, and 6) review of additional measures
to increase "H" Street capacity between Third Avenue and Hilltop Drive.
The GMOC recommends that, based on this study, the City Council strongly consider
amending the General Plan Circulation Element to re-designate "H" Street between I-S
and 1-805 as a six-lane major street.
16
---
/h '3J
f!J- ff-'
In addition, the report tangentially indicates that this segment of "H" Street, as well as
East "H" Street east of I-80S, will be impacted by several proposed projects within the
Eastern Territories which are not within the current Transportation Phasing Plan for
Eastern Territories development. These projects are as follows:
1. EastLake Activity Center - Kaiser Hospital
2. Salt Creek Ranch
3. Rancho Del Rey Business Park redesignation
4. Telegraph Canyon Road residential
S. San Miguel Ranch
6. Otay Ranch
As the City Council considers these projects, traffic impacts to OH" Street and East "H"
Street need to be closely examined, particularly if these projects are allowed to proceed
to development prior to the completion of any portion of State Route 125 or an interim
State Route 125. OH" Street may serve as a "bottleneck" which will allow only some of
these six projects to go forward in the near future.
In summary, evidence presented to the GMOC for 1991 indicates that the threshold for
traffic is being met. However, a potentially serious problem exists regarding "H" Street
which may result in an inability to meet the traffic threshold standard in the near future.
Parks and Recreation
THE GMOC FINDS THAT THE PARKS AND RECREATION THRESHOLD HAS
BEEN MAINTAINED ON BOTH A PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE BASIS.
The Parks and Recreation threshold is a population-based standard calling for 3.0 acres
of neighborhood and community park land to be provided for every 1,000 residents east
of I-80S. This standard has been met, as illustrated by the following table:
Acres of Acresl Acre Shortfall
Ala Population fiW l...OOO or Excess
East of I-80S 39,108 202.50 5.18 +85.26
West of I-80S 100,042 123.95 1.23 -177.07
City-Wide 139,150 326.45 2.35 -91.41
StandardlIdeal 139,150 418.26 3.00 0
17
/~ ~)/P
13 . ;u!
However, this table also reveals the continuing shortfall in park land both for Western
Chula Vista and for the City as a whole.
In 1991 the Parks and Recreation Department completed several renovations and
additions to existing parks, namely Memorial Park renovation, Norman Park Senior
Center renovation, Parkway Pool renovation, Rohr Park'renovation, construction of a
Community Youth Center at Chula Vista High School, and expansion of Terra Nova
Park to 8.8 acres.
The GMOC recommends that the City Council take the following actions with respect
to the Parks and Recreation threshold: .
1. Amend the Parks and Recreation threshold standard to 3 acres per 1,000
population for the area west of Interstate 805 as well as east. The GMOC made
this recommendation in both its 1989 and 1990 annual reports. A 2o-year target
should be set for the acquisition of land and construction of facilities to attain this
standard. Develop a method of giving park and recreation credit for major
facilities such as swimming pools and gymnasiums for more acreage than they
actually occupy.
2. Authorize funding for the completion of a Parks and Recreation Master Plan. This
plan will provide the foundation for future park acquisition, development, and
funding, and is necessary for the creation of an impact fee program for parks in
Western Chula Vista.
3. Create an impact fee program which will require new apartment construction in
Western Chula Vista to pay park fees. Park Acquisition & Development (pAD)
fees are currently collected only for subdivisions, including condominium
projects. With the approval of a Parks and Recreation Master Plan which
outlines specific proposed improvements and areas of benefit, equitable impact
fees can be collected from new apartment development as well.
4. Require large master planned communities in the Eastern Territories which
include proposed parks to conduct a Needs Assessment, which will determine the
most appropriate site, size, and content of local parks within the proposed
community .
5. Adopt site criteria to assist in evaluating and selecting park sites proposed in new
development areas for park dedication credit. The City currently does not have
enough detailed criteria to judge the adequacy of a proposed park site in terms of
topography, accessibility, adjacent uses, and other factors.
6. New multi-family projects in Western Chula Vista should be required to provide
a set amount of private recreation facilities within the development. Upcoming
18
It -;17
I~ .. ')5'
adoption of the City Design Review Manual provides an opportunity to implement
this recommendation.
7. The Parks and Recreation Department should re-assess the appropriateness of
"mini-parks" in Western Chula Vista. While such parks are more expensive in
per-acre costs to develop and maintain, they provide a more intimate scale for
local neighborhoods, and may be the only method by which local park
deficiencies in Western Chula Vista can be remedied without significant
condemnation of existing development.
OTHER AREAS REVIEWED BY GMOC
Visual Blil!ht
The GMOC considered whether a threshold standard dealing with visual blight should be added
to the Growth Management Program. The City often seems to be fighting a losing battle in
dealing with zoning and health and safety code violations which degrade the visual quality of the
city, whether they be in residential neighborhoods or business districts. While the GMOC
ultimately decided that formulating and quantifying such a threshold would be too difficult, the
City Council should look closely at the amount of staff resources available for code enforcement
in Chula Vista, and strongly consider beefing up the existing staff, which does a flOe job given
the amount of ground they are required to cover.
Housine
The GMOC also considered whether to establish a threshold addressing the provision of
affordable housing. This matter was forwarded to the GMOC as a result of an implementation
measure developed by the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Housing Element Committee, and included in
the City's 1991 Housing Element Update adopted in March 1992. The measure, which called
for the GMOC's consideration of establishing such a threshold, was viewed as one component
of an overall program to ensure the successful implementation of housing policies and programs
by monitoring the affordability levels of new construction. The ability of persons of all income
. levels to fmd suitable housing opportunities within Chula Vista was seen as an important quality-
of-life issue by the Blue Ribbon Committee, especially as market housing prices continue to
increase at a much higher rate than income growth. Housing affordability is also a component
of SANDAG's Regional Growth Management Strategy adopted in February 1992.
While the GMOC concurred that housing affordability was an important quality-of-life concern,
they questioned whether the GMOC needed to be directly involved with this issue in light of the
City's Housing Advisory Committee (HAC) which is charged with conducting periodic reviews
of Housing Element implementation, including new construction affordability. Given that the
work of the HAC may already adequately address the issue, it was agreed that establishment of
such a threshold be postponed at least until next year's review, to allow for the HAC to perform
its work and thereby determine if the GMOC's involvement is necessary.
19
J!c /)(
l3 _..2. t
~
~
~
"::::---
....
,
~ --~.-
1991
THRESHOLD-ANNUAL REVIEW SUMMARY
STATEMENT OF
CONCERN TO
RESPONSIBLE ADOPT AND
AGENCY TO FUND TACTICS THRESHOlD
THRESHOLD ACHIEVE TO ACHIEVE CHANGE
ISSUE COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE RECOMMENDED
MET
1. Pofice i:f' ..... .......}...
Ii.>....}
2. Water
a. Sweetwater Authorlly ./ .
-..
b. OIay Water D1stllct ./.
3. Schools
a. Chula Vista Elementary School ........ .....1)/
b. Sweetwater High Schooi ../. ................... ...
4. Air Cluality . .........Ii }}}
5. Fire & Emergency Medeal SelYlces . .... ./ ....
6. Ubralles I < ./
7. Sewer ....
I. ...../ . ...... ..
8. Drainage I> .I .........
9. Fiscal I..... ......................,......... ...... .....
10. Tralflc /..<..1. .....
11. Parlls & Recreation .. .............. .....>>........ ........, )}}>. ...
...........} ., ..<....
~~
,
...,
.."
",>
ATTACHMENT C
DRAFT REVISED PARKS AND RECREATION THRESHOLD
GOAL:
To provide a diverse and flexible park system which meets both the
active and passive recreational needs of the citizens of Chula
vista.
OBJECTIVE:
Provide public park and recreational opportunities in a timely
manner, implemeRtiR~ a five yeaF masteF in accordance with a lonq-
term imolementation plan which describes the location, facility
improvements, and funding program~ for proposed neighborhood and
community parks.
THRESHOLD STANDARD:
re~Hlatien ra~iel three (3) aeres af Rci~hBOrfteea aRa eemmHAity
p:lrJtlana vit.h appra19riat.e faeilitics sholl Sf: previaca I3cr leG
resiaeRta caot of I 80S.
11 East of 1-805: three (31 net usable acres of neiqhborhood and
communitv oarkland with aoorooriate facilities shall be
orovided oer 1000 residents.
II
West
&
of 1-805:
three (31 net usable acres of neiqhborhood and community
oarkland with aoorooriate facilities shall be orovided
oer 1000 residents. for all new develooment occurinq
after the effective date of this amendment. PaYment of
an equivalent Dark fee shall be considered an acceotable
ootion to in-oro;ect oarkland dedication.
!1.l the city shall adoot a lonq-ranqe olan to orovide
additional Dark facilities in the area west of 1-805 to
meet the needs of existinq residents. with a qoal of
meetinq the standard of 3 acres oer 1000 residents on a
citYWide basis within 20 vears. Imolementation of this
olan should be funded bv sources other than develooment
fees. Consideration of a Dark equivalencv factor may be
qiven to school facilities and active recreational
facilities such as oools. qYmnasiums and community
centers in imolementinq this lonq-ranqe olano
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
Should the GMOC determine that the Threshold Standard is not being
satisfied with resoect to new develooment east of 1-805. and west
of 1-805 after (datel, then the City Council shall formally adopt
and fund taeties actions to bring the park and recreation system
into conformance. Construction or other actual solution shall be
/ t -(j
{! - I
.
scheduled to commence within three years.
If construction of needed new park and recreation facilities is not
started within three years of the deficiency reported by the GMOC,
than the City Council shall, within 60 days of the GMOC's report,
schedule and hold a public hearing for the purpose of adopting a
moratorium on the acceptance of new tentative map applications,
based on the all of the following criteria:
1. That the moratorium is limited to an area wherein a
casual relationship to the problem has been established;
and,
2. That the moratorium provides a mitigation measure to a
specifically identified impact.
Should a moratorium be established, the time shall be used to
expeditiously prepare specific mitigation measures for adoption
which are intended to bring the condition into conformance. Any
such moratorium shall be in effect until construction of the needed
new park and recreation facilities has commenced.
With resoect to the lona-ranae imolementation clan to meet the Dark
and recreation needs of existina residents west of 1-805. annual
oroaress reoorts on the olan's develooment and imolementation shall
be orovided to the Parks and Recreation Commission and City
Council.
/b/tj,)
r:.J..
ATIACHMENT D
/t"t-(]
APPENDIX A
POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
/ t ~-t(y
..1'-1
MEMORANDUM
DAm
.
.
May 7, 1992
TO
.
.
Growth MaNlgement Oversighl Committee
Richard P. Emerson, Chief of Police tJL.
FROM
.
.
SUBJEcr
.
.
Police Depart11lent Response Statistics for CAlentUJr .Year 1991
During calendar year 1991 the Police Department responded to 67,421 calls for service (CFS).
This represents an increase of 5,025 CFS over 1990 and translates into a growth rate in CFS
volume of 8.1 % for the year ended December 31, 1991.
The Police Department is responsible for reporting two "Threshold Measures" of response time.
data to the GMOC. Each of these Threshold Measures includes two statistics: proportion of
CFS responded to within seven 7 minutes, and, average response time. The first threshold
measure is: 85 % of all Priority I calls (life or property in imminent danger) are responded to
within 7 minutes with an average response time of 4 minutes and 30 seconds. The second
threshold measure is that 62 % of all Priority n calls are responded to within seven minutes with
an average response time of 7 minutes. During 1991 82.5% of Priority I CFS were responded
to within 7 minutes with.an average response time of 4 minutes and 45 seconds, and, 67.1 % of
all Priority n CFS were responded to within 7 minutes with an average response time of 6
minutes and 31 seconds. Therefore, while the Police Department achieved the Threshold goal
for Priority n CFS, it did not meet the Threshold for Priority I CFS. The remainder of this
report will describe the factors I believe contributed to this phenomenon and steps the
department is taking to mitigate their negative impact upon our response statistics.
While the department did not meet the Threshold Measure for Priority I CFS, we were very
close. In absolute terms, the department was within 1.5% of meeting the measure. This means
that had we responded to only one more Priority I CFS per day within the 7 minute time frame,
the measure would have been met. This was accomplished despite:
1) the noted increase in total CFS volume;
2) an effort to encourage citizens to report criminal activity; and,
3) no increase in Patrol staffmg for the year.
Also, over the last twelve months staff has been developing a proposal to change the existing
Police Beat structure to more closely resemble the CFS volume pattern. In essence this means
using more natural beat boundaries (i.e. geographic features and arterial thoroughfares). This
results in an additional beat east of I-80S.
C11lJU VISTA POUCE DEI'AR1JlEN1'; t /'(3
7/-:J-
Finally, perhaps the most influential factor conbibuting to unfavorable response statistics is that
the department operated with a 5% to 6% vacancy rate in the sworn ranks throughout the year.
The department has made recruitment a top priority and has changed its approach to the
recruitment process. We will be more creative in our methods of both who we target and how
we go about attracting those persons. As a result of the annual budget process, I have made the
necessary administrative 8JTllJ1gements to operate at a near zero vacancy rate once we have a full
compliment of 152 sworn personnel. This will be accomp1i~ed during the summer of 1992.
I look forward to working with the GMOC in the future and am available to answer any
questions you may have in regards to this report or other growth related issues.
C11CJU VISTA POUCE DEPAJmfENT / h - t/ jp
])_3'
APPENDIX B
WATER DISTRICT COMMUNICATIONS
J h- i 7
",
j' - t.f '
- .
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
505 GARRETT AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 2328
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA ""2.2328
(6'91 42~'4'3
FAX (619) 425-7469
April 28, 1992
OOYI"'NING ao-"'D
auE "'''''ETT. CMAI"MAN
aut> I'OCKLINGTOI<, VICE C><AI....N
WAYNE W. SMITH
IOWIN J. STilLE
GEDf'GE H. WATERS
MAJIlGAMT A. WlL.SH
CAfIlY F. WRIGHT
WANt)A AYE'"
1"IIlIAS'-"'EfII
IMAN ,J. MlWS
~ IECQTAJIIY-AC)M1NISTM,TIVI AIDE
Mr. Robert A. Leiter, Planning Director
City of Chula Vista '
'76 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attention: Ed Bat<:helcler
Dear Mr. Leiter:
Your staff has informed me that the City of Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight
Commission is conducting its annual citywide threshold review leading to the preparation
of its annual report to the City Council. The following are the stafl's co=ents regarding
the ability of the Sweetwater Authority to provide adequate supplies of water to the City
of Chula Vista during the next 12 to 15 months.
With the improvement in the statewide water supply situation from that experienced in
1991, Sweetwater Authority has established a 10 percent voluntary conservation goal for
1992. Water supplies available from the San Diego County Water Authority aqueduct
system are sufficient for the Authority's projected water demands for the remaining eight
months of the calendar year, and Sweetwater Authority has approximately 34,000 acre
feet of water in storage in Loveland and Sweetwater Reservoirs at this time. The
expected water delivery to consumers for 1992-93 is 22,000 acre feet for the 12-month
period. In addition, Sweetwater Authority plans to purchase imported water for storage
in Sweetwater Reservoir during the months of October, November and December 1992, so
as to assure adequate reserves for the summer of 1993.
The San Diego County Water Authority and Metropolitan Water District continue their
efforts to improve the reliability of the region's water supply system and its ability to
weather a repeat of the 1991 drought situation. Metropolitan Water District has acquired
a large reservoir site in the Domenigoni Valley in Riverside County for the construction of
a reservoir to store excess water during periods of plentiful supply to provide for drought
and other emergencies, such as earthquakes. Funding for the construction of the
reservoir is now in process with construction to follow, probably commencing in 1995. The
San Diego County Water Authority is also nearing completion of a study of possible
reservoir sites for the construction of a large storage reservoir in North San Diego County
to provide an emergency supply for the region. Construction of the second pipeline to
serve the South Bay is under way and should be complete in 1994, providing the
redundancy necessary to minimize interruptions of water supply to Otay Water District
and Sweetwater Authority as a result of planned or unplanned shutdowns of one supply
pipeline.
) t -tj;(
A Public Agency,
,.._ . ~ .,_~~_ _I ,...... ""...1_ 1?:.~_ _u~ "'__ o....I.'u_ .41..._.
]/_5
.
Mr. Robert A. Leiter, Planning Director
City of Chula Vista
Page 2
Partly as a result of the establishment of the Chula Vista Interagency Water Task Force,
Sweetwater Authority and Otay Water District continue to coordinate their water supply
and service activities in Chula Vista. The two agencies have established "i....l1.... water
conservation requirements for consumers and have recently signed an agreement to
provide for joint water supply facilities in the vicinity of Proctor Valley Road which will
result in improved water service to Otay customers and a future second connection to the
aqueduct system for Sweetwater Authority's customers. Discussions with Otay Water
District regarding emergency use of Sweetwater Reservoir storage to meet Otay Water
District's need for additional emerrency storage continue.
During the 1991 drought, Sweetwater Authority employed five people temporarily
assigned to the water conservation effort, primarily in performing field audits and
providing conservation information to customers. Nearly a dozen different water
conservation flyers and leaflets were distributed to all the water users and water
conservation seminars were conducted monthly. For 1992.93, the Governing Board has
approved a continuing effort in water conservation and has provided for two employees to
be assigned to water conservation on a full-time basis, conducting field audits, Xeriscape
garden and water conservation seminars, making presentations to schools and civic
groups, etc.
The staff continues to work closely with the staff of the City of Chula Vista as plans for
development of the bayfront continue to evolve. Adequate arrangements were made to
meet the water service needs of the new Rohr Corporate Headquarters building in the
bayfront area during 1992.
If you require additional information regarding our ability to meet the projected water
needs of the city of Chula Vista, please contact me.
Sincerely,
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
. ~<<M.,~'~~
6~ Ll Butterfield
General Manager
GLB:mff
/&'Jj~
V-I;
..:::[)Cclicofccl to COlltlltunil~ ~C\liCr
J:f€C~IVEQ
10515 .JAMACHA 8OUL.E""'RD. SPRING ~. CALIFORNIA .,177
TELEPHONE_ &m.2222, AREA CODE en'
<:q;.
PUi!V'iV1.J
d G
April 2, 1992
Mr. Ed Batchelder
Growth Management OVersight Commission (GMOC)
city of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 92010
Subject: 1991 Threshold Standards review and Comment
Dear Mr. Batchelder,
We have reviewed the City's 12-18 month and 5-7 year
development forecasts, and offer the following comments:
The 12-18 month forecast of 1732 units appears
significantly higher than what will actually occur.
During the first 9 months of the review period, otay
Water District has added only 300 meters to our
entire system. We estimate that approximately two-
thirds, or 200 of those were in Chula Vista. Even
if the number of finished units significantly
increases over the next 9 months, your projection
appears to be more than twice what will occur.
The 1250-1750 units per year for the next five to
seven years also appears to be somewhat high. We
would expect unit counts in the 800-1000 per year
range based on historical averages.
Accomplishments During the Past Year:
From a regional perspective, the County Water Authority
(CWA) is progressing on the construction of Pipeline 4
which will increase treated water delivery capacity to
Otay. With the completion of that pipeline by the summer
of 1994, CWA will have sufficient delivery capacity to
meet otay's needs through the turn of the century. Otay
is also proceeding with design (75' complete) and
construction of a 30 million gallon terminal reservoir
adjacent to EastLake Parkway. This reservoir when
completed in 1994, will help the District meet our five
day covered storage goal.
J6'~O
p- ?
Mr. Edward Batchelder
City of Chula Vista
April 2, 1992
Page -2-
Our long term goal is to be able to sustain a 10 day
supply shutdown by the CWA. We propose to accomplish
that goal by having 5 days of covered storage and
negotiating agreements with other agencies for an
additional 5 days supply during emergency conditions.
However, if we are unable to negotiate these'agreements,
10 days of covered storage will be required. The five
days of covered storage is felt to be a prudent amount to
allow sufficient time for others to respond to the
emergency. For instance, if we only had 3 days of
storage in covered tanks and 7 days through an agreement
with the City of San Diego at Lower Otay, the same
emergency that impacted our normal CWA supply could also
impact Lower Otay. In that case there would be only
three days available to execute repairs and bring that
facility back on line. By providing five days in many
covered storage tanks, the likelihood of the emergency
impacting all the tanks is extremely low. Five days
gives everyone a little more time to respond and get
facilities back in working order.
In addition to designing the 30 MG EastLake Parkway
terminal reservoir, this past year we purchased 57 acres
from the Baldwin Company. This site is adequate for
another 90 MG of terminal storage which we plan to use to
help meet our 5 day covered terminal storage need of 152
MG in our central/southern service area.
We are also working with Chula Vista staff to locate
terminal and operational storage reservoirs that both
meet the needs of the District while minimizing negative
impact on the City'S land use planning. Once identified,
these potential reservoir sites will be shown in the
City'S General Plan. By following this mutual planning
strategy, sites for future new facilities should be
reserved.
Funding for future facilities is provided through
arrangements with developers. The Triad group (Eastlake,
Rancho del Rey, and Rancho del Sur) have formed an
improvement district with sufficient general Obligation
bond authorization to construct the regional facilities
required for their developments. Otay Ranch will need to
make arrangements with the District for financing of the
regional facilities needed for their project.
) & if I
t.' -.R
APPENDIX C
SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMUNICATIONS
AND STATE SCHOOL FUNDING PRIORITY CRITERIA
Jjp ~5.2
])- q
Mr. Edward Batchelder
City of Chula Vista
April 2, 1992
Page -2-
OVer the past year representatives from Otay, Sweetwater
and Chula Vista have been meeting each month as the Chula
Vista Interagency Task Force. In addition to ongoing
discussion of the impacts of the drought, the following
subjects were discussed:
o Desalination projects in Baja and South Bay
o Pending legislation affecting water
o city's Water Conservation Offset pOlicy
o Met with Assemblyman Peace and Mr. Attisha of
Senator Deddeh's office regarding State water
issues
o Sewer billing services provided by both water
agencies to City
o otay's need for 5 days covered storage
o Xeriscape demonstration garden at CUyamaca College
In an effort to provide more information to our customers
in a manner that is easily understandable, the attached
newsletters and communiques were distributed.
I hope this information proves helpful in your review of
City growth and Thresholds Standards performance. If I
can be of any further assistance or if you have any
questions please feel free to contact me.
s~/~~~
Xeith Lewinger
General Manager
attachments
/iP5]
D-/I
,
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Planning Departaent
MEMORAJlDUM
~Jl
.
..
DATE:
October 22, 1991
FROM:
Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Commission
Chula vista Elementary School District
SCHOOL 'l'HRESHOLD REPORT - JmSPOHSB 'J'O CITY'S 12 - 18
MONTH GROWTH FORECAST
TO:
RE:
District ReSDOnse to GMOC
1991 state.ent of Concerns
GHOC CONCERNS .. b and c:
.overcrowding of ~e schools is continuing, and in Ule area
west of 1-805 is getting worse.
~e ability of the District to finance construction of new
schools and rehabilitation of existing schools in ~e
developed areas west of 1-805 is continually getting worse,
and the State is not providing adequate funding for school
facilities.
~e conversion of existing single family neighborhoods to
.ulti-faaily use has contributed to overcrowding of schools
in the northwest part of the city. This should be carefully
addressed as part of ~e i.plaentation of the General Plan
and Aaen~ents that relate to rezonings.-
These three. concerns still exist, and enrollments in western
Chula vista continue to increase. Last year the District's
report to the GHOC discussed contributors to this growth in
student enrollment which included non-residential development
(creation of new jobs in addition to new development), central
Chula Vista rezoning, and redevelopment. These, along with
changing population trends and recycling neighborhoods, continue
to be the major factors contributing to overcrowding of western
area schools. The District has actively sought full mitigation
for impacts these activities have on school facilities, with
limited success. A summary of District actions is included later
in this report.
The 1990 censuJ provided data which will significantlY affect
~chool enrollments over the next 5 - 10 years.. There were 40\
Jore preschoolers (ages 0 - 4 years) in California in 1990 than
in 1980, with San Diego County showing an increase of 51\.
) Ie "-Sif
j)J3
,
.
Based on this data, we can expect continued growth in
kindergarten enrollments over the next five years. As these
children move up, enrollments for other grades will increase,
resulting in much larger school populations. It is ~easonable to
expect a large number of these children will enroll in western
area schools, since this area provides some of the most
affordable housing in the District.
As of October 17, 1991, 315 children throughout the District were
being overflow bused to other schools. Of that number, 156, or
50\, are from four schools (79 Harborside, 40 Lauderbach, 23
Vista Square and 14 . Mueller). This doesn't consider that
approximately 125 children from Feaster and Rosebank were
voluntarily assigned to Clear View School and are being bused.
Adding these 125 children to the total for the four .schools
mentioned above results in 381 children, 64\ of the total number
bused, from six schools who cannot be accommodated at their home
schools. With the opening of Clear View this September, the
District added capacity for approximately 580 children1 however,
growth in the Clear view attendance area indicates that this
school will not be able to accommodate these students in the
future.
Resnonse ~ CMOC Reco..enda~ions
GMOC Reco...ndation 1:
.
COnsider the feasibility of school expansion at sites with
adequate land area to acco.-odate such expansion.
An obvious candidate site for expansion is Feaster School. There
is a 4 acre vacant parcel .for sale adjacent to the school on
which the city's development approval has expired. District and
City officials and staff are meeting on a regular basis to
discuss various issues including the District's acquisition of
this property. The acquisition would require financing, which,
at the present time, only appears available through mitigation
funds from the Midbayfront project. The only other District site
in western Chula Vista that is of a size sufficient for expansion
is Rice School. Again, financing isn't available.
GMOC Reco.aendation 2:
Maxiaize to the extent possible, the use of school racilities
through aul~i-track SCheduling and other innovative aethods.
Last year eight schools were involved in growth planning studies
and prepared growth plans. This year an additional eight schools
will be studied. The issue of multi-track was analyzed as one
method to accommodate growth, with significant opposition
expressed by parents and staff members. The District will
continue to evaluate multi-track programs. ,
. //
) /; /j;.7
v-I'-\
-2-
,
.
GIIOC Jt~ ......ndation 3:
IIork to cbange state la. to lover the requirecl 'lPOte on lICbool
construction bonds to . .iJlple _jority.
several bills proposing to lower the voting requirement for
school bonds were introduced in the legislature last year as
well as this year. The District has consistently supported
lowering the voting requirement to a simple majority. If this
legislation is passed, and subsequently approved by the voters,
the District would seriously consider a General Obligation Bond
election.
GIIOC'" ...'Mlation 4:
Evaluate ..thods to qualify students housed In relocatable
classl.....as es counting toward Ule overcrowded condition by
Ule state.
This reconnendation refers to the fact that students housed in
District-owned relocatables, even though a relocatable classroon
is ntemporary housing", are not considered .unhousedn by state
funding eligibility standards. If the relocatables were leased,
as opposed to owned, these students would be considered unhoused
by the state and the District's eligibility for state funding
would be increased. There is little likelihood of Changing this
lquirement. Instead of leasing our relocatables, the District
~nose to purchase them, acquiring capital assets instead of
spending considerable ~oney over the years for rent. However,
this financially prudent decision has negative effects on
eligibility under the state progran. The whole question of
state funding appears ~oot at this time: the backlog of unfunded
eligible projects far exceeds projected available funding.
RESPONSE TO CITY'S 12 - 18 1I0NTH FORECAST
ProiArls vi't..bln ~e RvlM!bmt:er Aut:hDrl~v Dist:rlct
B8ckaround
Last year the District identified eight schools in the
Sweetwater Authority District within whose attendance areas the
projected 451 new units were proposed. It was stated that the
opening of Clear view School and the concurrent construction
slowdown woul~, combined with overflow busing, enable the
District to accommodate projected growth.
12 - 18 Mon~h Proi@o~ions
This year the city estimates that, within the sweetwater area,
442 units will be finaled, including a 75 unit seniors project
hich will have no impact on the District. This ts the high end
torecast: no project-specific table was prepared for the low
-3- 1& "S-~
/'
]7- IJ
,
,
,
.
estiaate, so the analysis will be based on the high end.
Utilizing the District-wide student generation rate of .3
students/dwelling unit, 110 new children can be anticipated from
projected development at the schools identified in Table 1. An
exception to this formula is the County of San Diego's 22 unit
low income multi-family project on Dorothy Street. Based on the
County'. eligibility rules for occupancy in this subsidized
housing, County staff estimates up to 55.
~ABLB 1
.
Scbool Enroll.ent Projections - Hew Developaent
Rr!hool .0.. Dnibr .... ftudent:B
Allen 14 4
Clear View 7 2
Feaster 48 14
Harborside 22 55
Lauderbach 45 14
Montgomery/Otay 55 16
Rice 10 3
Rosebank 30 9
Vista Square 33 10
Misc. Other l.lU -ll
TOTALS 367 158
Additional children projected from new growth will further
exacerbate the overcrowded situation in western Chula Vista.
Lauderbach and Harborside are two extremely impacted schools.
821 children attend Lauderbach, with 40 being overflow bused,
and 771 attend Harborside with 79 being overflow bused. Of the
schools listed above, only Rice and Allen can accommodate
additional children.
As stated ~reviously, assigning 125 children from Feaster and
Rosebank to Clear View School provided capacity at those two
schools to house Dost of their neighborhood children. However,
at this time, a few children from both schools are being
overflow bused. If, as is anticipated, growth in the Clear View
area necessitates returning some or all of these children to
their neighborhood schools next year, significant overflow
busing District-wide will be required as these schools cannot
accommodate mor, children.
DiB~ri~t ReSDonse
While DOst schools west of I-80S
capacity, some space does exist in
grade levels. Exhibit 1, Current
Projections, provides individual school
are operating at or above
certain schools at various
Capacity, fnrollments and
data.
-4-
J~ -57
y_ 1&
,
.
In order to maximize classroom facilities usage, in addition to
using to schools with capacity, any remaining non-essential
~ses being conducted in regular classrooms will bave to be
discontinued or, if feasible, moved to smaller areas. Examples
of these changes include dismantling of computer labs, moving
Resource ~eachers into storage rooms, etc. Even so, most
schools have already taken this step. ~he District will also
review growth plans developed last year, es well as develop
plans for eight additional schools, with consideration given to
multi-track or other possibilities which could increase
capacity. ~hese changes, combined with reconfiguration of
classes (i.e., combination classes, pairing schools, etc.),
absent significant internal neighborhood growth, should enable
the District to accommodate growth next year.
Proiects Within the otav Water District
Backaround
~he District has five Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts
in place, four of which are project-specific and in Chula
Vista's Eastern ~erritories, the area served by the otay Water
District. ~he fifth is a generic district and includes projects
throughout the district. As new large projects are proposed,
new CFD's will be formed to finance needed elementary
facilities. The District is presently working with (1)
~velopers of Salt Creek Ranch on a new CFD for that project
~nich would also serve the 550 unit Salt Creek I project: (2)
developers of Rancho San Miguel: (3) developers of otay Ranch:
(4) developers on otay Mesa (city of San Diego): and (5)
miscellaneous smaller projects for annexation into CFD No.5.
12 - 18 Month Pro;ections
City projections for this area over the next 12 - 18 months
indicate a total of 1732 new units. A large portion of these
are in EastLake Greens and Rancho del Rey, 704 and 509,
respectively. ~he remaining 519 units are in the attendance
areas of the following schools:
Clear View
Chula vista Hills
Eastlake
Tiffany
Palomar
Allen
Misc. Unknown
228 units
53
129
81
13
3
12
,
.
-5-
/ (p .~~!'
TJ -/1
~
,
.
Distriot Resnonse
With the opening of Clear View School in September, 1991, and
the adjustment of attendance boundaries for adjacent schools,
capacity became available at Allen School. In addition, some
capacity exists at Tiffany, Chula Vista Hills, sunnyside, Valley
Vista and Palomar. Our next school, which will be located in
Rancho del Rey, is scheduled to open in July, 1993, probably on
a year-round schedule and/or multi-track prbgram. The
development projected for EastLake and Rancho del Rey is
optimistic according to the developers. Should it materialize
prior to completion of .the new Bchool, a combination of overflow
busing, classroom reconfiguration, and possible use of
additional relocatable classrooms will be implemented. It is
likely that the new school planned for EastLake Greens will be
needed by 1994.
Distri~ ~Ivi~l.s
Last year the District reported various activities used to plan
proactively for growth. Among these were: (1) the semi-annual
Development Activity Report, which tracks proposed and approved.
projects in individual school attendance areas and estimates
development phasing and number of new students (Exhibit 2)1 (2)
school growth planning studies as previously discussed1 (3)
boundary/attendance area adjustments: (4) residency
verification: (5) requests for City assistance1 and (6) District
response to notices of proposed development. All these methods
are being utilized on an ongoing basis. In addition, a
subcommittee consisting of representatives of the Board of
Education and City Council and staff from both agencies has been
meeting on a regular basis to discuss issues of mutual
interest. Three meetings have been held to date, with a fourth
scheduled in November. These meetings are intended to foster
cooperation and coordination between both agencies for mutual
benefit.
The District is also pursuing obtaining participation by smaller
non-contiguous projects in CFD No.5. Absent a legislative act
by the City or County, this participation is voluntary. We do
notify all project proponents of this option in lieu of
developer fees, and have had at least two voluntary annexations
and additional interest has been expressed. To date,
annexations to CFD No. 5 include 263 units east of I-80S,
including one .project in National City, and 119 units west of
I-B05. Other annexations are in progress including a large
multi-family project in National City and a small subdivision in
the County. Funds generated by CFD No. 5 will be used
throughout the District to assist in housing children generated
by these smaller projects.
Information as to
school facilities
. Funding, Developer
District activities
was also provided.
Fees, Redevelopment
relative to financing
The ite.. cited, State
Revenues, and Community
Jt-~I
~
_I~
P
-6-
,
.
Facilities Districts, are all being pursued. However, given the
qhortfall of state money and the huge unmet need, it is highly
~likely that we will receive any assistance ~rom the state. We
do have 14 eligible modernization projects on file for schools
over 30 years old. According to State staff, should a bond
measure be passed in November, 1992, funding may be available.
We intend to continue to pursue State funding.
citv Activities
Last year the District reported to the GMDC on several issues
before the City that,' if approved, would have significant
impacts on school facilities. Primary among these was the
Central Chula Vista Zoning consistency study. Five areas were
proposed for amendment/rezoning, all of which are in
western/central Chula vista, our most impacted area. The
District is extremely concerned that these actions will result
in additional children who cannot be accommodated in area
schools, and that the City, by initiating these
amendments/rezonings will prevent the District from assessing
full mitigation for future projects in these rezoned areas.
The first of the five study areas, Area 8-1, was approved
earlier this year, without inclusion of District
recommendations. The number of additional children who could
result from implementation of this action ranges from 60 - 134.
These estimates are not included in the City's 12 - 18 month
'ojections, and cannot be accommodated in existing facilities.
~ollowing that approval, the District was assured that the
remaining four areas would be processed as one project.
Segmenting a larger project into smaller components makes it
difficult to assess the cumulative impacts of these smaller
actions and is not permitted under the California Environmental
Quality Act. However, at the request of a landowner, processing
of the second area, B3A, has commenced. Since this is one of
the issues being discussed by the School Board/Council
subcommittee. and we are awaiting an opinion from the city
Attorney, a continuance was requested. written comments were
submitted and District staff testified at the commission
hearing. Along with the continuance, we requested inclusion of
conditions that would allow us to obtain the mitigation allowed
by law. However, the Planning Commission supported staff's
recommendation for approval. we have been assured the council
will not act on this proposal until legal review is completed
and the subcommittee has had an opportunity to discuss the
issue. Copies 'of pertinent correspondence are attached (Exhibit
3).
Given the City'S 1989 and 1990 statements of Concern to the
District relative to overcrowding in western Chula vista, any
action by the city which increases development potential in this
-rea without providing adequate mitigation for sc~ool impacts is
Iconsistent. There are three remaining study areas which will
De considered for amendment and rezoning. We again request that
in considering these actions, the city (1) review the three
-7-
)b~JO
)~
.
,
areas as one project so cumulative impacts can be analyzed: (2)
include a condition to be applied to all subsequent development
proposals for these rezoned areas which requires compliance with
school district facility mitigation recommendations: or (3)
process rezonings and general plan amendments on a
project-by-project basis, at the time development is proposed
and a legislative act is required. ~his last option would allow
the District to obtain full reimbursement for school impacts as
provided by law.
ea..ents
1. As stated for the last two years, the large number of
-miscellaneous" units, 103 within the Sweetwater Authority
area, absent specific locations, makes it impossible to
project individual school enrollments and/or plan for
anticipated growth. ~hese projects need .to be broken out or
at least listed by address.
2. In terms of the Central Chula Vista Consistency study, the
law does not differentiate between publicly and privately
initiated legislative acts in determining that such acts
permit full reimbursement for impacts on schools. ~he city
is initiating these amendments which permit significantly
more units than allowed by the Plan, and more than currently
exist. In this area, absent full mitigation, &A&h
additional house and each additional child create an
unmitiaatable imoact on school facilities. ~he City has
repeatedly stated the desire to assist the District in
mitigating impacts to the extent permitted by law. Here is
that opportunity. He request that District recommendations
for the remaining study a~eas be incorporated and/or another
mechanism be developed which assures that the District can
take advantage of the only currently existing legal
mechanism which enables us to obtain full mitigation.
.
4/GHOC-1991
.
,
-8-
/ h/(P I
y-;)o,
.
EXHIBIT 1
CURRENT CAPACITY. BMROTU'1nf1'S. 1991-'2 PROJBC'1'IOHS
Current capacity (permanent and temporary @ 30 students/clsrm.),
current enrollments (as of 10/4/91), peak School Year 1990-91
enrollments, and projected 1991-92 enrollment data for Chula Vista
Elementary School District schools are presented below.
1990-1991
capacity
Perm.. TemD.
1991
CUrrent Peak
Enrollmt Znrol1mt
1991-1992
Projected
Enrollmt
School
Enrollment
Allen/AD
castle Park
Chula vista Hills
Clear view
Cook
Eastlake
Feaster
Finney
Halecrest
Harborside
Hilltop
Juarez-Lincoln
vellogg
~uderbach
Loma Verde
Los Altos
Montgomery
Mueller (5 Trk)
otay
Palomar
parkview
Rice
Rogers/Center
Rohr
Rosebank
silver Wing
S-West Satellite
Sunnyside
Tiffany
Valle Lindo
Valley Vista
vista Square
'1'OTALS
594
564
612
522
522
642
540
474
552
504
552
642
444
630
510
522
402
619
660
474
564
720
478
504
552
552
540
552
582
432
520
16..977
120 400 650
517 533
549 563
553
498 504
619 545
180 701 740
180 623 657
60 607 613
210 701 724
495 536
30 616 648
448 453
180 821 779
60 550 551
529 510
30 427 448
650 615
619 653
460 483
491 522
717 715
150 526 562
538 495
90 600 640
150 615 635
90 90 90
210 720 737
180 727 715
516 544
180 615 619
60 575 5~6
466
530
588
300
499
696
811
592
613
755
533
630
451
827
542
502
446
615
675
491
521
735.
556
484
634
682
90
753
751
544
655
57.
2.160 1&.113 19.016
18.541
,
/ & /td.-
]J-J./
])- J. L
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 30, 1992
TO: City ofChula Vista
Growth Management Oversight Commission
FROM: Thomas Silva
Assistant Director ofPIAnn;ng
BE: School Threshold Report .
Response To The City Of Chula Vista'. Growth Forecast
.
It is with great pleasure that the Sweetwater Union High School District
provides this report to the Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight
Commission. The district is grateful to the city in its continuing efforts to
provide realistic growth projections which will allow for the district's
comprehensive plAnning of future schools. This report is outlined as follows:
Part I) Address the projections provided by staffin accordance
with the growth management standards. Specifically, this
includes the following:
1) Amount of capacity now used or committed.
;2) Ability to absorb forecast growth in affected facilities.
3) Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected
new facilities.
4) Other relevant information:
a) Status ofEastlake High School
b) TwinportslOtay Mesa
c) Otay Ranch
d) Unification
Part n) Address the prior statement of concern adopted by the city
council.
It -t3
))_).3
.
.
Growth Management Oversight Commission
March 3D, 1992
Page 2
Pari I
Cur71!nt StatWl n'thl! Distrit!t's Faciliti2R
The Sweetwater Union High School District encompasses a 156 square mil!!
area and comprises the cities ofChula Vista, National City, Imperial Beach,
portions of the County and portions of South San Diego City. The district, in
the 1991/1992 school year, had reported and enrollment of 28,306 students.
These students are housed in eight high schools, nine junior high schools and
three specialty schools. Four of the high schools and four of the junior
high/middle schools are located in Chula Vista, and a total of 13,653
students, or 48% of the district's total enrollment, attended these schools.
Table I identifies the district's day schools and illustrates the California
Basic Education Data Systems (CBEDS) enrollment as of October 16, 1991.
This enrollment was reported to the State Department of Education, and it
establishes a benchmark for the 1991/92 school year. In the 1991/92 school
year, total enrollment was up 1.5% over the previous year. Table n
illustrates the growth trend for the past years. As can be seen, there was a
decrease in enrollment at the junior high school level of approximately
0.86%. However, there was a significant gain in enrollment at the high
school grade levels; approximately 3.7%, or 566 students.
Figure I is derived from Table n; it illustrates the district's permanent
capacity in relation to the changing enrollment. The white column identifies
capacity while. the others illustrate enrollment. In terms of permanent
capacity, the district is overcrowded by 5,478 students. The district has
compensated by adding trailers and relocatable classrooms to various schools.
Figure n illustrates the CBEDS enrollment when compared with "total"
capacity, that is, the capacity provided by relocatables and trailers is added
to permanent capacity. As is shown, the amount of overcrowding shown in
Figure 2 is reduced by 3,990 students. Unfortunately, the district must still
struggle to house 1,488 students. To date, eleven new classrooms have been
added to Montgomery High School and Montgomery Junior High School.
However, six of the eight classrooms at the high school serve reiular day
.chool students, and all the classrooms at the junior high school serve special
education students.
j& /tzf
0- ;Ilf
TABLE I
IlWEETWATEIl UNION HIGH SCHOOLllISTFICT
'.11111ll2 CBEDS EN~NT
alT. '.. '.1
SCHOOl. . .
BVH 120 "12 11132 .'10
CPH I~ 1568 1108 0121
CVH ao 1356 1136 403
HHS 120 1388 1508 .'30
t.Mi I~ 1300 1540 ~12
MoHr a:l 1270 1750 ..7
SoHI 780 121. ,.. ..
&JHi 300 1858 ll258 -1"
SUll'TOTAL 0 2760 11_ M626 .-ee
r!VJ 110 12801 1~ ~
CPM 1456 1456 176
CVJHS 360 1070 14130 -3ol5
GJS 1096 1096 ~
HJS 120 1386 1506 -187
MVM '2~ 12~ 120
MOJR 167. 167. 251
NCM 60 822 882 123
~JR 360 lIS 1188 ~
SUBTOTAL 360 750 10962 12072 -7.e
PALOMAR HIGH
SPECIAl. EO
SAC 120 120 .127
SUBTOTAL 120 0 120
. UNHOUSED STUDENTS: PERt.ENANf CN'AcrrY WlS THE CIlEDS EIRll..UENT
SAB7.WQl
/
J b -&-->
y-;< ~
SCKXlL
BVH
CPH
CVIl
HH
MVH
M:lH1
SoH!
QlHi
SUBTOTAl.
FNJ
CPM
CVJHS
GJS
>US
IMM
r.oJR
NCM
SOYIJR
SUBTOTAl.
PALOMAR HIGH
SPECIAl. EO
Sl.C
SUBTOTAl.
.. .. .. ":~,~::-"::,:,~:,,:~:,,,,,:.,,:::::~:::~::~:~:,. . ::"':w:':;::::t
.
.
GM0C92.WQl
TABLE IT
SWEETWA'IER UNION HIGH SCH:lOl.llISmCT
CBEDS ENFDJ..t.lENT: _ T08'~
FEB. ., 18Il2
:
IMl8 CBEDS IH) CBEDS 1Cl91 CBEDS
ENRCWolENT ENRCWolENT ENRCWolENT
1553 1171 1105
1830 1885 21~
1834 1878 1818
1.78 1532 1518
1842 1890 1882
2D65 1875 2D65
21~ 2155 2170
1G67 15257 15&
1525 1682 1703
1103 1080 1218
1338 101 1<<)0
187 181 1077
1378 1~2 15504
122. 1156 1106
1392 155 1~7
1028 1017 10153
11157 1,. 11813
881 37. 106
173 ,. 18
721 712 .,2
..i..;'il~~1
:1!:f:~i~:~
i;~!~II!~11:\1111!11~fl
i;!.!!;=.i.ii~'i
nt.tb1618 .......;:
'",.)...'.))1912 .......
...............Mll57
.))}.t.:?2206
}/P/tffp
y- :J-..&
FIGURE I
SWEETWATeR UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
TOTAL CBEDS ENROLLMENT BY GRADE LEVEL
...................
27894 2B306
26845
2S .......................
~~
r ..15
b@.
~ 1
.....................
8&'89 CBEDS 89,90 CBEOS ecva1 CBEDS 81192 CBEOS
CBEDS YEAR
D PERMENANT CAPAC" _ JUNIOP/MID. SCHOOL Iii! HiGH SCHOOLS _ TOTAL CBEDS E
/t~t7
77- :21
.
FIGURE II
SWEETWA7ER UNION HIGH SCHOOL. DISTRICT
TOTAL CBEDS ENROLJ.MENT BY GRADE LEVEL
28306
27~
25 .-..................
i-
d15
m 1
.....................
~.............
..............
8&'B9CBEOS
89190 CBEOS 80/91 CBEOS 11192 CBEOS
CBEDS YEAR
_ JUNIOR/MID. SCHOOL. liil HIGH SCHOOLS _ TOTAL CBEDS E
D TOTAL CAPACITY
jb't r
j)-;}g
Growth Management Oversight Commission
March 3D, 1992
Page 3
The district is very concerned about these overcrowded conditions and
continues in its efforts to accommodate the needs of the students. To that
end, the district will con~ue to request that the city require full mitigation
for projects which require legislative approval.
Ability to A~ Growth FOP'2"n~t~t{ in flu! 1~ . lR Mon.th Pmip-ena1!S
The city's growth forecasts for the 12-18 months can be simplified as follows:
Iv 1991 to une 1992 (12 month llerlod)
Sweetwater
Caresrorv Otav District District Total
Permits Issued 1,098 units 227 units 1,325 units
Permits Finalized 1,035 units 226 units 1,261 units
Total 2 133 units 453 units 2.586 units
Projects A through 0
Jul J
Projects 1 through 19
Julv 1991 to December 1992 (18 month llerlod)
Sweetwater
Catesmrv Otav District District Total
Permits bsued 1,671 302 1,973
Permits Finalized 1,732 442 2,174
Total 8.403 '744 4.147
The district's current .tudent generation rate, that is, the total number of
.tudents enrolled in the district divided by the number of total occupied
households within the district, is appromnately 0.29 students per household.
Based on this generation rate and assuming the actual number of households
completed and occupied by June 1992 is 2,586, the district can anticipate an
additional 750 students in the 1992/93 school year.
.
J~ ~t'1
]} _ J 'f
.
Growth Management Oversight Commission
March 30, 1992
Page 4
Assuming the same assumptions hold true for the 18 month projection, the
district can anticipate an additional 453 students for a total of 1203, by the
end of the first semester .of school year 1993/94. Traditionally, the district has
ezperienced an appromnate 500 student increase from one year to the Dext.
As shown in table 2, with the exception of the 1988/1989 school year with an
increase of 600 students in one year. The district average just above 450
students per year for the past three years.
It would be beneficial to the school district if the city could provide the actual
permits issued during the July 1991 to March 1992 time period for a
comparison to those units described in the projections provided for this
report.
Table ill has been prepared to show the distribution of expected Dew
students throughout the affected schools in the Chula Vista area. This
distribution assumes that Done of the Dew students would leave their
resident attendance areas to attend school at an alternate location. Figures 3
and 4 graphically show the increasing enrollment identified in Table m. It is
important to Dote that these Dumbers reflect the GMOC projections and Dot
those actually projected by the district.
Not surprisingly, the most significant growth is anticipated to occur in the
Bonita Vista High School and the Bonita Vista Junior High School
attendance areas. What is of concern is the growth that will be experienced
in central Chula Vista. However, with the opening of Eastlake High School,
the district will be able to better evaluate its attendance boundaries and
address ehAnges in boundaries where deemed appropriate. This action
ahould make the expected increase of students mAnAgeable.
/6 -7t?
p- 3 C>
TABLE ill
12 TO 18 MONni STUDENT PROJECTIONS
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
(Gl.CC1.WQ1)
L 1
CBEDS PROJ. PROJ. 3 4
mGH SCHOOL
BVH 1992 210 2202 336 2328
CVH 19S9 20 1979 36 1995
H.H. IS18 7 1525 9 1527
CPH 2189 8 2197 11 2200
TOTAL 7658 245 7903 392 8050
BVJH
CVJH
HJH
CPM
1727
1415
IS73
1280
398
28
14
24
212S
1443
1587
1304
6459
638
58
17
31
2365
1473
1590
1311
TOTAL
599S
464
744
6739
.
.
/b- ?/
p.31
-
.
FIGURE III
12 TO 18 MONTH STVDENT PROJECTIONS
GFlOINT7-f MANAGEMEWT PROJECTIONS
I'
1
............
...............................
~...._..........
........... ............
BVH CVH H.H. CPH
HIGH SCHOOLS
_ 91/92 CBEOS _ ADJ. CBEOS 9.2-'93_ ADJ. CBEOS 93194 D TOTAL CAPACITY
I?/ 7~
]/.3:J--
FIGURE IV
I,
I'
12 TO 18 MONTH snJDENT ,.ROJECTIONS
GROWTH MANAGE!ME!NT PROJE!CTlONS
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
..............
.................................................................................
............
BVJH CVJH HJH CPM
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
,_ 91/92 CSEOS . ADJ. CSEOS 92r'93 _ ADJ. CSEOS QW4 0 TOTAL CN'ACfTY I
) 6-7r1
7J - 3:l
.
Growth Management Oversight Commission
March 30,1992
Page 5
Evaluation 0-' FUMi~ aM SiiP Availability:
Presently, the district owns three school sites east of Intentate 805. The
district has no surplus land west of the freeway. On one site, Eastlake High
School, Increment I of a new 2400 student high school is under construction,
The other two sites, one off Conduit Street and the other Dear the Chula
Vista Community Hospital are deemed unbuildable due to seismic problems
and conflicts with the S.R. 125 proposed right-of-way. It is anticipated that
the Conduit site will be lost to the new freeway. However, the potential for
alternative uses of the hospital site is still viable. The current recession and
slowdown in the construction field has temporarily quelled the district's
future plans for the site near the hospital,
The district has planned for the construction of a new school in the Rancho
del Rey SPA III community plan. However, the district will not obtain title to
the property until the land is properly subdivided and available for sale.
In regard to the financing of new facilities, the district uses the following
funding strategies:
1) The e~ta lll.Wunent of ~ello Roos Community Facilities Districts for all
planned communities, as well as, residential and mixed use projects of
20 units or more which require a legislative approval by the City
Councilor the Board of Supervisors. The district presently has five
coIn9lunity facility districts in place and is plAnn;ng at least two more,
one in the Otay Mesa/San Ysidro area and the other in the Salt Creek
Ranch/San Miguel Ranch project areas.
2) Parlicination in the State'(!; ~Rov Gr@en ~RAe P~hARe Pron-snn. Due
to the severity of the over crowded conditions in the Sweetwater High
School District. The district is eligible to participate in the State Aid
program and qualifies for the future funding of one additional high
school and an additional junior high school. Districts which cannot
prove overcrowding are Dot eligible to participate in the program. In
the past fiscal year, Sweetwater obtained approJimately 18 million
dollars for the funding of Increment n ofEastlake High School.
/t~7Y
])_:3'1
Growth Management Oversight Commission
March 30, 1992
Page 6
3) . . The Marks-Boos act
allows agencies to pool various funding ~urces together for the
purposes of issuing bonds. This results in significant cost savings and
leverages the dollars in each Mello-Boos Community Facilities District.
The Yucaipa Unified School District and the Sweetwater Union High
School District have joined to create the YS Authority.
4) The Rale Dr Certificates Dr Parliclnatinn (COPS)' The district, in
conjunction with the collection of developer fees. has authorized the
sale of Certificates of Participation for the proposes of constructing
portable classrooms. Within the past six years. 148 classrooms have
been constructed through this funding mechanism.
5) In the western Chula Vista area, the district has requested that the
City require the developers of the Midbayfront to provide a site for a
new high school. or provide commensurate mitigation to Chula Vista
High School and Chula Vista Junior Bigb. To date. no concrete plans
have developed; however. the district has presented the city with a
strategy for full mitigation.
6) Although not a funding mechanism, the district has and will continue
to adjust attendance boundaries as required to meet the needs of
changing community demographics. In conjunction with this. the
Board of Trustees has directed staff to explore the conversion of our
present three year junior high school and three Jear high school
structure to a 2J4 structure. That is. a two year middle school and a
four year high school. This was done at the Castle Park Schools. and it
resulted in a significant reduction in student over crowding at Castle
Park Middle without causing adverse conditions at the high school.
,-/
/ (p - /J
]) - :;.::/
-
.
.-
-
Growth Management Oversight Commission
March 30, 1992
Page 7
f>t"''' 'R2lP.vt1nt InrnrmntilJl1
.
The construction of Increment I of Eastlake High School is well underway,
and it is approJimately 83% complete. It is anticipated that achool will
commence in the fall of 1992. The principal and usistant principal have
been named, as well as, key support stafl'. Although the achool can open with
1200 students, in an effort to be least intrusive in the education process
during the course of construction, the achool will open with approJimately
800 students.
. The district plans to bid Increment n in the late aprlng and award the
contract in the summer. With the acquisition of State funds, construction
can continue with little or no break. It is expected that the entire 2400
student school will be operational by the fall of 1994.
1)vinnorlslOtay ~
For at least ten years the district has been in need of a high school which can
serve the needs of the Otay MesalSan Ysidro-Nestor area. In 1986, the
district successfully had a viable site identified in the community plan which
was subsequently approved by the State Department of Education.
Unfortunately, the City of San Diego's attempt to upgrade Brownfield andlor
aecure the means to construct a new bi-national airport has impeded the
district's efforts to build a school.
.
. '.
Nontheless, the district has aecured land use agreements with two of the four
major developers on the west end of the Mesa. They have agreed to 1)
provide a school site, should the current site be lost to the airport, 2) fully
fund their pro-rata share of construction and land acquisition, and 8)
improve the site and it's access prior to the district obt.A;n;''Ig the land. The
other two developers have mutually qreed to this approach but are more
directly influenced by the airport therefore, they are hesitant to commit an
agreement against their properties at this time.
/0 - 7~
V-3~
Growth Management Oversight Commission
March 30, 1992
Page 8
ptav'R.Anch=
For the past two and a halfYe&r8, the district pl11nn;ng stafl'has met with the
Otay Ranch project team and members of the Baldwin Company to address
how achools in the Otay Ranch project are to be provided. All parties have
agreed to the followini= 1) schools will be conceptually identified in the Otay
&nch General Development.Plan, and 2) a Mello Boos Community Facilities
District will be established to finance the acquisition of atel and the
construction of schools. However, annexation to the Mello Boos will occur
prior to SPA plan approval rather than at the General Development Plan
phase. The city/county project team should be commended in their inclusion
of the district on the many facets of this complex project.
lJ.ni1i r1i ti nn ~
As the committee is aware, the South Bay School District and the National
School District bas begun the process towards the unification of their
respective districts. In other words, those two districts will expand their
operations to educate kindergarten through twelfth grade as opposed to
kindergarten through sixth grade. On March 10, 1992 the State Department
of Education authorized the two districts to proceed with a vote on the
matter. Although the unification will have profound effects upon the district,
the residents within the Chula Vista Elementary School District will Dot
have an opportunity to vote on the issue. The State's actions have
disenfranchised these voters, and the Sweetwater Union High School District
is very concerned.
.
In terms or facilities, if unification is successful the district will be required to
transfer title of seven schools. It is difficult at this time to accu.rately predict
what this will do to overall enrollment, but it is anticipated that in the South
Bay area alone, appromnately 1700 . 2000 .tudents may be leaving the
Sweetwater Union High School District. The effect this may have on the
district's eligibility for future atate funding is Dot yet known.
The superintendents office has established a project team which il currently
analyzing bow unification will effect the district in terms of curriculum,
revenue, debt retirement and district assets including, but Dot limited to
facilities.
'J
/ t -') 7
17- .3 '1
.
Growth Management Oversight Commission
March 30, 1992
Page 9
.
Pari n:
Part n of this report comprises district comments on the "Statement of
Concern" prepared by the City in the June 1991 GMOC report. Because
Eastlake High School has been addressed in previous sections, it is not
necessary to comment on it in Part n. However, recoft'l",~ndations "A"
through "E" will be discussed.
A. Continue to work closely with the Sweetwater Union High School
District in its efforts at achieving legislation at the state level which
will provide adequate funding for nuded school facilities.
The District has actively participated in the monitoring of facilities
related legislation and has provided input when appropriate.
Senator Deddeh's office, the Coalitio~ for Adequate School Housing
and the California Association of School Business Officials have
been the primary vehicles for communication. Additionally, the
Little Hoover Commission has embarked upon a .tudy of .chool
facility legislation and funding sources, and the district's planning
department has made initial contact with the executive director of
this commission for inclusion in the process.
B. Request the Sweetwater Union High School District accelerate the
planning and construction of Rancho del Rey Junior/Middle
School, as well as other Meded faciUties in the southern part of the
District. It is recognized that the slow down in MW construction
has delayed the progress in opening MW facilities.
The district has secured the funding mechanisms required to the
construct the junior/middle school identified in the Rancho del Rey
. SPA m community plan. A conceptual plan, which fits the 24 acre
site, has been developed. The plan is designed to accommodate
1,500 students. Additionally, the district's planning department
has worked closely with the City's Parks and Recreation staff and
McMillan Development in the development of a conceptual master
plan of the adjacent community park. It is the intent of both
agencies to enter into a joint use agreement for community use of
both the park and the school's play field and athletic facilities.
Jb~7( v--3R
..
Growth Management Oversight Commission
March 3D, 1992
Pare 10
AD architect has not been aelected as of yet. Until aueb time that
the site is rough craded to the district'. ~citications, it it not
feasible to hire an architectural consulting team. Although the
conceptual plan has been developed, the architect will Dot be able
to proceed with design and structural drawings without the full
knowledge of the existing soils conditions. It is the district', intent
to allow the rough craded site a one year aettlement period prior to
construction. It is during this time that much of the architectural
work can be accomplished.
The target date to open the school is the 1997/1998 school year.
However, as discussed earlier, the potential unification of the South
Bay School District and the National School District may have an
impact on the construction of this facility.
C. &quest tM Sweetwater Union High School District continue to
work closely with tM City on ensuri1l8 that smaller size delJelopment
projects participate in tM aMe%llble community facilities district.
Also, that appropriate mitigation measures be p~d on ruones
and otMr discretionary actions requested by delJelopers which are
nDt constrained by tM payment of school fees.
The District and the Chula Elementary School District have agreed
to a policy which targets 1) developments east of 1.805 2)
residential projects greater than 20 dwelling units, regardless of
location in the district, and 3) large commercial projects which can
be shown to have a significant impact on .chool facilities for either
annexation to Community Facilities District No.6 or full mitigation
of !acilities via an alternative, mutually acceptable qreement.
The City of Chula VlSta pl"""hlg stafl'is to be commended for their
cooperation with the district in implementing this policy.
Numerous residential projects have been annexed to CFD No.6,
and agreements with the Scripps Memorial Hospital and the
Southwest Redevelopment Agency have been reached which
mitigates schqol impacts.
.
j
1
,I
.
~
~i
.1
/t/7i
T>-3Cl
.-
. -- ---- .--
.
. "
.
Growth Management Oversight Couimission
March 30, 1992
P8Iell
.
D. Contiruu to cooperate in provuuT16 current and preeUe <<Mol data
on environmental documents and ,discretionary lend use
applicGtions to t~ Sweetwater Union High School District.
The data provided in the 12 to 18 month and the 6 . 7 year GMOC
projections is very helpful to the district. Additional IOurces of
information have been the Public Facilities Financing Plans and
the draft. Environmental Impact Reports prepared for individual
projects. Again, ltaff is to be commended for their diligence in
providing this information.
-
There is one criticism of the GMOC projections. It regards the
"other" or the "miscellaneous" classifications. Without knowledge of
the geographic location of projects, the District can Dot accurately
assess the full impact to specific ~chools. In the projections
included in this report, dwelling units identified in "other" or
"miscellaneous" have Dot been included because they can Dot be
related to specific schools.
E. Request that the Sweetwater Union High School District implement
.trategies .uch AS residency verifica.tion, .ite growth .olutions, and
alternative eakndcrs to address the overcrowded conditions until
such time AS new .chools are opened.
~
In addressing overcrowded conditions, the district 'Will adjust
attendance bound...;es when and where appropriate, as well as
construct Dew temporary classrooms provided that funding is
available and construction can occur on a particular campus
without infringing upon its IUpport eemces, ie., cafeteria,
restrooms, library, etc.
"'
Conclusion:
This concludes the districts comments on the GMOC II'Owth ....""gement
report and projections provided in the fall of 1992. If there are questions or a
Deed for additional information, please feel free to call the Sweetwater Union
High School District pt.nn;ng Department at 691.5553. I look forward to
addressing the Growth Management Oversight Commission on April 9, 1992.
/{;,/('O
D - eft?
....C'..:........:.-' ~:;., ~.t:~;"~,;
.'~~' ~.,:..t.i~
......'.-..:.;:;;;-:.
. .~..':~:_~.:.:
'.!~. ..~:.{>~
~ l .>:?~~;~
:'. :.~~\:
. . ~..: .'\
. .' '., ,'~
. ,.,
'. .,~
.. ....~.~'~
:.... ;.,\
":';';\."i
, ....
..... ;...
.
.
"'. .,.
...........r'.'~.'.;,...
ATTACHMENT A
]991 STATE ALLOCATION BOARD PRIORITY POLICY
1991 STATE A~LQtaTION BOARD PRIORIIX-B!OUIRE~ENTS
It is the intent of the State Allocation (SAB) that new construction. .
rrlorlties based on the provfsfons of AB 87 (b'Connell) be fmplemented tn the
ease.Purchase Program. The SAB takes this action under the powers granted in
Education Code Section 177]6 which gtves authority toestablfsh.priorfties for
the construction of projects. Modernfzation prtorltfes remafn unchanged.
1991 FUNDING PRIORITY (CONSTRUCTION}
PRIORITY 1
Projects for districts with a substan n multitrack ear.
round schools reguesting sta e undln9 for 50~ of the tota cos 0 a
project that wIll be constructed to operate on a multitracilfear-round'
basis. .
PRIORITY 2
" '.
Projects for districts with a
round schools re
project that .
bas is .
r-
PRIORITY 3
. --!"....
.~ ,.,.:
'~.'"
Projects for districts without a substantia n multftrack" ..
year-round schools re uestln sta e At
of the project ons ructed to 0 erate on a multf rac
round bas is.
PRIORITY 4
".
. .~..
~.. .. .". .~
'-- ...
.
/h -tl
..
"
, .
. .
.'. .'
. '.:"". ~
..... ;-.
.
:~.:~:'~J
. . :
.....~. ~
~~ "'.
Attachment A
SAB 12-04-91
Plge Two
PRIORITY 6
.~ .
. .
Projects for districts with a substlntial enrollment In multitrack ,ear-
round schools requesting state funding for the entire cost of the
project that will not be constructed to operate on a multitrack ,ear- .
round bas is.
PRIORITY 7
Projects for districts without a substlntial enrollment In multitrack
year-round schools requesting stlte funding for S~ of the entire cost
of the project that will n,t be constructed to '~erlte on a multitrlck
year-round basis.
PRIORITY 8
Projects for districts without a substantlll enrollment in multitraek
year-round schools requesting state funding for the entire cost of the
project that will not be constructed to operate on a multltrlck ,ear-
round bas IS .
PROJECTS SUBJECT TO THE 1991 PRIORITY REOUIREH~N1S
All requests (applications) for Lease-Purchase Program funding which will not
be funded from any source Ivallable to the Lease-Purchase Progrlm prior to .
January I, 1991,- shall be subject to the 1991 SAB priority provisions. A
request for funding means I request to the SAB for Phase I. 11. 111. lit. or
any amendment to those phases which increases the Icope of the project.
Projects which had Phase III status prior to Januar, 1. 1991. and whtch have
declared YRE status (AB 1650) or Ire Ipproved IS a SO/50 project within 30
days of policy, Ind that agree to 120X loading of that project for future .
eligibility determination, shall be treated as though the project .et all .
requirements for ,Priority 1 funding stltuS.
MEETING PRIORITY fUNDING REOUIREMENTS
Districts may Improve the priorlt, status of their projects at anyiime during
the appHcatlon process. ..
. . .
A project .ay be converted to SO/50 application. The SO/SO Itatus wtll
be effective on the date an approval of the conversion Is given by the . .
SAB. If the converted projected is already on a list of projects ready
for approval. or hasrecefved an approval without apportionment, the' ,
project will retain the earlier dltes for purpos.s of future funding.'
but will now be shown IS a SO/50 project.. . '. ...
.
)/'-'6).
])-'I~
. . :;. ~~'.... .
,
..,!~~,~;'
:~,.'-
~";
.... ."
.....;..
-~~'~':'.
',.....
. .
-.j
. -\
,
'.
. ..
. .e.
.','-
'.~. ,"':',
. .', ~. ~~:;..:
....~:
~.~(~
.
..
. \.
.;: :'~:
,-
~.
. .!....
':. ~'"I
. PC'"
; 1,.-:..)
~"A""
. .~ .-::
; "::;:.~
.'!,;.
. . . >.'.~~~~.'.
....t
":'-t
-.'..
.' .'S.....:.
;:.:<:::rf
. . -t',:,
'h.,'
...A.....
....~ '":
. ....
. : -'=;...rt
," ':.. 'l';
. ."
.~.
'.
. ..... .ii.
...:~~~>.~
.........
. ~ ):'t~:~:
~. '"c'.
~..:.' "l,,'
t..;:~~ ;~~
. :.l;'
.',:t;1
oj." :":!~'
~'.~J:t..f
;. .,.,'....
.,.
....:: :\.;;.
..:::~(t
. .
.J. ... .
,~.. t. '. . .........
,. .-. ,.~ ...... ....:..
'.." .~ . ".:'.
. '." . ..:':,;~~'
. ......
'''::'':~j.::%
'''' ~...,.
/~:f ~~~~1~
. ~"".
. "1""
~ .," :.
. '<~'::'
. :1'..:
.....
" .
... ,.
'. ~'~~::
';' ;.-4..:~.~.~.
.' l::t:~:~ ;.'
.....00:(,
. . ~~;li;:.l
.-. ~~':'.-:..l
. .....:~f1}.
. '''-~''''''
" ," '.~'>t..t1-::1
. . "'~f
. .." "'1:."
:'.:~; ::'~(d.;
. '-1..:4 ~\.
-:<". ' . i:'~:'~~'
. . . .".;... ':', ~~i!""'~ ,," ~..;:.
'. O}:.. . . ...,," ~..:1""4
,f..l[t1~~
':.. .78.............'.
. '. .:.;.~;~. ~;"~ ,.:~.~.~t--~;~~~~~ ~
- . .; .:~'
Attachment A
SAB 12-04-111
Plge Three
A district may be converted to YRE status. The YRE status wtll be
effective on the date of the district resolutton agreeing to requtred
participation levels, on the date of the district's certification that
those levels have already been met, or on the date that the SAB Waiver
and Review Committee recommends e waiver. If the project is already on
a list of projects ready for approval or has received an approval
without apportionment, the project wif, retain the .arlier dates for
purposes of future funding, but will now be shown IS . YRE project.
i
A prOject may be converted to operate on a year-round multitrack '
schedule. The YRE school status will be effective on the date of the
district resolution requesting the stitUSL 2r on thz dat. the SAB Waiver
and Review Committee recommendl-lJWJi~t-ttD-m:lhl-tlquiremenl. If the
'proJect is already on a lisr-of projects ready for approval, or has
received an approval without apportionment, the project will retain the
earlier dates for purposes of future funding, but wf1l now be shown IS a..
YRE multitrack school project. . .
WAIVER OF PRIORITY REOUIREMENTS
1.
Waiver of the requirement to have lOX multitrack schedule.
2.
The policy adopted by the SAB for waivers under AB 1650 shal', '
remain In effect. The Waiver and Review Committee shall conttnue
to make recommendations to the SAB for waivers under the __
gu,de"nes developed for that legislation. :
Waiver of the reQuirement to contribute SOX ~r,!he lotal projec~
cost.
-
o
The SAB policy is to refuse waivers of this requirement.
.-
Waiver of the requirement to construct I YRE school.
Districts may apply to the SAB for ,a waiver from this riqutriment.
Before recommending the waiver to the SAB, the WAR Committee vlll
~requlre evidence that.it is not educationally or _~~~ml~al1Y : .7
feaSIble to operate I YRE school. .' "
facilities constructed under apllltcations which recehe thh "
waiver will be lDaded at 100X of regular stat. capacity.
.-i"
.
.
/ /,-' C{ )
l
Y_tl3
,'.
" .
. .,
, :,,:
. ....
','
'.
,.
... .:;.~
. '!'"
'-'.
"
-
-
Attachment A
SAB 12-04-11
Page Four
SUBSTANTIAL [NROllMENT
Under the priority for funding criteria, the SAB shall consider that I
_~strict _has, .lubl.tantJJLtnrollment inllu" t itrack Yllr-round scllool WIlen one
o t~e foTTOwlng conditions haslbeen-mef:
1. In unlfi_d dt~trtrt~,
a. at least 3~ of the enrollment 1n grades t-I ar. currently
,on a _~ear-round multitrack sc1ieClule,[~r) 'J
b. a number of students in grldes K-12 equll to 3~ ot the K.6
enrollment are currently on a year-T~und multitrack
schedule, or
c.
It lelst 4~ of the K-12 pupils 1n the high school
Ittendance area for which an application is being filed are
currently on I year-round multitrack schedule. If the '
project is a new high school. the percentage Ilust be based
on the new attendance area.
2. For elementary districts. ' "
a. It least 30% of the enrollment in grades K-6 are currently
on I year-round multi trick schedule,COt';
,
b.
I number of students the elementary district Iqual to 3~ of
the K-6 enrollment are currently on a year-round multltrlck
schedule. Elementary districts Ilay not use the students of
Iny other district to qualify.
3. In hi
~q
rIlI1
~
t. at least 30 of the -6 students within the boundaries of
"the district re, rently enrolled in a year-round" ,
multltrlck pr r ,if a number of students within the HS
District equal 0 3~ of the K.6 students in the boundari.s
of the dtstrl e currently Inroll.d 1n a y.ar-round ","
Ilultitrack p ogrl " '."J \
b. ;~ least 4~ of th~ K-!2~n 1~ ~~_UUe_nd'Jlc._.r'I...f.or'
~hlch In ap~ Ic.lU n t n ling Illmenhrl..f'JaT
GUtr1Cts, Il'I-eurr.ntly Inro l.d ".
.
/ iJo.t/
Y-lf,/
!
. :.~
.
.:~-':
".,;1
"
.
;.: ~~
..
.".
"
"
:.:',
t..~ '.
. ....:.,:.;(..:
:.~ ,,:.'~~1~~
. ...
", :;'
",
"
. ....
. . 21:"''';'>
" ',." h
~. ~;.~. ..."
- 1.'S:~'" '(':'.~..':i:~::
. ....- '."
Districts which received priority status under AB 1650 by certification of'l~
or 20" YRE by 1990 must recertify compliance with the higher percentage ".
requirements under AB 87 in order to receive VRE priority status under this
program. Lower percentage requirements permitted under earlier legislation
shall not constitute compliance. .
Verification of substantial enrollment shall be made at each phase approval of
the project.
DEFINITION: CONSTRUCTED TO OPERATE ON A HT YRE BASIS
Whenever a district wishes to claim priority for construction of a school
project the district must certify that the school ~~erate o~gE . .~;
multitrack schedule.. or must a!lree to loa_d th~_faCjnlj___.s though operated on a .~.;;
H1 VRE basts. In either c~s'".Jhe project s all be loaded at 12~ of .' '. '~."t
standards for conventional faci1tttes aTT6llows: ,.~.
- -. "'~; ":""t
.......;...,':
For projects which d!JLDot have a Phase II ltatus prior to January I. urn. or :e~"
::::~t g' f:~'::;.t;::' .}' ,~:l":;ll~1 t:::~ ."Joe,.111 bo 100'" a' ,IIOS " ' ":;;'5~.::~
All other projects wl11 be loaded at 12~ of capacity for purposeso~ MUR.E:',.. '.';',.
applications " , ,\ ->. , c.' '.,,',".
. . -.:~ !'l".. ! ::.;~., . ,...... '.,,~.. .... -:,....,
. ..~<. ;,:,:. '. ~..";..
Attachment A
SAB 12-04-91
'age Five
1n a year-round multi-track program. If the project 11 a hew
high school, the percentage must be based on the new
attendance ar.a. (Hote: AS 112~, Chapter 588, will change
this section.' Amended provilions will be on the January.
1992 agenda.) .
4. As an alternative for districts not ..eting the r.quirements of
substantial enrollment tncluded tn'l. 2 or 3 above. a Board of
Education resolutton may be lubmitted requesting a pennanent
reduction tn eligibil'ty and unhoused ADA .qual to the following:
a. in unified districts, the iquare footage entitlement and'
number of ADA generated by 20~ of the enrollment Ipecified in
1 (a), (b), or (c).
b. In elementary districts, the square footage entitlement and ',.
number of ADA generated by 20~ of the enrollment specifted tn'
2(a) or (b).
c. For high school districts, the square footage ent'tlement and
number of ADA generated by 20~ of the enrollment specified in
3(a) or (b).
.... -,'..
t
1/;--f{S
~
/' . .'
J)- 'n
';" .
. .~..~.
.....
.. ~.
:.:.;'"
. . ~
. ,
.i' ......
. .....
..
;.i.
..... ~
--
.. ..:'f.
:':"'-;
..,~ ..~;.~'.
. -....,,~.~..
". :.~ "';'1
.....
. ';. · :'f," ~
"":"~
.~ '. '... ~ .
~. ...:~~..~.
. ....1
'. .~
',-- ."
.' .II!
.
. ......
.. ~::::
'..' .::.
.:';~
... ....
.. .\:.....~.
S. 0''':;' ,
..~ ".
. I :-:: "':':'.~_:
Attachment A
SAB 12.04.81
'age Six
In either case, the district's existing adequate area .hall be fncreased by
the .quare footage generated by the .tudents housed in the 2~ overload. The
ADA "housed" fn the 2~ overload .hall be considered adequately housed on
justification documents.
.
JC - 't~
.
V-If/,
,
<
..
"
."...
',f "
,"
,.......
. ...~.
'...~:...;.
"-' ......
. .. .
. ..lo.~
.,..
.....
."~ 'r~
.-:":' .?
.~~~~
"<;}~g~
:'i{...~
!';:~
..~~.~:~(
"',''''''
" .'\::",4,
~.'. ]t\'.
. :~<.
. :..~;~~;
.
,.
,'1~
. ."',,";
: ~~ ~.;<~
"t'~~':~'{;
. .....
. . .
REPORT or THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
State Allocation loard Heetina. Dacamber 4, 1991
Operational Grant. . Elillbilitv Raduction.
PI1RPOSE or REPOU
To ~raaent a recommendation for tba t.ple.antatlon of the'.rea
I'Iductlon provilion of A..allbly 1111 17. ..
DISCUSSION
Education Code Section 17745,' provide. that Dl.trlct a11liblllty for
new conatructlon .ball be raducad vben tbe Dl.trlct recelvea
operational sranta from tbe year.round educational Irant. a.tabli.hed
under the provS.lon. of AI .7 (O'COnnell).
The Implementation Committee, OLA, and Daparcment of Education, School
racilitiea Plannins Unit, have developed the followins propo.al and
recommend approval.
P.ECOHHtNOATION
The lIaxlmum allowable buildlnl area In a Di.trict or hilh Icbool
attendance area whicb raceivea an operational Irant Ihall be
permanently reduced for purpoae. of calculatinl tbe Dl.trlct'l
elilibility under tbe Lea.e.Furcba.e Prolraa a. follow.:
The reduction aball be calculated U.inl tb. e.tim.ted numbar of
pupila in exceaa of capacity certified by tha Di.trict for that
year of operation. Thia filura .ball ba multiplied by tbe .aximum
area .tendard for eacb pupil. The pupil. uaed In the calculation
of the reduction abell be con.iderad adequately houaed.
The reduction .hall be apecific to the Irade levela certified by
the Superintendent. If elementary level ~upll. are certified for
the operation Irant.. the reduction in Di.trlct elilibllity Ihall
be at the elellentary.
The reduction .hall be permanent. In the event that tha Dl.trlct
requests certification of fawer puplh in later yean the
eligibility reduction .hall remain at the hilher levei. In tha
event the more pupil. ara certified in later yeara, tha raductlon
ahall be corre.pondingly adjuatad.
.
;;;-07
82
D-II'1
:D-w
APPEND:IX D
A:IR POLLUT:ION CONTROL D:ISTR:ICT 1990 ANNUAL REPORT
)b-YY
D- 'i<;
~
co
co
o
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
r:s
=
e.
~
(D
o
1-1
flit-
) t -?";
v-S"/
.
o
0)
0)
..-4
-
The Challenge of the 90s
Because of our need to reduce smog, the decade of the 90s presents serious
challenges for elected leaders, business, and anyone who drives in San Diego
County.
The problem is deceptive, because our air quality seems to be getting better.
We don't have as many intense days with smog alerts when the eyes water and
the throat burns, but we're having more days at lower unhealthful levels. At these
levels, the smog is not as irritating or visible so we don't feel it as much, bu.t it still
can be harmful.
Recent clinical studies tell us that smog has a major impact on our health-
more than we had ever imagined. An 11-year study at UCLA, released this
March, shows that chronic exposure to air pollution irreversibly deteriorates lung
function leaving people vulnerable to respiratory disease. It also reduces stamina.
Children, whose lungs are still developing, senior citizens, and persons suffering
from heart and lung disease are particularly vulnerable. The state-wide costs
each year for medical expenses resulting from air pollution exceed $9 billion.
We can't blame all of our smog problem on Los Angeles. San Diego ex-
ceeded state smog standards 139 days in 1990 and more than half of the smog
was generated locally. About 60% of the smog-pollutants come from cars and
trucks'.
Although new cars are much less polluting today, we have more people who
are driving more, driving further, and usually driving alone. Since 1980, the
number of miles driven each weekday in the county has increased 7% a year,
twice the rate of population growth. The number of trips is increasing at 5% a
year, and about 80% of all home-te-work commute trips are drive-alones.
The state Air Resources Board has designated San Diego County as having a
.severe" smog problem, and, as such, the California Clean Air Act of 1988
requires that smog-producing pollutants be reduced by 5% a year. It's not likely
that the Air Pollution Control District can meet this goal so state law requires that
all feasible control measures be implemented.
These measures may include land use policies that reduce our dependency on
the automobile, integrated transportation planning to make public transit more
available and convenient, and a county-wide trip reduction program that re-
duces solo commute trips.
The next decade will not be easy. It will require tough--often unpopular-
decisions by city and county leaders, more cooperation from businesses, and a
change in the way we use our cars.
We must all work together if we want to keep San Diego County the special
place it is to live and work.
~ ~~;-').K~~,(
John MacDonald
Chairman
San Diego County Air Pollution Control Board
/6-9tJ
I
~:;;t
Table of Contents
The Challenge of the 90s ..........................................Inslde Front
Air Quality in 1990 ............... ................... .................................4
Pollutant Standards Index .... .................... .................. ....... .......4
San Diego's Air Pollution Problem .............................................5
The Cold Start. ....... ,.... ........ ........................ ............................. 6
Trends of the 80s ...................................................................... 7
APCD Accomplishments............... ................. ...... ...... ...... .......... 8
The Pollutants................... ........ ................. .............. ..... ......... 10
Ambient Air Quality Standards ...............................................12
Glossary of Air Pollution Terms ...............................................13
About the District ...................................................................14
Organization Chart................................................... Inside Back
Important Phone Numbers ........................................Back Cover
Am POlLUTION CoNTROL BOARD
BRIAN P. BILBRAY
OISTRICT 1
LEoN L. WILUAIIS JOHN MAcDONALD
DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 5
-
) t -"; /
1-1
<<>
CD
o
=
=
e.
~
(D
.
!
o
~
fill-
V-.53
o
m
0)
.-4
mnual
ieport
Page 4
Air Quality in 1990
The year 1990 saw an improvement in
San Diego County's air quality primarily
because of favorable weather conditions.
Photochemical smog (measured as
ground-level ozone) exceeded 100 on the
_' smog Index and vtolated the federal health
standard 39 days in 1990. a decrease of
16 days from 1989. There was only one
Stage 1 smog alert.
In addition to the federal standard.
California has Its own smog standard
Pollutant Standards Index
(or Smog Index)
The Air Pollution Control District uses
the Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) to re-
port daily smog (ozone) concentrations to
the public. The PSI was developed by the
Envtronmental Protection Agency to stan-
dardize pollution reporting and to convert
air pollution concentrations to a simpler
scale.
The chart below shows how intervals on
the PSI scale relate to the potential health
effects of the measured concentrations.
Very
Unhealthful
200-299
275 - Stage II Alert
... (35 parIS por hundred million)
EVOlyone should remain indoors.
200 - Stage I Alert
... (20 parIS por hundred million)
General pul>ic should avoid strenuous
_OClivi1J05.
...138 . Health AdvisorY
(15 parIS por hundred million)
Alhletes should avoid strenuous
outdoor oCIivi1J05.
... 100 . Federal Standard
(12 parIS por hundred million)
"'75. State Standard
(I part. per hundred million)
Sens~"e persons should reduce
strenuous outdoor activities.
Unhealthful
101-199
Moderate
51.100
Good
0-50
which is more stringent than the federal.
The state one-hour standard for photo-
chemical smog is 9 parts per hundred
milllon (pphm) or 75 on the smog index.
(Ihe federal is 12 parts per hundred mil-
lion or 100 on the smog index.)
The state standard was exceeded 139
days in 1990. down from 158 days in
1989.
The lower smog levels broke a two-year
upswing primartly because of fewer Santa
Ana weather conditions and cleaner air in
the Los Angeles area. During mild Santa
Anas. air pollution from the L.A. basin Is
pushed out over the ocean and earned
south to San Diego. Of the 39 days vtolat-
ing the federal standard. polluted air from
Los Angeles played a significant role on 28
days. compared to 41 days in 1989.
The California Clean Air Act of 1988
requires local air pollution control districts
to submit a revtsed air quality strategy to
the California Air Resources Board (ARB)
by mld-1991. The key goal of the act Is to
reduce the sources of air pollution that
contribute to smog.
The District is considering vartous
tactics to further reduce emissions from
industrial sources ranging from large
power plants to small businesses such as
dry cleaners and auto paint shops. These
tactics were revtewed by the Air Quality
Strategy Development Committee and will
be presented to the Air Pollution Control
Board for consideration in 1991.
Industry, however. Is responsible for
less than 2001b of smog-forming emissions.
About 6001b are from cars and trucks.
To meet the requirements of the Califor-
nia Clean Air Act. the District must also
develop transportation control measures
(rCMs). TCMs are any programs designed
to reduce trips. vehicle use, miles traveled.
Idling. or traffic congestion for the purpose
of reducing air pollution.
! b -~.2
y-5'cf
Automobiles account for 88% of all
trJ and 55% of these are occupied by
or.,. ..he driver (called drive alones). When
considering only home-to-work auto trtps.
dlive alones account for about 84%.
The number of miles driven each week-
day In San Diego County Increased by
more than 60% during the last decade.
from an estimated 36 million In 1980 to
60 million In 1990. The number ofmi)es
dliven Is increasing at twice the rate of
population growth.
Without TCMs. the number of m1les
d1iven each day will reach 70 m1llion by
1995 and 79 million by the year 2000.
according to projections by the San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG).
Under the Caltfornia Clean Air Act.
areas such as San Diego County that do
not meet the clean air standards are re-
quired to: (1) meet federal and state stan-
dards as soon as practical; and. (2) reduce-
by 5% or more per year-those pollutants
Vio)ating the standards or their precursors.
.;.
~. ,-----
/ -" .1\'\,,-
SUMMER TEMPERATURE INVERSION TRAPS POLLUTANTS AROUND 2,000 FEET
. "'...., ,..-,...-,.'."'-.....'.'
-
Cool Sea Breeze
''iE/Ie''
.",:;.;..~~
Oxides of Nitrogen + Hydrocarbons + Sun .. SMOG
San Diego's Air Pollution Problem
Smog continues to be San Dlego's plimary air pollution problem. Our abundant
sunlight chemically changes emissions from automobiles and Industry Into photo-
chemical smog.
These emissions (oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons) are generated In the
populated coastal plain and are blown inland by the onshore breeze to the lower
mountain slopes from Palomar Mountain south to the border. The major impact is
between 1 and 3 p.m.. when sunshine Is most Intense and temperatures are
highest.
A temperature Inversion layer traps these pollutants and prevents them from
'ising. (A temperature Inversion is a layer of warm air lying above a layer of cooler
air.) The inversion layer is around 2.000 feet during the peak smog season-May
through October.
/~-9]
~
CD
CD
o
Annual
Report
Page 5
y!S
o
0)
0')
....t
Annual
Report
Page 6
Furthermore, the state Air Resources
Board has Identified San Diego County as
a severe area. Under the California Clean
Air Act, San Diego must meet these re-
qutrements:
· TCMs to achieve an average of 1.5
persons per passenger vehicle durtng
weekday commute hours by 1999.
· No net increase in vehicle emissions
after 1997.
. TCMs to substantially reduce vehicle
trips and miles traveled.
· Control heavy-duty truck traffic durtng
commute hours.
· Control program for indtrect sources,
such as shopptng centers.
· Low emission fleet vehicles.
In 1991, the Air Pollution Control Board,
in consultation With SANDAG, Will adopt
transportation control measures to be
implemented through District regulations
and transportation system improvements.
Every person who drives can playa
slgnlflcant role in cleaning up our air now
and for future generations. By carpooling,
using public transportation, rtding a bi-
cycle, or walking, we can clean up the air
and improve our quality of life.
to-Mile Trip Hydrocarbon Emissions
The Cold Start
1/3 Reduction
with Hot Start
Start-Up
13 m~
.
End
2 ams
Running Running
5 grams 5 grams
COLD HOT
START START
13 grams 8.3 grams
Cars pollute the most durtng the first several minutes of the trip when the engine
Is cold. It takes about eight minutes to heat up the catalytic converter so It Will operate
efficiently.
Hydrocarbon emissions generated durtng start -up are six times as polluting as the
emissions durtng a 10-mlle commute.
If the car sits for more than an hour. the cold start process begins again. By
combining errands into one trip, you' can lower your car's contribution to air
pollution.
y.5b
.
Trends of the 80s
O. .1e
The overall trend during
the past decade has been a
decrease in the number of
days with high levels of smog.
In 1980. there were 87 days
over the federal standard and
eight smog alerts; in 1990.
there were 39 days and one
smog alert.
200
200
ISO
Day. Over Federal Standard
~ 100
o
87
78
SO
o
1980 1981
Iilllllll Los Angeles Transport
. Local
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Day. Over State Standard
160 IS8
ISO
~ 100
SO
.;.
-, .-
o
1980 1981
(See _, .nd abo,'e)
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
(1990 breakdown data not available)
The District has analyzed
the days when pollution ex-
ceeded the standards and
categorized each as either a
local pollution source day or
a transport day. Transport
days occur when pollution Is
blown in from the Los Ange-
les basin. These two graphs
show the days over standard
with the columns further
broken down by source.
Nitrogen Dioxide
Three-year running aver-
ages of the annual hourly
average of the nitrogen di-
oxide levels for a six-site mean
were used to illustrate the
trend. After a long gradual
decrease. a slightly upward
trend Is noticeable. though
levels are still under the
federal standard.
S
4
Nitrogen Dionde
(Federal Standard 5 pphm)
;:E3
iE
ll.2
o
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
9
8
7
6
~ 5
ll.4
Carbon Mononde
(Federal Standard 9 ppm)
2
I
o
. DoVt'lllOwn San Diego
Il!I EI Cajon
CI Escondido
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
1986 1987 1988 1989
Carbon Monoxide
Long-term slow improve-
ment is evldent at the three
monitoring sites where car-
bon monoxide concentra-
tions are the highest. Three-
year moVing averages based
on mean daily maximum
eight-hour average concen-
trations for the four winter
months were used. <7 ,/
)~-15
t-'
CO
CO
o
Annual
Report
Page 7
])- :::,-,}
o
0)
0)
.-t
~uaI
leport
'age 8
APeD Accomplishments
Rule Development
The Air Pollution Control District devel-
oped or enhanced 22 rules durtng 1990.
Rule 1201 was developed to control
emissions of hexavalent chromium, a
human carcinogen, at chrome plating and
chromic acid anodizing facilities. About 30
firms will be required to make process
.' changes and Install emission control
equipment. The modifications will reduce
emissions and tl}e potential cancer risk by
96% overall with the largest emitters re-
ducing emissions by 99+%.
Rule 67.17 was developed to control
emissions from open containers of paints
and solvents at 1,500 facilities using mate-
rials containing volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs). The rule, which requires
that solvent containers be closed when not
In use, Is expected to capture 175 tons a
year of VOC compounds (mainly paint
solvents).
Rule 67.18 Is a new rule that regulates
the solvent content of coatings used on
marine vessels. The rule places VOC limits
for specific categories of marine coatings
and paints and prohibits the use of coat-
Ings that don't comply with the rule.
Baseline Inventory
The Air Pollution Control Board In
October 1990 accepted the 1987 Baseline
Planning Emission Inventory for the San
Diego Air Basin. The Inventory Is one of the
first steps In revising the regional air qual-
Ity plan.
The revised Inventory indicates that
substantially more pollution Is being emit-
ted from motor vehicles compared to previ-
ous projections.
TCM Draft Criteria
The Air Pollution Control Board ac-
cepted the draft criteria for transportation
control measures ITCMs) for public review
and comment In late 1990.
Under the California Clean Air Act, the
District must prepare a revised air quality
strategy. One of the strategy requirements
will be TCMs since about 600A, of smog-
foTming pollutants are from cars and
trucks. The draft criteria address guide-
lines to reduce motor vehicle emissions.
Workshops on the draft criteria will be
held In 1991.
Motor Vehicle Fee
The Air Pollution Control Board ap-
proved In December the levying of an
annual $2 registration fee Increase for
motor vehicles to be used to fund programs
mandated by the California Clean Air Act
to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles.
The levy, which wI11 become effective
July 1. 1991. wI11 raise approximately $3.4
mllUon In fiscal year 1991-92.
Smoking Vehicle Program
The Smoking Vehicle Prevention Pro-
gram launched In 1989 has completed Its
first full calendar year In operation' with
19,577 reports of smoking vehicles In
1990.
Through the program, the California
Highway Patrol (CHP) Is Increasing Its
emphasis on citing vehicles, and the Air
Pollution Control District Is providing an
opportunity for citizens to report smoking
vehicles.
Citizens who spot smoking vehicles may
call toll-free (l-800-28-SMOKE) to report
these slghtlngs. Owners of reported ve-
hicles are contacted by mail and advised to
repair their vehicles or risk a citation If
spotted by the CHP.
SDG&E/SCE Merger
APeD continued Its Involvement In the
California PubUc Utl1Ities Commission and
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
. proceedings concerning the proposed
merger of San Diego Gas & Electric and
Southern California Edison. APCD con-
vinced both agencies to evaluate and con-
sider the enVironmental impact of the
merger In their decision process.
i&-c; ~
j) _ s-g
Meanwhile. the District is developing a
new rule (Rule 69) that will require oxides
of nitrogen emission controls at power
pla"t.s and will ensure that claimed emis-
sl, eductions from the merger w1ll occur.
Air Quality Study
The objectives of the San Diego AIr
Quality Study are to develop a database
and to evaluate a simulation model that
can be used to assess air quality impacts
of offshore development on San Diego
County. The air quality modeling results
will also be used to prepare reVisions to the
State Implementation Plan for the county
to meet state and federal clean air stan-
dards for ozone.
The project began in 1988 with a
scoplng study to assess air quality. meteo-
rologicaL and emission data needs and to
evaluate the expected performance of a
photochemical model for San Diego. Based
on the scoping study recommendations.
data were collected in ] 989 and are now
being used to generate the photochemical
model. The modeling output will be avail-
ab' '0 the District in mid-]991.
Toxic Air Contaminants
In ] 989, APCD began an extensive study
of toxic emissions as part of the California
Air Toxics "Hot Spot" identification and
inventory program. mandated by Assembly
Bill 2588.
The District is implementing the inven-
tory in three phases.
Phase I included 8] major industrial
facilities and 29 landfills. The District
Yearly Activity"
1.425 Engineering Evaluations
500 Sources Inventoried
45 Air Toxics Assessments
1.478 Notices of Violation
614 Complaint Investigations
978.754 Monitoring Hours
157 Source Tests
$346,045 Penalties Collected
4.000 Persons Attended District
Presentations
.FlgureS from Fiscal Year 1989-90
required approximately 150 source tests to
evaluate toxic emissions from various
industrial processes. Sixty-three faclllties
were required to submit health risk assess-
ments and may be subject to public notifi-
cation requirements pending reView of the
results. expected in mid to late 1991.
Toxic emission inventory plans for an
additional 90 industrial facillties subject to
Phase" were received in August 1990.
Toxic emissions from these sites will be
evaluated in 1991 and additional health
risk assessments may be required.
Small industrial and commercial opera-
tions subject to Phase III of the program
were identified in 1990. Approximately.
1750 additional sites including gas sta-
tions, dry cleaners, and auto body shops
will be evaluated for toxic emissions in the
upcoming year.
Landfill Emissions
Both active and closed landfills can emit
methane gas, organic compounds, and
toxic air contaminants as deposited trash
decomposes. During late ]989 and 1990.
30 landfills were inspected for compliance
with District Rule 59. Toxic gas emissions
were evaluated for the purpose of requiring
health risk assessments in accordance
with the AB2588 California Air Toxics "Hot
Spots" program.
CFCs
In May of 1990, the Air Pollution Control
Board accepted staffs recommendations
on addressing emissions of chlorofluoro-
carbons (CFCs). Scientists have identified
CFCs as causing depletion of the strato-
spheric ozone layer. which shields the
earth from ultraViolet radiation. These
recommendations were overshadowed by
the 1990 reVisions to the Montreal Protocol
amending the 50% phase down to a com-
plete phaseout in the production of most
CFCs by the year 2000.
This. together with other state and local
programs developing across the country.
sent a message to Congress that a national
program was necessary. In response. the
reVised federal Clean AIr Act requires the
Environmental Protection Agency to de-
velop a nationwide program for CFCs.
. /b~'17
t-I
cg
CD
o
Annual
Report
Page 9
Y_.\'1
o
0)
0)
....-I
bnual
Report
Page 10
The Pollutants
Smog (Ozone)
No. of OIly. No. of Moura No. DI Deya No. of Hours
EaCMdlng hCMdlng EaOMdlng Stat. . Eaoeedlng
....'mum 1-Hour
StIllion Feder81 ...nca.rd ~I."nderd ......... ..... Standard -..atlon 0.. 01 ....1"''''"
,~ou, '-Hour ,~u, ,.ftour """"m eono.mtaUon
Concentration Conoentf'llUon -..allon ~_..I...lIon
..,2ppl'lm .. 12 pphm ... pphm .. . pphm
Alpine 26 74 123 498 17 June 3
. .-.. . n#_ ".'....., .. '. - ~ - '-- . --. - _..---~..- .-- ~.- n. ..
Chula Vista 3 8 21 58 18 June 26
-- .. .. ,.... ----~- I-c---- .. -.-._-~-_. --".~- ....-
Del Mar 9 23 23 77 17 Oct. 29
.. ..-. . - - . ..- .. - - _. --
Downtown 6 12 26 82 17 Oct. 24
San Diego
.' . . --'4<; -'-129 ..-- .......,... ...
E1Cajon II 18 16 June 3
- '. . - . ._~... - - _._. ._.-. ~-_..... -----.:-...' .._.'~-
Escondido 8 12 26 7S 17 June 26
- - .-.-." - - "---. _. .. .
ICearny MesIl 13 28 29 89 20 Oct. 2S
- - -
Oceanside 4 8 14 34 17 Oct..
".",'. .. ~.~ -. - ._.. -
BASJN\rVJDE 39 122 139 - 20 Oct. 25
Carbon Monoxide
No."lloys EJ_ing No." 01" EJ_ing
SIIt.SIIndanl 1Iu_ Dott.._
"'lion fIdt~1 SlInda.d .....Hour A....go I-ltourA_ I-H...A_
tor I-Kour AWtrlge
Conctntratiol'Dtppm Conctntrltion Conc:tntr1tionilppm ConctntrItion
".0 ppm
ChulaVista 0 0 4.8 Ian. 10
.'
Curbside 0 0 8.1 J_n.9
Do"-ntown 0 I 9.1 110.9
San Diego
ElC_jon 0 0 5.8 Jln.9
Eacondido 0 0 8.8 Ian. 9
Keamy Mesa 0 0 4.8 Jan. 10
P" - - .
Oceanside 0 0 4.0 Iln.9
Nitrogen Dioxide
No. .. HourI
Annuli A..,.ge _1ngll1at. 1IIJ:1mum ,...'"
_nl _01110_
.,Ion _I_nl lor''''''' Co...c&I,b.UOIl c-..._.&.tiorl
I pphm ~~l'ItrItlon "pphm
. 2SppIlm
Alpine 1.5 0 10 ~n.9
. n ~_._. ~~- .-..---_........ _..~~...~ .........,;..::~~,~- ._.-'~~
ChulaVisla 2.4 0 13 Feb. 22
. ------ ----.~_.
Down'own 2.7 0 16 Dee. 6
San Diego
.. ... -. - --. --..- -.'-.' ~'"--- .0-'---....-- -.-......-.......
EI Cajon 2.9 0 15 Ian. 9
.- _. -'-.. - ---.-....,,- -- ~_._- ._....p..._.~4
Eooondido 2.9 0 16 Oct. 25
,,'--. -. --- ........--,-.........;, - -.... -........-,.. '-'
-.
~.my Mesa 2.5 0 15 Oct. 24
I~~id;' -. . --_.. -..-..... -.--- _._-.... ........
23 0 18 Ian. 9
Smog (Ozone)
The District monitors smog
measured as ozone at eight
monitoring stations located
throughout San DlegoCounty.
Obis ozone is distinct from the
layer of ozone that is seven or
more miles above the earth.s
surface in the stratosphere
and protects the earth from
the sun's hannful ultraViolet
radiation.)
Smog levels In the county
decreased In 1990 prlmarlly
due to more favorable weather
conditions.
The number ofunheaJthful
days also decreased In the
mountain slopes, measured at
Alpine. The Alpine monitoring
station, however. continued to
record the most days when
ozone levels exceeded the
standards In the county.
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxlde Is an
odorless. colorless gas fonned
when fuels are burned. 1b1s
pollutant Is hannfu1 when in-
haled because it prevents de-
UveI)' of oxygen. ~ the body's
tissues; /p -98' .
y_ &0
In 1990. the federal 8-hour
standard was not exceeded
bl 'he tougher state stan-
d... was violated once in
downtown San Diego. Carbon
monoxide is an isolated hot-
spot problem limited to the
downtown areas of San Diego
and Escondido. and violations
only happen durtng the win-
ter months.
Approximately 80"10 of car-
bon monoxide comes from
auto tailpipe emissions.
Nitrogen Dioxide
Nitrogen dioxide reacts in
the atmosphere to form pho-
tochemical smog. It also con-
tr1butes to acid deposition.
discolors the atmosphere.
and causes the brown haze
Sulfui Dioxide
ArvMlIla..,,1' No. 0' 01" Elceecling IInj....ml-1tour
SlIIt Silndord Ilo1o olllnlmum
Stltion Feder.l Standard 24-H0ur Avel1gt Ccn:tntrItion In _..tion
lppnm Concentr.lion :1>5 pphm ppIIm
(hula V",~ 01 0 6 'an. 29
Do.....ntown 0.4 0 5 March 17
San lArgo
EICajon 01 0 3 Sepl.12
~ondido 0.2 0 3 'an. 8
Kp~~\' Mesa 0.4 0 3 'an. 8
CA~.,'15idf 01 0 2 May7
Particulates (1989)
Annual Annual IIax. 24.Hour Sampi< Dat.o'
StIlion Arithmetic Mean Geometrie Mean Federal Silndard Maximum
Federal Silndord SiI"Silndard 150~'m3 Concenlrllion
5O~m3 3O~'m3 Silt. SlIndard 50 ~'m3
(hula Visla 37 35 fI! Dec.21
,h
EICajon 45 41 90 Dec, 18
'. ." 'P'- ". _.
Oceanside 38 35 89 Feb. 21
1~'iO PARTICL:LATE DATA ","OT A\'....ILABLE AT PRESS TIME
Lead (1989)
Federal Standard StlteStandard Slate Standard
Slation 1Iu. Concentration IIu. Concen1ration Number of Days
CluIi1er1y Averlge IIontllly AYerIgt 1Iu, Concentration
:15I-G'm3 : l51-G'm3 2:25 1-G'm3
El Cajon .D4 .D4 0
.-.- - .-... -~'. ._ - - u.
IA.,.. olto\\1'I .05 .05 0
San Diego
19YO LEAD DATA NOT AVAILABLE AT PRESS TIME
seen in the San Diego skyllne
on cold mornings.
Neither the federal nor the
state standard for nitrogen
dioxide was violated durtng
1990.
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide is an irritat-
ing colorless gas with a dis-
tinctive odor. It's a major
component of smog and acid
rain in Europe and in the in-
dustrtal areas of the United
States east of the Rockies.
It is not a problem in San
Diego because the county does
not have the heavy manu-
facturing and refining asso-
ciated with this pollutant.
State and federal standards
for sulfur dioxide were not
exceeded in 1990.
Lead
Eighty-six percent of the
airborne lead in the United
States comes from leaded
gasollne. As the use ofleaded
gasollne decreases. lead levels
in major urban areas steadily
decline. The state standard
for lead was met in both 1988
and 1989.
Particulates
Particulates are particles of
dust, smoke. and minute drop-
lets of liquids called aerosols.
In 1987. the federal govern-
ment changed its standard
from measuring total sus-
pended particulates to a stan-
dard that measures only
1nhalable particulates of 10
micrometers or less in size
(PMIO). These are the particles
that do the greatest harm to
human health because they
can pass through the body's
natural filtering system.
In 1989. no violations of the
federal standard were re-
corded. but the more stringent
state standard was violated.
/ (p - rc;
1-1
(0
to
o
Annual
Report
Page 11
y_ /P I
o
0)
0)
..-4
mDual
leport
'age 12
Ambient Air Quality Standards
California Stan duds
National Standards
Pollutant A ve,aslng CoftC'ftltration Method Prlmay &econduy Mdhod
Time
Ozone 1 Hour 0.09 ppm - 0.12 ppm S.m~ as Ethyw".
(235 pg/ft:'3) Prim,,,y Clwmiluminftnontl'
8 HoU? 9.0ppm Non-di.persive' 9ppm Non~i.persive'
Carbon no mg/m3) Infr._ (to mg/m3) Infr.red
Monoxide 20ppm 5pec:tr'oKopy - Spectrascopy
1 Hour 35 ppm
(23 mg/m3) (NDIR) (40 mg/m3) (NDJR)
Annual - 100 IAg/m3
Nitrogen Average e.. Phase (0.05 ppm) Same a, w. Phase
Chemilumi- Primary Chemilumj-
Dioxide 0.25 ppm
1 Hour nescence - Shindard. nescence
(470 IAg/m3)
AnnUAl 8O"8/m3
Average - (0.03 ppm) -
24 Hour 0.05 ppm 36511g/m3 -
Sulfur (131 IAg/m)) Ultraviolet (0.14 ppm)
Dioxide' FluOJ'KC\mce 1300... g/m3 Pa,.arowniline
3 Hour - -
(0.5 ppm)
1 Hour 0.25 ppm - -
CbS5 j,lg/m3)
Suspended Annual Mean 30 ....s/m3 Size Selrctive 50 pg/m3
Particul.ate Inlll't High High Volume
M.tler Volume . Sampling
(PM 10) 24 Hour 5O~g/m3 SamplrT 150 ~g/m3
Sulfates 24 Hour 25~g/m3 Turbidime-tric - .
Barium Sulfate- .
30 Day 1.5 ~ g/m3 - -
Lead Averagt> Atomic Atomic
Cale-ndar - Ao.orption 1.S..g/m3 S.me as Absorption
Quarter Primary
Hydrogrn 0.03 ppm Cadmium
Sulfide 1 Hour (42 ~ g/m3) Hydroxide . . -
SIraclan
Vinyl Chloride 0.010 ppm Tedl., INg
24 Hour CollKtiol'l, Ca. . - -
fchloroethenr) (26 j.ig/m3) Chromatogr.ph)'
Visibility In suflide-nl amount to reduce
Reducing 1 Observation the prevailing viilibility to less . . .
than 10 miln when the relative
Particles humidity is Ins than 70~.
Notes:
I. CalifomJa standards. other than ozone. carbon
monoxlde. sulfur dloxlde (I hourI. nitrogen dloxlde. and
partJculate matter (PM1J. an values that are not to be
equaled or exceeded, The ozone. carbon monoxide. sulfur
dloxlde (I hour). nitrogen dioxide. and particulate matter
!PM,,) standards are not to be exceeded.
2. National standards. other than ozone and those based
on annual averages or annual geometr1c means. are not to
be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard 15
attained when the expected number of days per calendar
year With maximum hourly average concentrations above
ltandard Is equal to or less than one.
3. Concentration expressed first In units In which It was
promulgated. Equivalent units g1ven in parentheses are
based upon a reference temperature of 250C and a reference
. pressure of 760 nun of mercury. All measurements of a1r
quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of
250C and a reference pressure of 760 nun of mercury
(1.013.2 millibar). ppm In this table refers to ppm by volume
or mlcromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
4. Any equtvalent procedure that can be shown to the
satisfaction of the AJI Resources Board to give equivalent
results at or near the level of the air qual1ty standard may
be used.
5. National PrImary Standards: The levels of air quality
necessary. wtth an adequate margin of safety. to protect the
public health. Each state must atwn the prtmary standards
wtthln a opectJled number of years after that otale.s
Implementation plan 10 approved by the Envlronmental
Protection Agency IEPA).
6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air
quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any
known or antidpated atlvene effects of a poUutant. Each
atate must attain the IeCOndaJY atandards within a "reason-
able lime" after the Implementation plan 18 approved by the
EPA.
7. Reference method as descrtbed by the EPA: An
-equivalent method" of measurement may be used but must
have a "consistent rdationshjp to the reference method" and
must be approved by the EPA.
8. Prevall1ng visibility Is defined &5 the greatest visibility
that 18 attained or ourpassed around at least half of the
hortzon c1rcle but not necessartly in continuous sector.
9. The annual PM,. otate otandard Is based on the
ceometr1c mean of all reported values taken during the year.
The annual PM 10 national standard Is based on averaging
the quarterly artthmetic means. /" // (I [)
j)~IR;}'-
O. 'ssary of Air Pollution Terms
ACID DEPOSmON- The conversion of sulfur
oxide and nltrogen oxide emissions Into acidic
compounds that precipitate In rain, snow, fog, or
dry particles.
AIR MONITORING-Sa.mpllng and measuring
pollutants present In the atmosphere.
AIR BASIN-An area with coriunon and distinc-
tive meteorological and geographJcaI features.
The borders of the San Diego Air Basin are the
boundaries of San Diego County.
AIR RESOURCES BOARD (ARB}-Californla's
state agency responsible for clean air programs.
The ARB controls mobile pollution sources but
delegates Its authority over stationary sources
(such as factories) to local air quality districts.
AMBIENT AIR-outside air.
ATTAINMENT-Legal recognltlon that an area
meets standards for a particular pollutant.
EMISSION INVENTORY-A listing. by source,
of 'utants emitted into a community's
at.. ~phere In amounts (commonly tons) per
day or year.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(EPA)-The federal agency concerned with air
quality.
HYDROCARBONS-Any of a vast famlly of
compounds containing carbon and hydrogen In
various combinations, found especially In sol-
vents and fuels. Some of the hydrocarbon com-
pounds are major air pollutants. They may be
active participants in the photochemical process.
INVERSION-A layer of warm air In the atmos-
phere that lies over a layer of cooler air, trapping
pollutants.
MIXING HEIGHT-Distance from the ground to
the top of the mixed layer of the atmosphere; a
measure of the volume of air available to dilute
pollutants.
NITROGEN OXIDES (NOx)-Gases formed
primarily from atmospheric nitrogen and
oxygen when combustion takes place, particu-
la~" under conditions of high temperature.
O:""&E; LAYER-A naturally occurring layer of
ozone seven to 30 miles above the earth's surface
In the stratosphere. The ozone layer flIters out
the sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation. It Is not
affected by the ozone In photochemlcal smog
found In the lower atmosphere. There Is no
m1xIng between ozone at ground level and ozone
In the upper atmosphere,
PHOTOCHEMI~u1rIng the presence of
sunlight for a chem1ca1 reaction.
POLLUTANT STANDARDS INDEX (PSI)-A
system of reporting air pollution levels to the
public by assigning them a numerical value.
RISK ASSESSMENT-Evaluation of expected
health Impacts on a specific population.
SMOG-origtnally an English term contracting
"smoke" and "fog: It Is used In Caltfornla to
describe the mixture of pollutants pr1marily
composed of ozone and oxidants.
TOPOGRAPHY-The configuration of a land
surface. Including Its relief and the position of
Its natural and manmade features.
TOXXC-A substance that Is poisonous or
harmful to plants and/or animals.
TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES
(TCMs)-Any measure designed to reduce
emissions from transportation such as
carpooling, changing traffic flow patterns, or
using mass transit to Improve air quality.
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOCl--An
organic compound that readily evaporates at
normal temperatures: some are smog-forming.
r UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
m'-cublc meter
mm-lIIhneter. equal to 1/1,000 of.
meter
I1m-mlcntmeter. equal 1/1,000,000 of
. meter
. mc-mJWeram: equal to 1/1.000 of.
pam.
fte-mJcntpam.; equal to 1/1.000,000 of
. pam.
ppm-parta per mllUOD; the D1UIlber of
parta of. Ji"eD pollutant ID ODe
mllUOD parta of air
pphm-parta per bundrecl mllUOD; the
Dumber of parta of. JiveD pollutant
... ODe bundred mllUOD parts of air
.__ ." ...._. ~.c._.-__
1;;-/&/
~
cg
cg
o
Annual
Report
Page 13
y _ (;8
o
0)
0)
...c
mnual
leport
'age 14
About the District
The San Diego Air Pollution Control
District Is committed to achieving and
maintaining healthful air quality through-
out San Diego County. Its pr1mary goal is
to meet and maintain air quality stan-
dards at the earliest possible date. Each
dlvislon of the District plays a key role in
meeting this challenge.
· Air Re.ource. and Strstegy Develop-
ment develops and revises air quality
plans. These plans outllne specific strate-
gies and control measures to achieve
standards set by the federal and state
governments.
· Enforcement staff enforce rules and
i"egulatlons concerning the amount of
pollution that can be released Into the air.
District Inspectors check all permitted and
non-permitted sources of air contaminants
to make sure permit conditions and air
pollution laws are followed. Enforcement
staff are authorized to Issue Notices of
Violation when air pollution goes beyond
permitted limits and to pursue criminal
and civil penalties for violations.
· Engineering manages a permit system
to ensure that industrial equipment meets
. the emission standards of District rules
and regulations. Equipment such as
boilers, generators, turbines, spray
booths. and fuel tanks require permits.
Depending on the klnd of Industry. air
pollution control equipment such as
afterburners or scrubbers may be re-
quired. Engineering Is also responsible for
developing air quality rules. stationary
source emissions Inventory. and imple-
menting air toxic emissions Inventory and
control programs.
· Monitoring and Technical Service.
installs. operates. and maintains air qual-
ity monitoring stations to continuously
record pollution levels and meteorological
information to forecast pollution levels.
Monitoring also performs laboratory and
field testing for stationary sources of air
pollution. prepares regular and special air
quality reports. and administers District
emergency contingency plans.
· ........Inl.trstlve Service. prepares and
administers the District budget. provides
data management support. and performs
administrative/clerical functions for all
other District divisions.
Air Pollution Control Officer
Appointed by the Air Pollution Control
Board. the Air Pollution Control Officer
lAPCO) is responsible for all District
programs. The APCO also participates In
the formation offederal and state policy.
legislation. and regulations on air quality.
Air Pollution Control Board
The County Board of Supervisors is the
.Air Pollution Control Board for the San
Diego Air Basin. The Board appropriates
funding for the District's operation and
adopts local rules for controlling air pollu-
tion. The District's funding comes from
the state and federal governments and
from fees and penalties charged to local
Industries.
The Board also appoints the Air Pollu-
tion Control Officer and members of the
Hearlng Board. the Air Quality Strategy
Development Committee. and the APCD
Advisory Committee.
The Hearing Board
Established by state law. the Hearlng
Board consists of five members (an attor-
ney. an engineer. a medical expert. and
two representatives of the public).
Although appointed by the Air Pollution
Control Board. the Hearlng Board is an
independent quasi-Judicial body. Vari-
ances (an administrative exception to a
law) are granted only by the Hearlng
Board. not by District inspectors or engi-
neers. When Indlviduals or companies
come Into conllict with District rules and
regulations. the Hearlng Board hears all
sides. weighs the evidence. and reaches a
decision. ) b - / tJ,;{
})- to<(
The Heartng Board also hears appeals
of operating conditions set by the District.
al .Is from permit denials. and staff
requests for permit revocations and abate-
ment orders.
that wl1l end with the submittal of air
quality plans requtred by the 1988 Califor-
nia and the federal Clean Air Acts.
Air Pollution Control District
Advisory Committee
To restructure citizen participation in
air quality planning and District pro-
grams. the Air Pollution Control Board
established the Air Pollution Control
District AdVisory Committee in 1988. The
committee's nine members are appointed
by the Board.
The committee makes recommenda-
tions to the District and the Board on
matters relating to the District's annual
budget. permit fees. annual progress
reports. and regulatory changes.
Citizen Advisory Committees
Air Quality Strategy
Development Committee
The Air Quality Strategy Development
Committee replaced the Community Re-
sources Panel in early 1989. The strategy
committee consists of 36 members repre-
senting a broad spectrum of interests and
expertise.
Members are appointed by the Air
Pollution Control Board to serve a term
Citizen
Advisory
I Air Pollution Control Officer 1 Committees
I
Engineering Enforcement
Administrative Services
Monitoring Air Resources
& Strategy Development
I
r I
- Monitoring - Engineering to- Enforcement
'., , .
- Ambient Monitoring - Chemical _ Air Resources &
I Strategy Development
'.
- Rule Development Hearing Board
- Stationary Sources -
.._~. .~.,.~.__ n..'"
Meteorology - Air Toxics
-
& Modeling Vapor Recovery
- Emissions Inventory
..1onitorlng - Mechanical ..
-
& Maintenance Special Projects
I- Public Information
.... .'- -_...
I- Data Management
. .
h- Clerical
.. Personnel
....... -
L- Accounting
.. Finance
/Iv-/o]
t-I
CD
CD
o
Annual
Report
Page 15
,/
Y-bJ
o
0)
0)
...c
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
9150 Chesapeake Drive
San Diego, CA 92123
Permit &: General Information ......................... (619) 694-3307
Air Quality Forecast Message .......................... (619) 565-6626
Smoking Vehicle Reporting .......................... 1-800-28-SMOKE
Community Relations/Education .................... (619) 694-3332
*
/b~/OY
J> f,u
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
,
I
- I
I
I
,
I
.
APPENDIX E
ENGINEERING TRAFPIC REPORTS
) t / )05'
/)_ C: '7
./
y- Id
.B..ORAIIDDII
DATE: February 6, 1992
TO: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning
VIA: Cliff Swanson, Deputy Public Works Directorl
City Engineer
FROM: Hal Rosenberg, City Traffic Enginee~
SUBJECT: 1991 Traffic Monitoring Program
Attached, per your request, are the results of the 1991 Traffic
Monitoring Program ('1'MP) study.
The 1990 '1'MP study recommended that the 1991 Traffic Monitoring
Program conduct average weekday peak period (AM, Mid-Day, and PM)
travel time studies on a system-wide basis. However, ~ue to time
constraints it was not possible to perform the field surveys and
complete a system wide study before June 1992. Therefore, it was
~ecided to conduct an abbreviated study for the 1991 '1'MP. This
allows us to provide the Growth Management Oversight Commission
(GMOC) with preliminary traffic threshold information based on
the new HeM methodology at their February/March meeting. The
1992 system wide '1'MP study will be presented to the GMOC in
September /October 1992. This schedule will provide us with
sufficient time to perform lengthy labor intensive field surveys,
time to analyze the data and to prepare the final report.
The abbreviated study for the 1991 '1'MP was conducted ~uring the
PM peak traffic period along the "8" Street corridor between 1-
80S and I-S and on Third Avenue from "8" Street to 660 feet south
of Moss street. The results of that study are summarized in the
attached report.
SM:sm
Attachment
(SM\M-91'1'MP .DOC)
File: HX-014
/ Ie -J tJ 1/
]) - (/j
YEAR 1991 TlU.!'FIC MONITORING PROGRAM
In 1988 the City of Chu1a Vista aOopteO a Growth Management Plan
. to assist the City in asses.ing the environmental, fiscal anO
operaUonal impacts of proposeO 1anO development. One of the
elements incluOeO in the Growth Management Plan was the Traffic
Element which specifieO thresho10 atanOarOs for acceptable Level.
of Service at all aignalizeO intersections.
In 1989 anO 1990 a consultant was retaineO to determine the then
current operating conOition of all existing aigna1izeO
intersecUons in the City anO to compare them to the aOopteO
'1'hresholO StanOarOs. . '1'hese Traffic Monitoring .rogram (TMP)
atuOies determineO intersection Levels of Service (LOS) using the
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) .ethed. '1'he r.sults of
the 1990 TMP inOicateO that 102 of the 109 aignalizeO
intersections in the City operateO at LOS A to C during the PM.
peak, 6 operateO at LOS D anO 1 operateO at LOS E. All 109 City
intersections operateO at LOS A to C during both the AM anO the
MiO-Oay peak hours. When compareO to the '1'hresholO StanOarOs, it
was founO that only the intersection of Hilltop Dr./H st. diO not
meet the stanOarOs.
At the request of the City Council, the Year 1990 '1'MP examineO
the leu methoO for calculating intersection Level of Service anO
compared that methoO to the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
method which redefines LOS as a function of vehicle StoppeO '1'ime
Delay. '1'he '1'raffic Element of the General Plan was revised to
conform to HCM methoOology anO was approveO by the Growth
Management Oversight Commission in May 1991. '1'hh reviseO
'1'raffic Element, which incluOeO HeM Level of Service values for
arterial segments anO recommendeO an arterial analysis network
for use in conducUng the Year 1991 TMP, is attacheO to this
report.
'1'he 1990 TMP study recommenOeO that the 1991 Traffic Monitoring
Program conOuct average weekOay peak period (AM, MiO-Day, anO PM)
travel time stuOies on a system-wiOe basis. '1'his, in aOOition to
gathering .Oditional data at critical intersections, woulO
generate a comprehensive data base using the HCM .ethedology.
However, due to time constraints it was deciOeO to conOuct an
abbreviateO travel time stuOy for the Year 1991 Traffic
Moni toring Program anO delay the aystem-wiOe atuOy unU1 the
following year.
'1'he abbreviateO 1991 '1'MP atuOy consists of the following three
aegments:
East H Street/H St.
H st.
'1'hirO Ave.
(I-B05 S.B. Kamps - '1'hirO Ave.)
('1'hirO Ave. - 1-5 H.B. Ramps)
(H st. - 660' a/o Moss st.).
'1'hese segments were chosen for the stuOy because they include the
intersections of '1'hirO Ave./H st., '1'hirO Ave./J St. anO Hilltop
It /)07
7J- '70
Dr./H St. which were foun~ to be operating at marginal Levels of
Service by the 1990 Traffic Monitoring PrQ9ram. ~he atudy was
performed ~urin9 January 1992 for the PM peri~ (4:00 pm to 6:00
pm) only. ~he PM period was chosen because it i. the only peak
period c!uring which any intersection in the City operated at a
Level of Service less than LOS C. ~he result. of the 1991 ~P
atudy are aummarized in this report.
Data collection for travel time .tu~ies conai.ta of driVing a
apecially equippec5 vehicle along each aegment during the peak
periods for traffic flow. ~his vehicle i. equippec5 with a
computer which recor~s the distance travele~ for each aecon~ of
time .pent driving the aegment. Subsequent analysis of the fielc5
data generates information 'on travel time, average apee~,. cruise
apee~, number of atops, an~ delay time along the length of the
.egment on a directional basi.. A .ufficient number of run. must
be done for each direction of each aegment to provi~e a
.tatistically ac5equate .ample with a minimum acceptable level of
confi~ence of 80'. Arterial LOS is then evaluatec5 accor~ing to
the HeM Level of Service values .hown in the revisec5 ~raff1c
Element.
~he following results were obtainec5 for each of the aegments
studied for the 1991 TMP:
East H street/H Stree
East:bound
I-80S - Hilltop
Hilltop - First
First - Second
Second - Third
Avg. Speed
(MPH) I&S.
25.6 A
14.2 C
28.3 A
26.2 -A
22.6 B
I-80S - ~hird
H St.reet
East:bount!
Avg. Speec5
(MPHI
I&S.
C
C
B
D
..>>
~hird - Fourth
Fourth - Fifth
Fifth - Broadway
Broa~way - Woodlawn
Woodlawn - 1-5 (NB)
15.6
16.5
19.0
12.7
11..3
~hir~ - 1-5 (NB)
15.0
C
-2-
Westbound
Avg. Speed
(MPH) I&S.
33.3 A
21.7 B
31.0 A
1'7.8 -C
25.7 A
We.t:bounc!
.
.
Avg. Speed
IMPH)
~
B
B
C
C
J
C
".6
".6
13.6
13.5
"..0
14.3
/ b /! () ~
/)-1 (
~hirc! Avt!nu@
Iforthhounf! .~uthbount.!
Avg. Speed Avg. Speed
(MPHl 1&21 fMPH) 1&21
H st. - 1 st. 15.2 C 21.7 B
1 st. - is st. 27.4 A 24.3 B
is st. - It st. 24.3 B 19.5 B
It st. - L st. 18.3 C 13.3 C
L st. - Moss St. H.4 C 25.2 A
MOSII - ~150' Sout.h 31.9 -A 28.:7 -A
H st.- 660' s/o Mo.. 20.3 B 20.3 B
~he following are overall average ~ravel times recorded for the
studied segments:
East H ~t./H ~~. (I-80S - ~hird Ave)
Eastbound: 3 min. 22.1 sec.
Westbound: 2 min. 57.3 sec.
H S~. (Third Ave - 1-5 NB Ramos\
Eastbound: 4 min. 30.2 sec.
Westbound: 4 min. 43.5 sec.
Third Ave. (N S~. - 6150' ./0 Moss st.\
Northbound: 4 min. 04.1 sec.
Southbound: 4 min. 03.9 sec.
Full sWlllllaries for each segment studied are attached to ~1a
oreport.
.
Travel ~ime studies will also venerate data on stopped time delay
over ~he course of ~he links of a segment. ~his 1nformation can
be used to approximate a LOS for each approach to 1ntersections
along ~at segment. However, ~is approximation will attribute
any mid-block delay to ~he next adjacent signalized 1ntersection.
~herefore, if an accurate LOS value for any 1ntersection 1s
required, additional 1n-depthanalysis must be done 1n order ~o
calculate that LOS using the HOM method. with ~i. qualification
in mind, the study show ~e following street approach.. operating
at LOS D:
Iff, '/0;
-3-
})-1:;2...-
..
H st. at Broal!way (n I Ell)
H st. at Wooc!lawn Ave. (n)
H st. at 1-5 1m Ramps (n)
H st. at Hilltop Dr. (EB)
~hirl! Ave. at ~ st. (SB)
~he stul!y ahowel! that the other intersection approaches along the
three ae;ments opera tel! at a LOS of C or better with r.spect to
atoppe15 time delay.
Since the revise15 Traffic Element emphasi&es average travel apee15
along the entire arterial aegment, it can be aeen that all three
aegments atu15ie15 meet the threshol15 atan15ards by ..intaining an
overall Level of Service of C or better even though aome of the
ae;ment links operate at l.ss than ~OS C. When evaluating the
poor Level of Service for the ae;ment link on H st. between
Woo4lawn Ave. an15 the 1-5 1m Ramps the following factors must be
consi15ere15: .
1. ~he segment link is very ahort (541'). ~his means that
traffic delaye15 at H St./I-5 1m Ramps an15 at H St./Woo4lawn
Ave. backs up along the length of the link.
2. ~here is a trolley crossing at the H St./I-5 1m Ramps
intersection. Due to the increase in the frequency of the
trolley, the trolley crossing vates come down approximately
every 3 1/2 minutes.
3. ~he graae crossing for the trolley restricts the apeea
of vehicles as they cross the trolley tracks.
4. ~he signal at H St./I-5 1m Ramps is a CaUrans aignal;
therefore, it is not part of Chula Vista'a aignal aystem.
~ypically, Cal trans signals favor traffic on the ramps.
~his keeps traffic on the ramps from backing up onto the
freeway but increases the delay to traffic on the atreet
crossing the freeway.
Finally, westboun15 traffic on H st. which ia turning onto
southbounl! 1-5 overflows the duel left turn pocket an15 backs up
through the H St./1-5 1m Ramps intersection blocking the
westboun15 '1 lane for through traffic. ~his also creates delay :
at the intersection of H St./I-5 1m Ramps. ~his, along with the
factors liate15.' above, accounts for the LOS E meaaurel! on
"..tboun15 H st.. between WOOlSlawn Ave. an15 the 1-5 Jm Ilamps.
(C:\SM\TMP91A.DOC)
-4-
/b'//tJ
v- '1 ~
Y-/t
MEMORANDUM
April 27, 1992
File . HX-014
TO:
Growth Management Oversight commission
Clifford L. swanso~eputy Public Works Director/
City Engineer~
H street Corridor Traffic Impact Issue
FROM:
SUBJ'ECT:
At the July 1, 1991 Growth Management Oversight Commission meeting,
the Traffic Engineer presented the results of the 1990 Traffic
Monitoring Program. In that report staff provided the Commission
with an overview of an assessment of traffic conditions on the H
Street corridor. Specifically, staff provided the Commission with
the information regarding the relationship between growth and
development in the eastern territory planning area and its affect
on traffic activity on H Street west of 1-805.
In addition, staff documented the importance of redesignating H
Street between Hi 11 top Drive and Third Avenue from a four lane
major street to a six lane major street based on the cumulative
affect of traffic growth, both in the central part of the City as
well as in the eastern part of the City.
Staff reported that existing land developments and those planned in
the future in the eastern territories planning area contribute
significantly to traffic volumes on H Street. Approximately 50% or
more of the traffic flow along the H Street corridor originate or
terminate within the eastern territory planning area.
The commission may recall that when the General Plan was reviewed
by the City Council, questions were raised about the ability to
actually obtain a six lane facility between Hilltop Drive and Third
Avenue. Because of the impact that such a widening would have on
existing properties, the City Council voted to retain a four lane
major street designation for this portion of H Street until staff
could demonstrate how this could be accomplished and/or possible
alternatives.
For ease of reference, the recommendations presented in the July 1,
1991 report are repeated here.
)tb---j//
v-'}~
GMOC
-2-
April 27, 1992
Near Term Measures
1. Focus future geometric improvements at signalized
intersections where impedimented traffic flow are greatest.
This measure may forestall the need for mid-block widening.
2. Prohibit on street parking along critical mid-block segments
to increase capacity and improve traffic flow.
Long Term Measure
1. study a General Plan Alnendment for a six lane facility
(between Hilltop Drive and Third Avenue).
2. Adopt a minimum roadway width standard to minimize impacts of
future widening on adjacent properties.
3. For segment west of Fourth Avenue, the City shall require
roadway widening in addition to right of way dedication to
implement the modified roadway width standard as a condition
of development.
4. For the segment between Third Avenue and Fourth Avenue, the
City may defer mid-block widening and focus on improving
intersection capacity.
It is worth noting that recent traffic studies performed for the
development of Otay Ranch, EastLake Activity Center, including a
Kaiser Hospital, and the Mid-Bayfront Proposed Development project,
all confirm the previous conclusion that H street, west of 1-805
should be a continuous six lane facility.
During the past year, staff has implemented some of the near term
and long term m~asures.
1. A typical cross section describing lane configurations and
minimum roadway width necessary to provide six lanes has been
developed. This standard is illustrated on the attached
figure.
2. The six lane minimum width roadway section has been applied to
three proposed development projects.
a. A medical office complex at the intersection of Hand
Glover.
b. Expansion of the Chula Vista mall.
c. Expansion of Scripps Hospital.
) t/? --//,2,
V~/l &
.
- -
GMOC
-3-
April 27, 1992
3. A capital improvement project has been initiated for the
intersection of H Street and Hilltop Drive for the 1992-93
Fiscal Year Capital Improvement Program. The project will
provide a minimal widening of H Street, east of Hilltop Drive
to provide additional width to accommodate two left turn lanes
for the westbound direction. The proposed improvement is
illustrated on the attached exhibit.
4. Caltrans has been requested to rectify a confusing traffic
situation for west bound traffic on H street at Bay Boulevard.
A marked westbound left turn lane to Bay Boulevard will be
provided. In addition, the right turn lane for the southbound
off ramp will be restricted to, "No Right Turn on Red" to
allow pedestrians to cross the off ramp along H street.
5. The first phase of improvements of the I-80S and H street
interchange, consisting of signal ization of the south bound on
ramp, is complete. The second phase schedule in the future
will consist of modification of the freeway ramps and
improvements on H street between Hidden Vista and the freeway.
The second phase improvements are intended to provide
additional capacity at the interchange to accommodate traffic
growth emanating from the Rancho Del Rey development and other
developments in the eastern territory planning area. The
second phase project report is almost complete.
6. Staff is continuing to review all possible options to increase
the ability of H Street to carry the anticipated traffic
between Third Avenue and Hilltop Drive. These measures
include signal and timing revisions as well as reclassifying
this segment to a modified six lane major street. To obtain
six lanes it is recognized that H Street would have to be
widened, although to a lessor modified typical section.
Additional right-of-way would have to be acquired and this
would be difficult and expensive to accomplish today since
there are existing buildings that may be effected. Staff does
not advocate that this be done by initiating a City project
now or in the near future. However, as redevelopment occurs
along H Street over the next twenty years, the redesignation
of H Street as a six lane major street will provide staff with
the discretionary authority to require dedication and
improvements.
Recent travel time studies performed for the 1991 Traffic
Monitoring Program have indicated that H street between I-80S and
1-5 is functioning within an acceptable levels of service. Traffic
monitoring is proceeding on a continuing basis to ensure that the
signal timing on H street is providing the most optimum service
possible. Existing levels of service reported in the 1991 Traffic
Monitoring Program are repeated below for reference.
)6 - / ) J
v~/71
GMOC
-4-
April 27, 1992
East H St./H st. (I-B05 - Third Ave)
Eastbound: Avq. Speed
Westbound: Avq. Speed
22.6 MPH LOS II
25.7 MPH LOS A
H St. (Third Ave - Y-S NB Ramns'
Eastbound: Avq. Speed
Westbound: Avq. Speed
15.0 MPH LOS C
14 . 3 MPH LOS C
Third Ave. lH St. - 660' sIc Moss st.
Northbound: Avq. Speed 20.3 MPH LOS II
Southbound: Avq. Speed 20.3 MPH LOS II
In conclusion, staff respectfully requests that the GMOC accept
this information report.
HR:dv/kw
(HR/GMOC .MEM)
.
/jp-j1i
P-1~
.
0;
~
-..u
~
'..
'"
I~
~;--..
~
.I~ .._
...
I
~ : II I II
C : II II
: II I II::
ii:l:I: ~ :11:.
: II ~ III'
1ft! I
I I jj1 .0.
I
...
... : II III
d I I:
1'1
II:
... :11 III
- d I '
I . II'
III II:
:11 II'
d I II:
till"'" ,'f' '111
J .. {.:::I;
'1:-
I
-,,:--' -+-
...
.
-----,
-
-,.
....-
.
-
. __...." i
.
...
f
C.
I .
P
Ii I
t
..
....
. ...-.
.... .....
.
/0//).5"
])'71
.n
-
-..
-..- ....
-
i
;
-
I
..
E '
. I
~ I
z I
I
~
......
~
....
-()
"
'<'
~
..u
...
....
.-......
~ .......
~~
--
...
: II ~ :
I II ~ I ~ II '
I :: I
, II : : III
'. ,
:II~':II'
: II ) : II :
~,
I .~:
Hl '. : Hi
: II :..) II :
III :.111
: II ~ II :
:= II II :
I II II :
I II I
! II II :
. ~ II II :
ill III
...
I
.. II II'
,
p,I:I: - :1:1:1-
. I
I I
I
...
--.
--.~..
.. J--.G~ 1- _
-, "
\ . I ,
· .I1~1~ . ;. ~I~I. - i
... tl .... .. .. .. t ..
:11 II:
d I III!
: II II: ~
:". II:;
" I II' .
:11 II:
,
I
:11 II'
.. il il
- 'II II'
,
" I II'
- dl'!';,;, 'j"j1i i
.. ..... I
I I
: II II:!
~ III I III .
! : II II.
: II) ,,(
I ..
" 11111
i '=I:I=fl?I=I" i
I :1: I
III~ ~1I1
I :: I
~
a
Ii
- I
C ~
~c
.1
c
.
i
...
."
......... :I
--
It-II?
J) _ <J 17
i
.
~
j
, .
-
i
..
~
-
~
!:
~ '
. I
:; I
z I
-,
. \1'
;
.::t
, I.u
.
Of. N
..
.
=: ~
I
I
~ I
I
~ I
I
.... I
~ .... I ~
- .. -
'" I
~ I ...
I
I J:
I ,
I fl ~
I "'I ll:::
I r~ : I
I .
It) .
Il',j , ,. -~ !:i
~ 0::,: ~
I' "'1 I'\l
I I
~ I I
:r ~'Y I ~!\. I I
Z I I
I I
j
I \
\
/
I
~ /
,
,-
...
-----------
11-4.
~ d
-2...L
-i-. \l'
~ \I
~~
'-.IX
~
~ s
i 0
~')
e f \J
~~ .~
.... ~
~j;)
~ ~
~"-oJ A...
~ Q( -r:
:--~:::-
s.;; :s 0-
~o::t
~
------ --
~
-10
~
-
- t/o+/lf!l
~
----------- .....
'...
.
,
,
\
\
.'
..-
.-.---------
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 'q..."" ...
I' ~ ~
I
"
/
I
/
I
, I
: t
: jj;---/J7
... ... I 0,
~ I ~ : y- ~I
p , t:r
.
APPENDIX P
PARKS AND RECREATION MEMORANDUM AND PROPOSED THRESHOLD
/~-1/7
y_ f3
J)- f </-
MEMORMTIUM
June 3, 1992
TO: The Growth Management Oversight Commission
FROM: Jess Valenzuela, DireGtor of Parks and ReGreati~
SUBJECf: . Compliance with the Parks and ReGreation Threshold Standard for 1991
The Department is pleased to present a report on Parks and ReGreation activities relating to the
Parks and Recreation Threshold Standard in the Growth Management Ordinance. A report was
previously given to the GMOC in April, 1991, and reviewed by the City Council in July of 1991. This
report is structured to provide the foUowing information:
. FY 91192 Department Overview
. Discussion of GMOC issues of 1990 carried over to 1991
. Discussion of GMOC issues of 1991
. Strategies recommended for a 20 year plan
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
The Department completed the following projects in the past 12 months:
1. The Community Youth Center (located at Chula Vista High School), with operation by the
Boys and Girls Club and the School District. The Department furnishes recreational
programming on weekends.
2. Renovation of Memorial Park - Phase I (8.0 acres)
3. Renovation of Norman Park Center ($2.5 million, 17,000 sq. ft.)
4. Parl,;way Pool (lighting, filtration, meGhanical system)
5. Rohr Park. Phase I (14 acres) ($1.4 million)
6. Terra Nova Park (8.8 acres)
Ilo>o<1.
1
/b-)/1
v- fJ
Growth Management Oversight Commission Report
June 3, 1992
GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS OF 1990 CARRIED OVER TO 1991
Recommendation a. Revise park thrc:&hold standard _t of 1-805:
The City's Parldands and Public Facilities Ordinance, Chapter 17.10.040, presently contains the
standard of 3 acres per 1,000 people for the entire city. The standard is also noted in the Parks and
Recreation Element of the Genera] Plan. The Department does not differentiate this standard
between the eastern and western portions of Chula Vista. In the Department's previous report to
the GMOC, language was offered to amend the Growth Management Threshold. The GMOC can
proceed to recommend that the Council adopt a revised park threshold for the growth management
ordinance, based on the current City ordinance which provides for 3 acres/1,000 city-wide. The
following statistics represent the City's existing parkland acreage standard (as of January 1992):
Acres of Acres/ Acre Acre
Pooulation Parks 1.000 Shortfall Excess
East of 1-805 39,108 202.50 5.18 -0- 85.26
West of 1-805 100,042 123.95 1.23 177.07 -0-
City-Wide 139,150 326.45 2.35 91.41 -0-
Standardndca] 139,150 418.26 3.00 -0. -0-
For every 1 acre of park land per 1,000 residents in the west, there are 4.21 acres per 1,000 residents
in the east.
However, it should be noted that of the 202.S park acres officially counted as being east of 1-805,
many parks were already in c:a:istence before the growth in the eastern territories. For _pIc, Rohr
Park and Greg Rogers l'ark constitute 114 acres of parkland that were not funded through developer
agreements.
In revising the park threshold west of the 1-805, there are some significant issues to take into
consideration, relative to achieving a 3 acre per 1,000 parkland ratio. These issues are addressed in
starrs response to the GMOC recommendation of developing a goal of meeting the standard within
20 years.
Recommendation b. Adopt a specific definition of net usable acreage ~eD calculating park
acreage.
The Department surveyed 17 California cities to inquire if their city has a definition of usable park
area when a developer has a requirement to furnish park acreage. Of the 17 cities, only 3 cities
I k / /d<(/
.....1
2
-V_It
GrO\l.'th Management Oversight Commission Report
June 3, 1992
responded "yes" (Anaheim, Orange and Stockton) to such a policy. The City of Anaheim had tbe
most comprehensive policy, stating they would not accept any land dedication with more than 5%
grade. Attached is a proposed park site selection policy for consideration by tbe GMOC and the
Council (Auacbment "A").
Recommendation e. The City Council should adopt a requirement that all DeW multi-famiJy
residential provide private rcc:rcationaJ areas (Le., tot lots) wbc:never possible.
The Department performed a survey among California cities to determine if other cities offer credits
to multi-family residential developers for private recreational area. The survey results from 17 cities
showed only two cities, Oceanside and Oxnard give credit for private recreation facilities (Oceanside
gives park credits up to 50% when a developer meetings the specific requirements of a minimum of
3 acres of open space, andlor a combination of playground apparatus, ballfields, picnic facilities, etc.
Staff recommends that park credits not be given because, while residents of a multi.family area may
utilize the private facilities a portion of their leisure time; the facilities normally provided do not take
the place of facilities provided at neighborhood and community parks. Staff believes the impact of
multi-family users on public park amenities would remain the same as those residential areas which
do not provide private facilities.
Recommendation d. Park fees should be charged for all new residential development, rather than
only for developments which require tentative map approval At the present
time, apartment projects are not charged PAD fees.
As was previously discussed with the GMOC, State law prohibits the requirement of PAD fees where
a subdivision map or parcel map is not filed. In February, 1992, the Department presented to the
Council a report on the feasibility of enacting a Park Development Impact Fee (DIF) for apartments
in the western part of the City, similar to the DIF funds presently in place for other public
improvements. Examples of current DIF projects are: Transportation DIF; Civic Center Expansion
and Parking; New Corporation Yard; and the Geographic Information System (GIS). For each of
these projects, a specific scope of work was proposed and a determination was made for the actual
costs to construct or implement a pre-defined project.
Each DIF project is a separate fund, with a separate fee being collected. For instance, the DIF fee
for the GIS is $252 for each undeveloped acre in a construction projecL For the Civic Center
Expansion and Parking, the fee is $2,951.20 per acre. DIF fees are also calculated alternatively under
tbe equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) system. For the GIS, the fee per EDU is $45; for the Civic
Center Expansion and Parking, the fee per EDU is $527.
.
AB 1600, the state law enacted to allow cities to exact fees Crom developers for relief of growth
impacts, contains restrictive criteria which all cities must meet. Some of these criteria are:
...1
3
/(P-/~I
y_ f '7
.
Grov.1h Management Oversight Commission Report
June 3, 1992
. A need Cor service improvements J'C5ulting &om new development Ibould be demonstrated.
There must also be a demonstrated need that the impact on the park facilitics comcs &om a newly
built development, such as apartments; not when there's a need &om an Clisting park deficiency.
Discussion: In spite of the apparent western Chula Vista park deficiency, as explained above, there
must be a determination made that the consequences of a multi-unit apartment complex ~ing built
in western Chula Vista has a direct impact on the park facilities already being utilized by current
residents. Since the current ratio for the west is 1.23 acres, the City is not able, under the DIF legal
requirements, to request the developer to bring the city's parks to a ratio higher than the city
currently provides in that specific area.
If the City wishes to improve the park deficiency ratio in the western area, under DIF state law
provisions, the Q!y must provide the funds to bring any current park deficiency up to the established
standard, not the development or construction projecL
. Money can be collected for capital expenditures only if there is a reasonably definite I!.W! for
its expenditure. Plus, the Cee charged must not exceed the cost oC actual improvements required by
the ncw developmcnts.
Discussion: The City would be required to determine where improvements are needed, define the
scope of the project, and prepare a cost estimate for each project to be included in the Park DIF
fund. k an example, it may be determined that $5,000,000 in parks projects is needed on the
western side of Chula Vista by the year 2000. The fee which would be charged each apartment unit
being built could not, in the aggregate, bring in funds exceeding the $5,000,000 estimated cost of the
projects in the Park DIF.
. The expenditure of funds should be lnr.Jlli7M to the areas &om which they were collected.
. Discussion: The funds collected from apartments for a Park DIF project are to be spent for the
acquisition, renovation and enhancement of a park facility relatively accessible to the apartment
complex from which they were collected. It would not be considered a localized use of funds for Park
DIF Cees collected in the Montgomery area, if the Cunds were used on park improvements at
Eucalyptus Park in the north area of the city.
SummarY of Park DIF Discussion:
Staff Recommendation: The above criteria are only a few of the legal considerations which must be
addressed in determining the implementation of a Park DIF. Staff believes a Park DIF Cor
apartments does not appear Ceasible at this time, until a Parks Implementation Plan is in place. The
Parks Implementation Plan may assist the Department in the Cormation of pnk services areas, and
potential park capital projects; to which a Parks DIF could be adopted.
It - /d-;(
11-1
4
7J-S~
Gro\\1h Management Oversight Commission Report
June 3, 1992
GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1991
Recommendation a. The GMOC recommends that the City adopt. long range plan to apand
cmting parks or provide additional new parks in the area west of 1-805 to
meet the needs of cmting residents, with a goal of meeting the standard of
three acres per 1,000 on . city-wide basis within 20 years.. The
implementation of this plan should be funded by new rewcnue IOIIlCCIi in
addition to Park Acquisition and Deve10pment (pAD) fees.
The Department recognizes the need to develop a long range plan for park expansion west of the
1-805 Freeway. Staff is recommending that the GMOC support the following strategies to accomplish
the goal of mitigation of park deficiencies:
1. Initiate a Parks Implementation Plan in FY 92193.
2. Pursue the joint-use agreements with the school districts to allow expanded usage of their
recreation facilities and expansion of parks at school sites. This use of school district facilities
will then be counted in the park acreage ratio to improve the deficiencies in the standard.
3. Pursue Rice School and Lauderbach park expansions when funds become available.
4. Pursue Olay Valley Regional Park peripheral acquisition when a Parks Implementation Plan
is completed.
S. Pursue a financial plan to fund west side park improvements and development.
Strategy #1. Parh Imnlementation Plan
Staff recommends a Parks Implementation Plan for land acquisition and facility development should
~ adopted. This Plan will serve as a foundation to combine all previous and future planning efforts
together into a unified direction. In addition, the Plan will also augment planning efforts through a
systematic needs analysis of the community. The Parks Implementation Plan would include, among
other components:
.
An inventory of existing and proposed parks, open space, schools and related
amenities; quantify and analyze all private recreation amenities and privately owned
commercial recreation facilities.
.
An evaluation of the current city park acreage standard as -it-relates to the needs
assessment.
_I
5
/b//~J
})- (/1
Growth Management Oversight Commission Report
June 3, 1992
.
An analysis of the existing and potential distnbution of park land and related
amenities by function and service area. .
.
A fiscal and implementation analysis will be pursued. This will include the
development of a park acquisition/development priority plan, cost estimates for
acquisition/development, and maintenance costs.
The City's adopted General Plan calls out for a Parks Master Plan to be implemented. Just as the
City's General Plan aids the Council and staff in determining the placement of the City's amenities
and infrastructure, a Parks Implementation Plan will serve as the Master Plan Cor western Chula
Vista. It will work in conjunction with the General Plan in the implementation oC parks Cacilities.
A Parks Implementation (Master) Plan is being recommended Cor Cunding through the Capital
Improvement Project (CIP) process for FY 92193. The City Council will be considering the adoption
of this CIP some time in June.
Strategy #2. School District Recreation Opportunities to Offset Park Deficiencies
The strict interpretation of park deficiency is based on potential city park acreage available in the
community. The Council has discussed the option of reviewing additional types of public Cacilities
which could be counted toward the parks threshold. In particular, counting public school land as
open space or parkland presents a significant Council policy decision. In jurisdictions throughout the
state, shared use of school Cacilities is not uncommon.. In Cact, our General Plan encourages the
shared use of school facilities through joint use agreements and planning of parks contiguous to
school sites. The City has, in the past, achieved this goal. A notable example is the Chula Vista
Community Youth Center. In addition, the Department is in the process of finalizing joint use plans
at EastLake High School and the Cuture community park.
However, as general policy, the Department has not counted the school yards and athletic fields on
. District property, as park acreage. In order to consider such a policy, the GMOC and Council would
need to consider a "School Park" concept. In a school park concept, acreage would only be counted
when a joint use agreement is in place Cor a given site. Some oC the elements DC a joint use
agreement would include infrastructure improvements to school land, that is either undeveloped or
underutilized because oC poor site conditions. The City could install the amenities necessary to
achieve athletic fields, play areas and picnic Cacilities. Some oC the school site selection criteria may
include parking, security, need, and availability oC land.
In researching potential schools that are west oC the 1-805, it was discovered that there are areas at
certain sites that are Oat and usable, but undeveloped.
Discussions are presently underway with the Sweetwater Union High School District and the Chula
Vista Elementary School District, to determine the Ceasibility of joint use of Cacilities and improving
undeveloped school land into "school parks" through a joint use agreement. At the present time, the
'-I
6
) b - /o'<(
-;-) n,..,
Growth Management Oversight Commission Report
June 3, 1992
Department considers the following sites (for a total of 42.9 acres) as the most feasible (listed in
priority order):
1. Hilltop Middle School (16 acres)
2. Montgomery Elementary School (2.8 acres)
3. Castle Park Middle School (6 acres)
4. Otay Elementary School (2.1 acres)
5. Chula Vista Middle School (4 acres)
6. Rice School (7.5 acres)
7. Lorna Verde School (4.5 acres)
Should a workable and equitable joint use agreement be developed, the Department can formulate
a future policy for inclusion of these facilities in the park threshold standard.
Other potential school sites are two (2) vacant parcels by Feaster School (4 acres) and Bonita Vista
Middle School (13 acres).
Staff has attachcd (for information only) to this report, an inventory of school acres west of the I-80S,
showing open areas used for school recreation. These open areas are often used by the community
at large for a variety of recreational activities (Attachment "B").
Strategy #3. Acquisition of Land on the West Side of Chula Vista
Although a complete inventory of available land will not be forthcoming until the Parks
Implementation Plan is completed, the policy issues to be determined in conjunction with the
acquisition of land on the west side are tied to the definitions of community and neighborhood parks.
Parks smaller than neighborhood parks have a higher cost for maintenance, and are frequently areas
where unacceptable activities occur. Neighborhood parks should be 7 acres. Unfortunately, this
amount of contiguous land is not readily available in the developed western area except by
condemnation. Condemnation is a very expensive process and would result in the depletion of
revenue resources which should be used for park development.
The Planning Department recently researched their records to determine if there were vacant parcels
of land (minimum 5 acres) in the City of Chula Vista. The research yielded a list of 12 such 5+
acres; however, they are presently privately owned and a majority of them are contiguous to the
proposed Otay Valley Regional Park area. Some of the parcels have questionable topography and
another site is in a possible wetland habitat site in the Sweetwater Oood plain. This preliminary
analysis reveals that a majority of western Chula Vista is built-out, and poss~s a limited amount of
undeveloped land suited for park development. .
'-I
7
/jp ~/;J~
v- q,
Growth Management Ovenight Commission Report
June 3, 1992
However, notwithstanding the unavailability of land in densely populated neighborhoods, there is the
potential of park land in the following:
. Otay Valley Regional Park. The City of Chula Vista and County and City of San
Diego have been involved, since 1990, in a Joint Exercise of Powen Agreement,
whereby staff from each jurisdiction have been jointly planning a regional park in the
valley. It should be noted that the General Plan has identified the Otay Valley as
part of the City's greenbelt. The General Plan also identifies one neighbcirhood park
and one community park in the Otay Valley. Through a grant from the State Coastal
Conservancy, the City embarked on a Resource Enhancement Plan. This Resource
Enhancement Plan will identify sensitive areas within the valley requiring preservation
and areas suitable for active recreation and development. The Plan will hopefully
serve as a starting point in determining where potential acquisition opportunities will
present themselves in the Otay Valley. Although there are physical and regulatory
constraints, which could preclude or impede the devotion of the Otay Valley
floodplain to park use, this area provides Chula Vista the best opportunity to reduce
the parkland deficit in the Montgomery community and adjacent territory.
. Chula Vista Bayfront - besides acreage already set aside for open space, there is a
potential for 20-25 acres in the park component of the Mid-Bayfront Plan. In all
likelihood, the parks developed on the Bayfront will serve more passive park needs,
rather than active park needs. This is due in part to the park's linear configuration
and environmental constraints.
Strategy #4. Imolementation of the Parks Element of the Mont2omerv Soecific Plan
The Montgomery Specific Plan was adopted in 1988. The Plan determined, from an analysis of land
devoted to public and quasi-public use, that there is a very small amount of public park land within
the Montgomery area. The Specific Plan recommended that this deficiency be addressed in the City's
Capital Improvement Program over the next ten year period.
a. Lauderbach Park: The only existing public park in Montgomery is the Lauderbach
Community Center. The total size of the park is 3.90 acres, which includes the
center's building structure and parking. The Specific Plan suggests that land be
acquired to the west of the park over to the Fire Station to increase the park acreage.
Since this land is occupied by residences, condemnation would be required.
b. Woodlawn Park: The Specific Plan recommends a Master Pll!" be prepared to guide
the improvement of the community center and the adjacent park site. The Master
Plan should include consideration of the. option of closing that part of Orange Drive
which now separates the two sites, in order to facilitate the expansion of the park.
......1
8
J ~ --- /:2?
D~ q;.
.
Growth Management Oversight Commission Report
June 3, 1992
In their previous contacts with the County oC San Diego, it appears the Woodla....n
Community did not support this proposal. However, it has been some time since the
City has determined whether attitudes have ehanged. Staff could approach key
community leaders to determine interesL
After a preliminary site evaluation, it appears that this area has potential Cor
improvements. The existing condition oC the vacant site would allow Cor a passive
park, with improved landscaping, trees, a playground and some site furnishings. By
vacating the adjacent street, the project could be designed with less constraints. The
planning Cor this area could be included in a site plan, which would designate
relocation oC the existing parking lot and sufficient area to accomplish a desirable
passive neighborhood park installation.
c. Rice School: Several key issues relative to this site make it less than desirable Cor
development as a park. First, access and visibility into the site is impaired due to the
location in the center oC the block. The entire periphery oC the site has existing
apartments and the school. Secondly, a drainage channel runs along the southern
edge. To make the site accessible, modifications to the school district would be
required Cor vehicular access and parking. It is unclear how much oC the school land
may be available Cor park land development.
A potential solution would be to condemn and acquire the properties that are
adjacent to the site (along Third Avenue). The incorporation oC these parcels would
resolve most oC the concerns. The benefits oC acquisition would include: an increase
oC the park area to approximately 5 acres, vehicular and pedestrian access, allow
sufficient usable area to develop a viable park, provide good visual access over the
site, and provide a positive Ceature Cor the surrounding neighborhood.
d. SDG&E Right-oC-Way: The SDG&E right-oC-way crosses the central spine oC
Montgomery, in an east-west direction. This crossing presents an opportunity to
establish a green belt in an area that is substantially built ouL The Specific Plan
proposes that the SDG&E right-oC-way be reserved and improved Cor public parks or
open space.
There are constraints to designing parks in utility easements. Specifically, structures
such as buildings and recreation centers are restricted Cram these areas. In addition,
baseball or soCtball fields are also unacceptable within these right-oC-ways.
Restrictions also include the types oC plant materials acceptable within these areas.
And, lastly; there are some uncertainties about the health risks of electromagnetic
radiation. It would be the Department's recommendation to Consider the SDG&E
right-oC-way as open space, rather than active park area.
..... J
9
jJY-/.27
])- q 3
Growth Management Oversight Commission Report
June 3, 1992
Strategy #5. Available Revenue to Imolement the 20 Year Plan
The single most important aspect of a twenty year park acquisition and development plan in western
Chula Vista hinges on the City's ability to gamer financial support to pay for park expansion.
PAD Revenues
One approach is the use of PAD fees for acquisition/development or capital improvements. Since
the last report to the GMOC, the City has implemented higher PAD fees which has changed
dramatically the picture of available revenue for park acquisition and development.
The PAD fee revenue picture (past, present and future) is:
FY 88/89
$133,130
FY 89190
$181,630
FY 90191
$437,610 .
FY 91192
FY 92193
$1,103,100
$1,000,000
In addition to the $1,103,100 projected for FY 92193, there is a present fund balance of PAD fees
in excess of $1,000,000. It is interesting to note that one-third (113) of the PAD fees are generated
on the eastern side of 1-805 and two-thirds (213) are generated west of 1-805. This is generally due
to the fact that the majority of fees are not collected from the eastern territory developers, because
they build turn-key parks for the City.
While the revenue has increased, the use of PAD fees has State law legal constraints. At the July
25, 1991 joint meeting of the GMOC and the City Council, the Council directed staff to establish a
policy whereby PAD fees are utilized for acquisition and development of parks as long as a deficiency
exists on the west side. The Council stated specific exceptions could be made to that policy upon
their approval. Staff has met with the City Attorney's Office to discuss a proposed policy.
The City Attorney's Office has advised that, in his judgment, the Subdivision Map Act, as contained
in the Government Code at f66477(c), would be interpreted to permit the use of PAD fees for the
"rehabilitation of existing neighborhood or community park or recreation facilities" as long as there
is an approximate correlation between the use and benefit of the facility to the inhabitants of the
subdivisions from whence the money came and their contn'bution to said facilities. This interpretation
of State law would make it difficult to restrict PAD fees to acquisition only when the Map Act
designates PAD fees may be used for rehabilitation. However, in the proposed CIP funding schedule,
a recommendation is being made to set aside $500,000 in the PAD fee fund for acquisition.
The Department will be presenting a report to the Council during budget c:onsideration in June,
discussing a proposed policy to address the use of PAD fees. -
'-I
10
/;;~/d-r
])- qt.j
.
Growth Management Oversight Commission Report
June 3, 1992
External Financinl! ODtions
Chula Vista 21 Bond Issue - In addition to the use of PAD fees, Cunds can also come Crom a bond
issue. Although staCf doesn't Coresee (due to economic reasons) a bOnd issue in the near Cuture, the
citizens oC Chula Vista may want to finance park development through a Community Services Bond.
Other sources of external Cunds may include Community Development Block Grants (CDBG),
Redevelopment Agency Cunds, and State grants.
Recommendation b. The GMOC supports the Parks and Recreation Department proposal to
charge Cees to Don-residents of Chula VISta Cor reservation of park Cacilities
Cor groups only.
In June of 1991, the City Council directed the Department to formulate a Revenue Enhancement
Plan. In addition, as part of the Department's Three Year Strategic Plan, a goal Cor revenue
generation was identified as a top priority. Since that time, an in-house staff committee has been
working on a revenue enhancement proposal.
Non-Resident Charl!es: The use of non-resident fees is a common practice among many of San
Diego County cities. Chula Vista has lagged in implementing such a fee. Chula Vista's facilities are
full-service and attract many people from surrounding cities and the incorporated County area.
Surveys of other cities indicate they have implemented a non-resident fee that exceeds the program
fee charged to residents, on an average of 25% to 167%. The Department recommends the
implementation of a non-resident fee of 100% for all program fees (except swim-related activities).
The 100% non-resident fee would be charged for all reservations of park and recreation facilities.
The Department presented the Revenue Enhancement Plan to the Parks and Recreation Commission
in May (and received unanimous support). The City Council will receive the report for consideration
in June.
Attachments -
"A"
"B"
- Park Site Selection Policy
- School Site Acreage Inventory
...J
11
/b-/~-.2/
y-qf
]) JIIP
Attachment "A"
~A.BK .slI.L.s~f.~
A. PURPOSE:
To provide specific park site citeria to assist in evaluating and selecting park sites
proposed by Developers for Park Dedication Credit.
B. PROCEDURE:
The park site criteria will be applied by the aty in the planning process to determine
the acceptability of a park site proposed for dedication by a potential grantor.
C. DEFINITION OF PARK CLASSIFICATION TYPES:
The City of Chula Vista has two types of park facilities. the local park and the special
use park.
· LOCA L fA.B..K:
The local park classification is divided into two categories; Neighborhood
Parks which are to serve the immediate community within a .5 mile radius
and Community Parks which serve the immediate community, as well as
providing recreational and civic facilities that serve users from greater
distances.
Local park land dedicated under the Park Dedication Ordinance must be
suitable for both active and passive recreational activities and the facilities
necessary to accommodate the selected activities. Typically, local parks should
include but not be limited to the following components:
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS:
. One park support building and comfort station
. Lawn activity area
. Basketball and tennis courts
. Playground
. Passive use and picnic areas
. Parking and maintenance areas
To be able to accept these components, a Neighborhood Park must be a
minimum of (5) acres if the park is adjacent to a school when the school
grounds are utilized as a component of the park development program. Or
(10) acres if the park is self functioning. The (5) acre minimum park size is in
response to ensure cost effective maintenance practices.
/,,-/yo
j) q1
Pub" Reaution Department
Pork Site Selection Policy
S/'ZJI'12
Page 2
COMMUNITY PARKS:
· . One park support building with a comfort station
· Lawn athletic areas with ballfield lighting
· Basketball and tennis courts
. Playgrounds
. Passive use and group picnic areas with shelters
. Parking lot of required capacity
· Maintenance yard and building
· Spedal use facilities: community centers, gymnasiums, pools, etc.
To be able to accept these components, a Community Park must be a
minimum of (15) acres, if the park is located adjacent to a school where a
common boundary to the school's athletic fields are shared. Community
Parks shall otherwise be (20) - (25) acres in size.
SPECIAL USE PARKS:
A Special Use Park is a facility that emphasizes or accentuates an existing
feature(s), such as a nature preserve, nature center, unique topographic or
natural conditions, or a facility oriented to a single purpose, such as a botanic
garden.
D. PARK SITE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA:
In order to accommodate park activities and components, in addition to providing a
facility usable by the adjacent residents, it is necessary that all local park sites meet
the following criteria:
1. SERVICE RADIUS AND ACCESSIBILITY:
A basic requirement for all local parks is that they be conveniently located and
easily accessible from the surrounding community. Neighborhood parks can
have service radiuses of up to 1/2 mile. With the addition facilities and scale
of Community Parks, the radius can be up to 2 miles, contingent on the
surrounding land use densities.
The site is to be centrally located relative to the adjacent asmmunity. Ease of
access for the various modes of circulation and transportation are to be
planned for and provided. To this end, Neighborhood Parks are to situated
on local streets within the area it serves. Community Parks are to be situated
on major streets to provide both clear visual and veI,Ucu1ar access to the site.
IIP-I}/
11 q&
Parks" R<creation o.,pa:1ment
Park Site Selection Policy
S/7!J/'n
Page 4
4. ENCUMBRANCES:
A local park site shall be free and clear of all surface easements and height
restrictions which could in any way constrain the design, maintenance or
operation of the site as a public recreation facility, or render the site ineligible
for Federal or State recreational grant consideration.
E. CREDIT TO DEVELOPERS FOR PARK LAND DEDICATION:
Once the determination to accept park land from a developer is made by the City,
the site selected must meet the minimum standards outlined above. The amount
of the park land to be dedicated shall be determined by applying the City's adopted
Park Dedication Ordinance (currently three acres per 1000 population). It is the
intent of this policy to ensure that the Park Dedication Ordinance provide local park
land which is typically land needed for active recreation in addition to passive
recreation purposes. The suitability of land meeting active recreation needs will be
evaluated utilizing the standards spedfied. -
Because the special use park facility is provided to meet City-wide recreation user
needs, and is not intended to replace local park development, a special use park will
not be considered for credit towards meeting local park site obligation under the
City's Park Dedication Ordinance.
F. POLICY DEVIATIONS:
Policy deviations from the above must be approved by the Director of Parks and
Recreation and the Planning Department.
)tf:>.//};L
1). q f1
.
Parks" Recreation Dc?al'lment
Park Site Selection Policy
S/1D1'I2
Pase 3
2. PARK SITE TOPOGRAPHY AND DEVELOPMENT:
A park site should be essentially level or slightly rolling in topography. The
less acreage included in the site, the greater the requirement for level area.
A local park site that will accommodate the recreational components and
facilities identified in the local park classification shall have a slope no more
than a net 5% across the site. This criteria will allow for the development of a
site which d~ns properly, but without excessive gradients which can lead to
drainage and maintenance problems. At the discretion of the Director of
Parks and Recreation, full or partial credit may also be allowed for slopes
steeper than 5%, if sufficient acreage is provided to allow for proper
development of a local park on the site.
The amount of park dedication credit given will be determined by the final
net slope of the park site and will be calculated as follows:
NllrARI< ~ITE ~LOPE
CREDIT TO PARK OBLIGATION
0-5%
6.10%
11 . 20%
20 - 30%
> 331/3%
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
The Parks and Recreation Department must review and approve all grading
and Civil Engineering plans for intended park sites prior to the
commencement of any grading operations. All land dedicated to the City
must be provided with all improvements required under the Subdivision
Ordinance. ~
3. FLOODPLAINS AND OTHER CONSTRAINTS:
A local park site shall have no physical or subterranean features or conditions
which severely limit the recreational potential of a site. This includes, but is
not limited to, areas subject to flooding, soil instability or settling, lack of
percolation into the soils, natural hazards, etc.
/6 ~/;)
p. I tV
ATTACHMENT A(2)
DRAFT REVISED PARKS AND RECREATION THRESHOLD
GOAL:
To provide a diverse and flexible park system which meets both the
active and passive recreational needs of the citizens of Chula
vista.
OBJECTIVE:
Provide public park and recreational opportunities in a timely
manner, im~lemefttift~ a five year master in accordance with a lonq-
term implementation plan which describes the location, facility
improvements, and funding program2 for proposed neighborhood and
community parks.
THRESHOLD STANDARD:
ropalatisR ra~iel three (3) acres af Rei~hborheea aRB eemmuRity
parlcla:FlEi \:it.h apprepriat.e facilit.iea shall be previaod J"er 1eo
rcsiacRts east af I a0S.
11 East of I-80S: three (3) net usable acres of neiqhborhood and
community parkland with appropriate facilities shall be
provided per 1000 residents.
.il
West
II
of I-80S:
three (3) net usable acres of neiqhborhood and community
parkland with appropriate facilities shall be provided
per 1000 residents. for all new development occurinq
after the effective date of this amendment. PaYment of
an equivalent park fee shall be considered an acceptable
option to in-proiect parkland dedication.
Ql the city shall adopt a lonq-ranqe plan to provide
additional park facilities in the area west of 1-805 to
meet the needs of existinq residents. with a qoal of
meetinq the standard of 3 acres per 1000 residents on a
citYWide basis within 20 Years. Implementation of this
plan should be funded by sources other than development
fees. Consideration of a park equivalency factor may be
qiven to school facilities and active recreational
facilities such as pools. qYmnasiums and community
centers in implementinq this lonq-ranqe plan.
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
Should the GMOC determine that the Threshold Standard is not being
satisfied with respect to new development east of I-80S. and west
of I-80S after (date), then the City Council shall formally adopt
and fund taeties actions to bring the park and recreation system
into conformance. Construction or other actual solution shall be
ji //3y
J)~/CI
scheduled to commence within three years.
If construction of needed new park and recreation facilities is not
started within three years of the deficiency reported by the GMOC,
than the City Council shall, within 60 days of the GMOC's report,
schedule and hold a public hearing for the purpose of adopting a
moratorium on the acceptance of new tentative map applications,
based on the all of the following criteria:
L That the moratorium is limited to an area wherein a
casual relationship to the problem has been established;
and,
2. That the moratorium provides a mitigation measure to a
specifically identified impact.
Should a moratorium be established, the time shall be used to
expedi tiously prepare specific mitigation measures for adoption
which are intended to bring the condition into conformance. Any
such moratorium shall be in effect until construction of the needed
new park and recreation facilities has commenced.
with respect to the lonq-ranqe implementation plan to meet the park
and recreation needs of existinq residents west of 1-805. annual
proqress reports on the plan's development and implementation shall
be provided to the Parks and Recreation commission and citv
Council.
)/P/IJ)
]).-/0 :J-
Growth Management Oversight Commission Report
June 3, 1992
Attachment '13"
The loIlCMin, Inventory II based on preliminary .....rch by the Plannin, Depanmtlll.
1bc Hi&h School District bas the IOllowio& outdoor facilities on their properry (the .creaee Dumberl cited include the outdoor rec:ralion
facilities described, plus open around; but do DOl include the lChool b\liJdinp):
OIula Vi... Middle School
6 outdoor buketbaU couru
lllcrt>
OIula Vi... Hi,h
6 tennis COUN
3 baseball dilmonds
1 track-football field
2 IOCCCr fields
28 acres
HiIIlop Middle School
10 outdoor basketball couns
22 Icrt>
HilIlop HISh
1 lnet-foolball courts
... baKball diamonds
6 lennis coun,
30 Icrt>
Castle Par~ Middle School
9 outdoor basketball couns
13 aera
Caslle Park HiGh
3 ba~ball diamonds
6 tennis couns
1 trad..foolball field
38 acres
TOIII Acres: t42
In tbe elementary Khool district, 16 out of 2S schools have I 10la1 of 75.5 aera or open play area, as follows:
FeaSlcr
ROKbanlo.
Rice
Vista Square
Hilltop
kUo"
MueUer
Cook
Hlrtlonide
Lauderbaeh
Castle Park
Pllomar
Mon"omery
011)'
Loma Verde
Robr
3 ICTts
3.S Icres
71crt>
51crt>
51crt>
51crt>
4 lera
5.5 lera
4.5 lera
3.5 lera
3.5 lera
5.5 lera
4 lera
5.5 lera
5 lera
6 lera
_I
12
) ~ ~ /3 ?
pc) O!J
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 10/20/92
REVIEWED BY:
Report on supporting the continued use of the 1987 Federal Aid
Urban (FAU) distribution formula for the new Surface Transportation
Program (STPl of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act OSTEA)
Director of Public Work~)
City ManagerJ~ IC} ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..XJ
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
The purpose of this report is to give a brief explanation of the changes in Federal Funding
for Transportation projects, and discuss a revision requested by the City of Solana Beach.
The old Federal Highways and Transportation fund programs have been discarded and a
new program called the Intermodal Surface TransDortation Efficiencv Act OSTEAl has
been adopted. In the old program, cities received funding under the Federal Aid Urban
(FAU) program to construct public transportation improvements. The new program will
give the agencies that received FAU funds 40% more funds than the previous Federal
program for the same purpose. Solana Beach is proposing a modification to the revenue
distribution structure provided for in the ISTEA program. Specifically, Solana Beach is
proposing that $1 millon per year of the increase be given to the County and cities. This
would be accomplished by giving each agency an additional $53,000 to be spent at the
local agency's discretion on transportation needs. This $1 million would come from a
decrease in funding to Transit, $500,000, and Caltrans, $500,000.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council direct Chula Vista SANDAG representative to support
the original formula for distribution of "Local" STP funds.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
On August 13, 1992, the Combined Road Plan Committee (CRPCl recommended that
Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds for FY 92-97 be allocated as has been done
since 1978 and re..authorized in 1987, 40% to regional agencies (25% CalTrans, 15%
Transit) and 60% to local cities and the County. The 60% is distributed with each city
receiving a base amount of $25,000 and the remainder allocated on a per capita basis.
On September 10, 1992, the City of Solana Beach proposed an alternative formula that
would increase revenues to the Cities and the County, but substantially reduce regional
revenues to CalTrans and Transit. Staff believes that potential cuts in regional programs
implemented by MTDB and CalTrans could prove to be more significant than the benefits
\\- \
Page 2. Item \\
Meeting Date 10/20/92
realized through the Solana Beach formula. This resolution supports the continued use
of the current formula.
The Surface Transportation Program (STPl consists of three major components: STP
"local". (which is the subject of this resolution). STP "regional", and Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ). The STP "local" annual allocation is $ 11.194 million
and is $67.164 million over the six-year life of the program. The STP "regional" annual
allocation is $6.986 million and is $41.916 million over the six-year life of the program.
The CMAQ "regional" annual allocation is $ 1 1 .05 million and is $66.3 million over the six
year life of the program (Exhibit A).
The federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) is one of the new transportation
programs established in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (lSTEA) of
1991. The STP essentially combines and replaces the old Federal Aid Primary, Urban, and
Secondary (FAP, FAU, FAS), and Combined Road Plan (CRP) Programs. A specified
amount of STP "local" funds is apportioned to SANDAG for allocation to Cities, the
County. and other transportation agencies including the Metropolitan Transit Development
Board (MTDB). the North County Transit District (NCTD) and CalTrans.
The Combined Road Plan Committee (CRPC) which serves as a SANDAG advisory
committee on this program. is responsible for developing a recommended allocation of
STP local funds for approval by SANDAG. The CRPC is composed of a representative of
each city, the County, CalTrans, MTDB, and NCTD. Chula Vista's representative is the
Director of Public Works or the City Engineer as an alternate. At its meeting of August 13,
1992, the CRPC concluded that the existing FAU/CRP fund distribution formula should
continue to apply for the FY 1992-97 STP local program. The formula allocates 40% to
regional agencies (25% CalTrans, 15% transit - shared between MTDB and NCTD). and
60 percent to local cities and the County. The 60% is distributed with each city receiving
a base amount of $25.000 and the remainder being allocated on a per capita basis
(Exhibit B). Said formula was established in 1978 and was reauthorized and approved by
SANDAG on May 22, 1987.
On September 10, 1992. Mr. Richard Hendlin. a City Council member of the City of
Solana Beach, submitted a proposal to the SANDAG Board of Directors to revise said
formula for distribution of STP "local" funds. His proposed revision would reduce funding
to CalTrans and the transit agencies in order to increase allocations to local cities and the
County with the per capita calculation identical to the current formula and the increase
totally reflected in the base allocation from $25.000 to approximately $78,000 (Exhibit
C).
The ISTEA STP program will deliver approximately 40% more funding than previous FAU
program (Exhibit D). However. adoption of Solana Beach's formula means that CalTrans
and the transit districts will not realize said increase, but rather will continue to receive
approximately the same funding amount as in previous years. For CalTrans and the two
Transit agencies combined, the Solana Beach formula represents a total loss of over
11-"2.
Page 3. Item II
Meeting Date 10/20/92
$1,000,000 per year. The arguments presented for the Solana Beach alternative
allocation formula are:
1. It continues approximately the same dollar amount compared with last year's
allocation for regional (CalTrans and Transit) use. (i.e. those funds received under
the old FAU funds, pre-ISTEA)
2. The needs of the larger local agencies are adequately addressed through the per
capita allocation.
3. The smaller cities would realize a significant increase in additional revenues. In the
case of Solana Beach. their revenues would approximately double.
4. Each City and the County will realize an additional funding amount of
approximately $53.000 per year over the next six years for local roads. For Chula
Vista. this means a 16.14% increase in the funding level from $329,326 to
$382,478 per year. Adoption of the new formula proposed by Solana Beach
would result in additional revenues to the City of Chula Vista totalling $318,912
over a period of six years.
At the September 25, 1992 SANDAG Board meeting. there was significant discussion
regarding this item. It was SANDAG's staff recommendation to continue with the current
allocation formula. However. the Board appeared to be split on this item and requested
that SANDAG staff and the CRPC re-examine this issue and report back at the next
meeting.
The arguments for the continued application of the 1987 distribution formula for the new
STP "local" program are:
1. Under the current allocation formula, transit's annual revenues are: $1,514,329.
Should the Solana Beach alternative formula be adopted, those revenues would
decline to $1,009,552. This represents over $.5 million in revenues that the
transit agencies are counting on for their operations budget. This will most likely
have a negative impact on the South Bay Trolley service and other transit programs
in our region.
2. Under the current allocation formula. CalTrans will be receiving $2,523,882 in
annual revenues. Should the proposed Solana Beach formula be adopted, those
revenues would decline to $2,019,105. This also represents $.5 million in
decreased revenues that will impact various programs that CalTrans has within the
South Bay region.
3. The Metropolitan Transit Development Board unanimously recommended keeping
the same formula.
4. The STP regional annual allocation is $6.986 million and $41.916 million over the
six-year life of the ISTEA STP program. SANDAG staff indicated that these funds
will be used to support the TransNet Highway Fund. Changing the current
I\-~
Page 4. Item ~\
Meeting Date 10/20/92
allocation formula may jeopardize the availability of the STP "regional" funds and
thereby decrease the chances for financing the construction of the SR-1 25/Rancho
San Miguel Road interchange.
Based on the arguments mentioned above, staff is recommending that Chula Vista
support the continued application of the current allocation formula for the distribution of
the new STP "local" funds.
FISCAL IMPACT: Supporting the continuation of the existing STP "local" fund distribution
formula will result in FY 1992 revenues to the City of Chula Vista totalling $329,326 and
a total of $1.975,956 over the six-year life of the program. This represents a 35%
increase over past allocations under the FAU program. Adoption of the alternative
formula proposed by Solana Beach will result in additional annual revenues of $53,152,
however, possible cuts in regional programs implemented by MTDB and CalTrans may
have a greater impact on the City's infrastructure.
SMN/File: KY-026, KY-174
WPC:F:\HOME\'ENGINEER\AGENDA \STP
, 01592/sb
\'\-L.\
EXHIBIT "A"
SAN DIEGO REGION - ISTEA FEDERAL REVENUE ESTIMATE ($OOO'S)
-
PROGRAM I FY92 I FY93 I FY94 T FY95 I . FY96 I FY97 . I.. FY92.97
Surface TransDOrtatlon Proaram ISTPI:
STP Total $18.180 $18.180 $18.180 $18.180 $18.180 $18,180 $109,080
STP "local": $11,194 $11,194 $11.194 $11,194 $11,194 .11,194 $67,164
. City/County $7,031 $7,031 $7.031 $7.031 $7,031 .7,031 $42,186
. Transit 15% $1.514 $1.514 $1.514 $1,514 $1,514 .1,514 $9,084
. CAlTRANS 25% $2,524 $2.524 $2,524 $2,524 .2,524 $2,524 $15.144
- Carpool $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 .125 $750
STP "Regional" $6.986 $6,986 $6.986 $6,986 $6.986 .6,986 $41,916
Conoestlon Mitloatlon & Air OualitY ICMAOI:
CMAO Regional $11.050 $11,050 $11,050 $11,050 .11,050 .11,050 $66,300
-'
I
(]\
~
1.1 STP local assumes current San Diego Region FAU/CRP Fund Distribution process based on S8 1435 funding levels.
2.1 FY92 STP Total and CMAO revenues estimates from CALTRANS 15113/921. Revenue held constant for FY93-97 based on Congressional
Committee actions to freeze or reduce transportation spending from FY92 levels.
3.1 State Traffic System Management ITSMI funds may be available as non-federal matching funds for some CMAQ and STP projects.
ISTr:AA~V. XLS
I3TU:07106192
c. tI
5fcrf/ Re~oV'-1IMt2.Vldqf{(J"
EXHIBIT "B"
eee CRPC RECOMMENDED (8-13-92) - UNAPPROVED eee
FY92-97 ISTEA SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) LOCAL FUND ALLOCATION
San Diego Region
l/l/U 6-YEAR
Urban Area Annual population FY92 FY92-97
Jurisdiction Population Bas. AJlount Allocation TOTAL TOTAL
------------ ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Carlsbad 64,300 $25,000 $141,083 $166,083 $996,497
Chula Vista 138,700 $25,000 $304,326 $329,326 $1,975,958
Coronado 26,600 $25,000 $58,364 $83,364 $500,184
Del Mar 4,880 $25,000 $10,707 $35,707 $214,244
El Cajon 89,300 $25,000 $195,936 $220,936 81,325,617
Encinitu 56,000 $25,000 $122,872 $147,872 $887,229
Escondido 110,800 $25,000 $243,110 $268,110 $1,608,660
IlIperial Beach 26,650 $25,000 $58,474 $83,474 $500,842
La M... 53,300 $25,000 $116,947 $141,947 $851,684
Lemon Grove 24,300 $25,000 $53,317 $78,317 $469,905
National City 55,700 $25,000 $122,213 $147,213 $883,280
oceanside 133,700 $25,000 $293,356 $318,356 $1,910,134
poway 44,450 $25,000 $97,529 $122,529 $735,176
San Diego 1,130,000 $25,000 $2,479,371 $2,504,371 $15,026,229
San Marcos 40,250 $25,000 $88,314 $113,314 $679,883
Santee 53,200 $25,000 $116,728 $141,728 $850,368
Solana Beach 13,000 $25,000 $28,524 $53,524 $321,142
Vista 74,200 $25,000 $162,805 $187,805 $1,126,828
County - Urban 347,900 $25,000 $763,339 $788,339 $4,730,035
County - Rural $1,098,417 $1,098,417 $6,590,502
Transit (15'> $1,514,329 $1,514,329 $9,085,974
CALTRANS (25'> $2,523,882 $2,523,882 $15,143,292
Regional Carpool $125,000 $125,000 $750,000
---------- ---------- ----------
TOTAL: 2,487,230 $11,193,944 $67,163,664
------------
NOTE: 1. The San Diego region FY92 Surface Transportation Proqrall (STP)
Local fund estillated apportionment totals $11,193,944 including
$10,095,527 for Urban srea and $1,098,417 for Rural area.
2. The Urban area STP Local fund allocation based on prior 1987
FAU/CRP fund distribution foraula approved by SANDAG on May 22,
1987. The Urban area population is the MTDB and NCTD Board
areas. All Rural area funds allocated to County of San Diego.
3. This table is an estillated STP Local fund allocation based on a
continuation of prior year fund dietribution foraula.
/ ?-fp
EXHIBIT "C"
... SOLANA BEACH ALTERNATIVE - UNAPPROVED ...
FY92-97 JSTEA SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) LOCAL FUND ALLOCATION
San Dieao Reaion
1/1/91 6-YEAR
Urban Area Annual Population FY92 FY92-97
JurbcHction Population Ba.. MOunt Allocation TOTAL TOTAL
------------ ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Carl.bad 64,300 $78,134 $141,083 $219,217 $1,315,303
Chula Vista 138,700 $78,134 $304,326 $382,461 $2,294,765
Coronado 26,600 $78,134 $58,364 $136,498 $818,990
Del Mar 4,880 $78,134 $10,707 $88,842 $533,051
El Cajon 89,300 $78,134 $195,936 $274,071 $1,644,424
Encinitu 56,000 $78,134 $122,872 $201,006 $1,206,036
Escondido 110,800 $78,134 $243,110 $321,244 $1,927,467
Imperial Beach 26,650 $78,134 $58,474 $136,608 $819,649
La Mesa 53,300 $78,134 $116,947 $195,082 $1,170,491
Lemon Grove 24,300 $78,134 $53,317 $131,452 $788,711
National City 55,700 $78,134 $122,213 $200,348 $1,202,086
Oceanside 133,700 $78,134 $293,356 $371,490 $2,228,941
poway 44,450 $78,134 $97,529 $175,664 $1,053,982
San Die'1o 1,130,000 $78,134 $2,479,371 $2,557,506 $15,345,035
San Marcos 40,250 $78,134 $88,314 $166,448 $998,690
Santee 53,200 $78,134 $116,728 $194,862 $1,169,174
Solana Beach 13,000 $78,134 $28,524 $106,658 $639,949
Vista 74,200 $78,134 $162,805 $240,939 $1,445,635
County - Urban 347,900 $78,134 $763,339 $841,474 $5,048,842
County - Rural $1,098,417 $1,098,417 $6,590,502
Transit (10') $1,009,552 $1,009,552 $6,057,312
CALTRANS (20') $2,019,105 $2,019,105 $12,114,630
Re'1ional Carpool $125,000 $125,000 $750,000
---------- ---------- ----------
TOTAL: 2,487,230 $11,193,944 $67,163,664
------------
NOTE: 1. The San Die'1o re'1ion FY92 Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Local fund estimated apportionment totals $11,193,944 includin'1
$10,095,527 for Urban area and $1,098,417 for Rural area.
2. The Urban area STP Local fund allocation based on prior 1987
FAU/CRP fund distribution formula approved by SANDAG on May 22,
1987. Transit reduced to 10', CALTRANS reduced to 20', with
the freed up fundin'1 allocated to local jurisdiction BASE.
This increases snnual base from $25,000 to $78,134. All Rural
srea funds allocated to County of San Die'1o.
3. This table is an estimated STP Local fund allocation based on a
revised fund distribution formula as proposed by Solana Beach.
/7- /
EXHIBIT "D"
FIVE-YEAR 1987 FEDERAL AID URBAN (FAU) PROGRAM FUND DISTRIBUTION
San Diego Urbanized Area
!JUFUSDlcnON I FYB7 FY88 FY89 FY~ FY91 OTAL FY 87-91
ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL FIVE-YEAR
Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation TOTAL
Carlsbad $117,771 $126,474 $128,615 $121,176 $128.097 $622,033
Chula Vista $245,813 $245,747 $243,453 $222,802 $238.831 $1,196.646
Coronado $61,944 - $70,324 $66,476 $65,114 $68,762 $332,620
DelMar $34,675 $34,267 $33,963 $32,564 $33,473 $168,942
EI Cajon $180,185 $177,119 $173,682 $152,010 $165,537 $648,533
Encinitas $117,186 $119,226 $116,037 $113,260 $114,390 $580,099
Escondido $176,110 $184,459 $188,972 $181,553 $194,325 $925,419
Imperial Beach $72.300 $71,149 $69,991 $64,019 $68,176 $345.635
La Mesa $123.301 $119.501 $116,916 $103,800 $112,703 $576.221 .
Lemon Grove $66,378 $66.195 $64.719 $59.294 $62,985 $319.571
National City $130.178 $125,373 $122,188 $107,537 $117,040 $602,316
Oceanside $208.281 $210.332 $214,631 $214,329 $229.437 $1,077,010
Poway $97,033 $96,839 $97,583 $90.962 $97,089 $479.506
San Diego $1,928,742 $1,901.072 $1,885.633 $1,680,332 $1,841,976 $9,237.755
San Marcos $64,677 $67.663 $71,221 $81 ,583 $85,152 $370,296
Santee $118,504 $117,115 $116.213 $104,905 $112.313 $569.050
Solana Beach $52,033 $52.525 $50.483 $48,680 $48,984 $252,705
Vista $113,735 $118,400 $124,121 $127,976 $135,215 $619.447
County (Uninc.) $583,082 $588,152 $586,687 $548,403 $602.734 $2,909.058
Transit (15'10) $1,091,460 $1,091,460 $1,087,850 $1,025,876 $1,085.333 $5,381,979
CAL TRANS:
Route 76 Bypass $1,568,000 $1,568,000 $1,568,000 $1,568,000 $1.568.000 $7,840.000
Regional Carpool $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $625,000
TOTAL: (Urbanized) I $7.276.390 I I $7,276.390 I I $7,252,336 I I $6,839,175 I I $7,235,552 I I $35.879.843 I
NOTE: 1. The FY 90 actual San Diego Urbanized Area FAU annual apportionment of $7,176,328 was reduced by $337.153
based on a 1982 FAU Program (FY83-86) apportionment reduction.
2. Annual' Urban Place' apportionments for Alpine. Fallbrook, and Ramona are not included above.
3. FAU lund distribution formula as approved by the SANDAG Board on May 22,1987 and amended July 31,1987.
4. CAL TRANS' normal 25'" FAU lund share reduced to $7,840,000 total lor the 5-year 1987 FAU Program (FY87-91).
5. FY 87-91 revenues shown are actual allocations.
REVENUE ESTIMATES FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY III
J7-fr
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item If:"
Meeting Date 10/20/92
ITEM TITLE:
Report on parking concern^~.iJthe 100 block of Glover Avenue
Director of Public Works If'
^,
City Manager .j(l DiJ :'~~)
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No_XJ
Council Referral No. 2626
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
At the June 30,1992 City Council meeting, staff was directed to respond to parking
problems caused by business parking for extended periods of time on the 100 block
of Glover Avenue. Staff has evaluated the request and has met with area residents
to discuss alternatives available to improve on-street parking.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept staff's report and have staff
continue to monitor the area for code violations and parking violations.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
At the June 30, 1992 City Council meeting, staff was directed to respond to the
parking concerns requested by Ms. Pearce of Silent Voices, 191 Glover Avenue, Suite
B. Other area residents have also complained about the lack of on-street parking due
to adjacent auto repair businesses which park vehicles to be repaired on Glover
Avenue for extended periods of time.
The 100 block of Glover Avenue is a north/south residential collector street cul-de-sac
north of "E" Street with a 40-ft. curb to curb width. This cul-de-sac is approximately
650 ft. in length with an east/west alley intersecting Glover Avenue approximately
160 ft. north of the north curbline of "E" Street. Parking is not allowed in the alley
and there are signs posted to advise motorists. On Glover Avenue, there are 37
existing on-street parking spaces, 19 parking spaces along the west curbline and 18
parking spaces along the east curbline. Presently there are no parking restrictions for
the 100 block of Glover Avenue.
On September 22, 1992 staff held a meeting with area residents to review possible
alternatives to mitigate the parking shortage problem on Glover Avenue. Staff
discussed metered parking, permit parking and time limited parking alternatives.
To alleviate the need for the short term parking in the area, staff recommended to the
area residents a combination of a 2-hour parking meter zone, a 2-hour parking zone
(with exemption to area residents living within this zone). and to leave the north end
of Glover Avenue as it is today with no parking restrictions (see attached plat):
Staff's proposal would have provided for nine metered parking spaces located
between "E" Street and the alley located to the north. The 12 non-metered 2-hour
time regulated parking spaces along the east curbline and west curbline are all north
/8"" J
Page 2. Item / %
Meeting Date 10/20/92
of the alley. The non-metered, 2-hour parking spaces will be zoned for residential
parking permit for only those residents living within the area bounded by the alley and
a point approximately 150 ft. to the north of the alley. This is the area fronted by 8
duplex style residences (16 units) with single car garages (178 through 185-1/2
Glover Avenue). Per Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.86.020, free parking
permits would have been given to these residents to park in any available parking
space in front of their residences. While this parking permit would not reserve any
on-street parking space for these residents, it would allow these residents to park
within this area for over two hours. All other Glover Avenue residents which live
north of this area, (with address numbers lower than 178 Glover Avenue), would be
subject to the two-hour parking restriction only if they parked within this two-hour
zone (the southerly 320' of this 650' long street). The residential parking permit does
not allow anyone to park for free in the metered zone.
The residents in attendance at the meeting with staff discussed all these alternatives
and all agreed that they wished to have Glover Avenue left as it is today with no
parking restrictions. The residents stated their only concern is to somehow have the
auto repair business closed down, add more parking on-site, or at the very least not
paint vehicles. The residents are very concerned with the illegal parking in the alley
and the paint booth for the car repair business. Apparently, the paint fumes are very
strong and residents have seen vehicles painted outside the paint booth, which is
illegal. The Building and Housing Department has investigated the numerous
complaints regarding vehicle repair in the alley and the spray painting of vehicles
outdoors and has required the owner to make changes to bring his procedures into
compliance with the law. While staff believes this has taken care of this part of the
problem, Building and Housing is continuing to monitor the area.
The Police Department has been providing parking enforcement in the area including
the alley and citing illegally parked vehicles.
The Traffic Engineering Division has written a work order to have two additional "No
Parking In Alley" signs posted adjacent to the auto repair business. Since the area
residents do not want any parking restrictions on the 100 block of Glover Avenue,
staff is recommending that no changes be made to the on street parking for the 100
block of Glover Avenue. Staff will continue to monitor this area for code and parking
violations.
All area businesses, residents and the Chamber of Commerce have been notified of
tonight's City Council meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
Attachments:
Area Plat
Letter dated June 22, 1992
FXR:SB/CY-Ol0 & CY-046
ENGINEER/AGENDA/GlOV ALL Y
/8'''',,)...
101592
. ,
Silent 4". .
. V~lces
A loving alternative eveI)' step of the way ~ ~ .....,
\
.1une 22, 1m
CityHaD
AttD: Mayor and City Council
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
.....-
. ._-~ --..-
Dear Mayor and City Council: .
I am writing regarding a parking problem our area is having with another
business (J & L Autobody). We have been in business at our current location since
February of 1991, and have had problems off and on since that time with the autobody
repair shop located in the alley behind our offices (between Garrett and Glover, north of
E Street - we are not sure that 1 & L has been at this location since 1991, but there has
been an autobody repair shop there since we moved in). During the last four - five
months the situation has worsened. and after exhausting every other means of solving the
problem on our own, we felt it was time to contact the City of Chula Vista.
The operators of J & L Autobody do not have adequate parking facilities for their
business, so they park the cars they are working on In the street outside our business, as
well as in the residential area just north of the alley. We see them move their cars in
and out of the aney and onto the street an day long. When they have filled the streets,
they have even begun using our private parking lot (which services three business)1
The result of their .actiO:l1$.~ .t1lat there is .iml.4equa\C pm:J9ng for e.nyone working
. or Jiving in this area. While we have a private parking lot, parking there is very limited,
'and because there is nowhere to park on the streets, our customers/clients are often
unable to find a place to park.
We would b'ke to recommend thfee solutions to this problem:
1) Parking meters on Glover Avenue from E Street to the alley would discoura
use of the street as a parking lot for J & L Autobody - they are going ~
likely to want to park their cars In an area where they will have to pa (~~t\)
2) A posted 2-hour parking limit in the same areaj and u' ~ ({tC\; p
3)
- -
'.. . ..... f"o, #.. t .~.-..._..,.. il'"I' " I t.......I"I..14....._1 .-- :.,.....,.., . . ..
.-;.'. .. :.0 :"~. 'J-.-:.' ",',:..:: . ': ;',;: ~";;:" ",.'\.., ......:J....'~~.'~r..h.n :.lI;:.~{t~ h~~ :;J'':. :.;t' ....0 .:.~ . : , :; :',:i- .::. ~! . ::-.: :. i::: ~. t....; ::-
c' ... r' . ,,'0;'; ...~.'~).... >> . . -r}.""', .'f.:"~l""," ~~'.l"1 ..........,:0..., ~..i...:.,:I.. -.: _0:': '0... ...,.........01.
.' -. .. . .....1".-.1 ... .t"'I'~'~'''' '''.. <'>!l> m' "'''~''''.,.. ~ -~.... ... " ":'., ......[
. 00. ...... II. .. "f:'I'i~" '0 . ....'U.:I.'i!;, .l1:I':.z, ..;:.... .-", t.,.... ".............&........ ......~. ":."I;'l'~;.'i
.. .. ..: :..,:II.!...... ,.,1:,\' .', .K'7.li.".r:;.-r......'''';.r~. ~til.il"'1......:~.t"""::.t!.!lI..;..., nO:':... .'~.....,
~.'.' '.':'. '. - -i.:. -:.,_.. '''It{~r-. .'li1 . -.... ,,,.... t<:: I"'"r. 1<" ";'''''')..<>1' J........ .".... -,.-".' ......... '. ,.......<
. ~.......-.......~.VI.-." '0 kt"'""."'-""Er~'w ... ., (.....,... ..... .,....
:"0 ....:~::.~i:~ ~~: :':!;::.~.~;~~~:~'.~~:..i -: ~ 'I'!.:' ~,,';:~:'~j~.:::.:.-:t... :~~;~:'''':':'' .... eo - . .' -:.. .
Parking by pennlt in th~ resiaeniiai area DeralOr tile alley on Glover Avenue
(there are several areas in SIlD Diego tIult ~quire.'J:esiden~ permits to prevent
businesses from using neighborhood streets as par~ lots.)
, ..
.'.
:. . ' . .0:.; ,.
.... '!:-:...."; !.
,0 I' '. :.. '0 .
.: 'i' ,"0' ,....
. . .
I hope that this precHciunent'cin be resolved quicJ4y;as it has been a major
source of frustration for too long. Ple:ase feel free to contact me at my office if you have
any further questions.' Thank 'you for)roUr time and consideration of this situation.
. :-::. . ._~... .':'. : .. trn:",
". .."
Sincerely, ~. ~..
~ ..... ....-..
.. . - ..
-- . .
.. .. .. ...0 . ~ ....
; ".' ~:.'.Shircin ~eati:e . -: .: ..:.
. .,:.!: '.:: Diiector '.
:--0_-
. .
. .
- ....... ..-- .. ..
.- ..'!;.,;...:=-:-,....,.t..
,0.. -:;"':.'
.
.. :".
,.....O' ...
T'
10 :'. .
. ,
..
.'.. --..
.." , .. . .
. .
.' .. .
......:.
..---...~..........-:T':~.:... ..1- ,.;...;;:....i.~~~::.t_"l':'__..-L.-....."..r~...-.~.~~...; : ,.,:r~-
:.. ~~~.::......:~:.....;:;:...i:. '!i:.'~: .~. ...~~~.!.. : . .... ... .... ,;..
n..... ..... . :!.;~:~.~....: :... . .1:":-:: .. . .
.~.
1. -=:t- .~.:. \
......
..-
. .
...... ..
.'
;. . ....~
... ...
.::...,:'::.: :-::' ~t:t='.:~. ..:.,..
. ,
.'
.. .
'. ......
. .-.:.
i
- .~
....
'.
.. ::-;,'...
...... .
..
-.
..
.. .. ...
. .
,! :::'. f.._ .
-~:"., ~ . ~~ -v.. .
.. . .... . I.. .
. .~~.r:'t::t:r=.:':~.::: .
:.... . . ....
. .... - I
,"it. .'. ....
..":-'. ; .
.. .. .... .;:::. .:,
._. .t. .-.~~.=- ,..:lo.....~_ ..yo oo'{&:
. ... ... ": . .-.. I'"
.'
,
.. . ...
--
'~:.....
,
. :
.
-
)
~
t.." .
.
..':-"
.~.
.I.a. :
:'.. . I
. 7~;"f...
. :.:'
.'
.
..=.
..: , i It .
.. .:
-. ....
Jr -;r: . "" :~' J:j . ~~ -
':.' ,;~/J/-'EUCALTYPTUS PAAK '~':'/'!J":~'~~ I
;,,j -' "'f!!t ".:' '. :: ~..J ,1.1 ".
.J '. ... '....,;.1, ,'" ,
t:..,41t JJ . oJ I;' J.(........ ~"J" I.I~': 1 JJ~ ,..J'~'~'.rl ", -:,. ',11 !oF
' ".1.1 ".J~J "'J' I'~ J )'"WoJ. :', '.1,,'
~:I-Il:,~~; ~.)-;",:t.JIJ"''''J':1'J .i.... ~Jt~~-':J"/,;\' '"
..,.... ,,,,JJ.ji.l' ...J....;j"".I..,.J ~
~..,:lfJ. ...' .'~J ,-,.,.h .I.. .i',.t. .! ....i,,...J ,I "). r-., ,
;J'p"l~~::%~'./ J .(.1'" j':(:I"J~~,'jJ'.'.:'I-:,l~'-:i",:"
;;~~j,T..t; r ~~ f-r---, ; -
4,.$'" ....1
~"I'~j
',., , ""'L
i'i"J'....;;..."".'lI I' -- ~
LEGEND -
-
Time Limit Parking "" - r-
--- Permit Parking Area I-l I I
__ Parking Meter Zone T I
== unristricted Parking
~~. TREET I I FE3 ~ l
l.!- I- : -- t
- I- ~
- ...
- tj ~A
I- r"" , ,Subject Area
I-
~ -~ I
l- l- N
u..n. I I r-I. ---II
lt~
I -
I I I '" . f----' --
-- -8 > 8- III
Q ~ III C '"
--.J 0 ~ ;:) :) :)
0 :) Z
, IIN _T. Z z z
. I-- III
l- t- I-- III 6 II: 6 f-- ; f--~ >
> \oj
z: C > c c C
III o ,
t [ i f- I-- 5 ii 4 \ ~. I
II I--
- :.,T,ft E T
r- , I I ~~ --"L -
, t w ~ -- I-
)! ,
% . _ II: .
.- ~ I-- Q .
\oj G:
G: > ~-~ ~- ,,- % ,
c ;:) 0
> - 0 f--J ~ . .. .... .. . t- :-. .. ....
:)" C 1.:1 . ,. .. . ... ~ ... .. .
z . ~ -- n
; - - .. ...
- - - - .
~ > .. . -
c -- . .. .--
1--- ... . ..
::mw -
'- II - -
t.~ ~J~ I I I I I 1.:1 . ... ."'( ,',('t.'..' ~
I'FRIEN~~HI": PARK',~ ..
.. -
~ ~~"'''''''- ... ,..,..,.
'..j I II. ,,,. ,I., " '. ~ ~ -- -- -
".t ' '{., " r. -:-:- -
r .' " I '.' ,','..,' l"~f ...
.-1 I r . ...... , ,,' ,..'. ,".,. --tl
. .1.,'. ,., . ~t-,. =
i J.. CIVIC ~ =
_oJ U CENTER ~ -- ~.
. I CHU~A VISTA f- .. -
--- .'. =
, I PUB~IC LIBRARY
...-. I =
. I ! . fFS1 ...J'
... I , ~ ..
. I . -
-
-F. IT" EEl r1.
iI I III. . , , , I J" " I I II I 1 L
Oll",WH IT T I T L I
Dennis M. Wolle AR~A p L A T
-----------
~~T~ 7L2.'I'l~_ 18'"
MAILING LIST FOR 100 BLOCK GLOVER AVE. (LABELS ON 6115E & 6115E)
RES IDENT
152-A Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
152-B Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
152-C Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
152-0 Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
153-A Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
153-B Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
153-C Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
157-C Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
157-0 Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
158-A Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
158-B Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
158-C Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
158-0 Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
153-0 Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
153-E Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
162-A Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
162-B Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
162-C Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
153-F Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
162-0 Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
163-A Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
163-B Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
163-C Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
157 Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT
157-A Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RESIDENT
157-B Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
J '8"--(,
RES !DENT
163-0 Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
163-E Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
173-B Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
165-A Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
173-C Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
173-0 Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
165-B Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
165-C Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
165-0 Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
173-E Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
173-F Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
169-A Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
173-G Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
178 Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
169-B Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
169-C Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
178-1/2 Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
179 Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
179-1/2 Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
180 Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
169-0 Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
169-E Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
169-F Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
173-A Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
180-1/2 Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
181 Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
)8'--7
RES IDENT RES IDENT
181-1/2 Glover Avenue 139 Fourth Avenue, Unit 3
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
182 Glover Avenue 139 Fourth Avenue, Unit 4
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT RES IDENT
182-1/2 Glover Avenue 139 Fourth Avenue, Unit 5
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RESIDENT RES !DENT
183 Glover Avenue 139 Fourth Avenue, Unit 6
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chul a Vi sta, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
183-1/2 Glover Avenue 139 Fourth Avenue, Unit 7
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT RES IDENT
184 Glover Avenue 139 Fourth Avenue, Unit 8
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES IDENT
184-1/2 Glover Avenue 139 Fourth Avenue, Unit 9
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT RES IDENT
185 Glover Avenue 139 Fourth Avenue, Unit 10
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES IDENT RES IDENT
185-1/2 Glover Avenue 143 Fourth Avenue, Unit 25
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
191-A Glover Avenue 143 Fourth Avenue, Unit 26
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chul a Vi sta, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
191-8 Glover Avenue 145 Fourth Avenue, Unit 11
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chul a Vi sta, CA 91910
RES IDENT RES IDENT
139 Fourth Avenue, Unit 1 145 Fourth Avenue, Unit 12
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES IDENT
139 Fourth Avenue, Unit 2 149 Fourth Avenue, Unit 14
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
J 8'"' r
RES !DENT RES !DENT
149 Fourth Avenue, Unit 15 157 Fourth Avenue, Unit A
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
149 Fourth Avenue, Unit 16 157 Fourth Avenue, Unit B
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
149 Fourth Avenue, Unit 17 161 Fourth Avenue, Unit A
Chula Vi sta, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
149 Fourth Avenue, Unit 18 161 Fourth Avenue, Unit B
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
149 Fourth Avenue, Unit 19 161 Fourth Avenue, Unit C
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
149 Fourth Avenue, Unit 20 161 Fourth Avenue, Unit D
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chul a Vi sta, CA 91910
RES !DENT CHULA VISTA INN (160 copies hand
149 Fourth Avenue, Unit 21 171 Fourth Avenue delivered to office)
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chul a Vi sta, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
149 Fourth Avenue, Unit 22 144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 1
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
149 Fourth Avenue, Unit 23 144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 3
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
151 Fourth Avenue, Unit A 144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 4
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
151 Fourth Avenue, Unit B 144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 5
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
151 Fourth Avenue, Unit C 144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 6
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
151 Fourth Avenue, Unit D 144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 7
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
J8'-~
RES !DENT RES !DENT
144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 8 144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 21
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 9 144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 22
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 10 144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 23
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 11 144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 24
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 12 144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 25
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 13 144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 26
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 14 144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 27
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 15 144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 28
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 16 144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 29
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 17 144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 30
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 18 144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 31
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 19 144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 32
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chul a Vi sta, CA 91910
RES !DENT RES !DENT
144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 20 144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 33
Chul a Vi sta, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
J 8"'-Jt1
RES !DENT
144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 34
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RES !DENT
144 Garrett Avenue, Unit 36
Chula Vista, CA 91910
OCCUPANT
363-A "E" Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
OCCUPANT
363-B "E" Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
OCCUPANT
363-C "E" Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
OCCUPANT
371 "E" Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
OCCUPANT
373 "E" Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
OCCUPANT
377 "E" Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
OCCUPANT
379 "E" Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
OCCUPANT
381 "E" Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
OCCUPANT
397 "E" Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
WPC 6117E
I ~, II