HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1993/04/20
Tuesday, April 20, 1993
6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
.. Public Services Building
CAIJ. TO ORDER
Councilmembers Fox _, Horton _, Moore _, Rindone -' and Mayor
Nader _
1.
ROIL CAlL:
2. PLEDGE OF AlLEGIANCE TO TIiE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 16,1993, February 23, 1993 and March 16, 1993.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF TIiE DAY:
a. Awards Presentation to Winners for the 1993 Fair Housing Poster Contest and Proclamation
declaring the month of Apri11993 as "FAIR HOUSING MON1H" . Awards wi\l be presented
by Tamara Sockey, Fair Housing Council of San Diego; and the proclamation declaring the
month of April 1993 will be presented by Mayor Nader to Tamara Sockey.
b. Oath of Office: Charter Review Commission . Sharon Reid; Child Care Commission .
Elizabeth Stillwagen; Housing Advisory Committee. Glen Googins.
c. Proclaiming Thursday, Apri122, 1993 as "EARTH DAY" . The proclamation will be presented
by Mayor Nader.
d. Proclaiming the week of Apri118 to 24,1993 as "PROFESSIONAL SECRETARIES WEEK".
The proclamation will be presented by Mayor Nader.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 15)
The staff recommendations regarding the following itons listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the
Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councilmember, a member of the publiJ: or CiJy staff requests
that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to
Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the CiJy Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form
to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff
recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Board and Commission
Recommendations and Action Items. Items pulled by the publiJ: will be the first items of business.
5. WRITTEN COMMUMCATIONS:
a. Letter of resignation from the Commission on Aging . Linda Gilstrap, 1923 Rue Michelle,
Chula Vista, CA 91913. It is recommended that Linda Gilstrap's resignation be accepted
with regret and that the City Clerk be directed to post the vacancy immediately in the
Clerk's Office and the Public Library in accordance with the Maddy Act.
Agenda
6.
7.
8.
-2-
April 20, 1993
b. Letter in opposition to replacing a natural creek with a 16-foot-wide concrete channel- Ted
Neff, 841 Fairway Court, Chula Vista, CA 91910. It is recommended that the letter be
referred to staff to reply directly to Mr. Neff and to work with him during the design process
to address his concerns.
c. Letter proposing to establish a coalition of San Diego County cities which would be willing
to embarl<: upon a one year pilot program to contract with the lmmigration Naturalization
Service ONS) to provide officers to individual cities to enforce immigration laws at places
of employment - B. Tony Snesko, Councilmember, City of Po way, P. O. Box 789, Poway, CA
92074-0789. It is not recommended that the City support the proposal, but rather that the
Police Department review with the INS efforts to increase enforcement with existing
resources.
d. Letter from National Properties Associates requesting a review of fees for a proposed
laundromat at Summerset Plaza Shopping Center - Richard Gabriel, 2665 Ariane Dr., Suite
207, San Diego, CA 92117. It is recommended that the item be referred to staff to work
with the developer and report back to Council.
ORDINANCE 2550
AMENDING CHAPTER 3.48 OF TIlE MUNICIPAL CODE TO PERMIT TIlE
FINANCING OF PROJECTS BY TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS (second
readinl!: and adoption) - The City is currently considering the institution of
proceedings to provide financing for the acquisition and construction of
various projects by organizations which are exempt from Federal income
taxation pursuant to Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 by amending Chapter 3.48 of the Municipal Code. Staff recommends
Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of
Community Development)
ORDINANCE 2551
AMENDING CHAPTER 9.50 OF TIlE MUNICIPAL CODE TO MAKE CERTAIN
ACTIONS RELATING TO TIlE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A
MOBILE HOME PARK IllEGAL (first readinl!:) - On 4/13/93, Council
directed staff to return with an amendment that would allow enforcement
of the Mobile Home Park Space - Rent Review Ordinance. Staff
recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading. (Director of
Community Development). Continued from the meeting of 4/13/93.
ORDINANCE 2552
IMPOSING, AS AN INTERIM AND URGENCY MEASURE, A REQUIREMENT
THAT FOR A PERIOD OF NINETY DAYS ANY PROPOSAL TO EXPAND OR
MODIFY ALCOHOL SALES IN TIlE CoN ZONE IS SUBJECf TO TIlE
ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH TIlE
PROVISIONS OF MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.14.030(6) (UrR:encv) -On
4/13/93, Council expressed concern with the fact that the City's recently
adopted ordinance requiring. a conditional use permit for alcohol sales
facilities in the CoN zone does not distinguish between the extent or
amount of alcohol sales or between the sale of beer/wine and hard liquor.
Staff recommends Council adopt the urgency ordinance. (Director of
Planning) 4/5th's vote required.
Agenda
-3-
April 20, 1993
9. ORDINANCE 2553 AMENDING SCHEDULE X, SECI10N 10_48.050 OF TIiE MUNICIPAL CODE
DECREASING STATE LAW MAXIMUM SPEED UMITS IN CERTAIN AREAS,
PASEO RANCHERO AND BUENA VISTA WAY (first readinsd - Buena Vista
Way and Paseo Ranchero north of East "H" Street are new collector streets
constructed by the McMillin Development Company in 1990 in conjunction
with the Rancho del Rey Phase II construction. Since the street does not
have any fronting businesses or residences, the unposted speed limit is 55
mph. A recent traffic survey revealed that the 85th percentile speed is 43
mph and 36 mph, respectively. In the interest of public safety, the City
Engineer is recommending that Buena Vista Way north of "H" Street be
posted at 35 mph. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first
reading. (Director of Public Works)
10. RESOLUTION 17C1Tl AlmiORIZING TIiE MAYOR TO EXECUIE ON BEHALF OF TIiE CITY A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH TIiE SAN DIEGO COlJNIY
WATER AlmiORITY (CWA) FOR TIiE CWA PUBUC INSTITUTIONS
RETROFIT PROGRAM - The City has been accepted to participate in the
CWA's Public Institutions Retrofit Program. As a condition of participation,
the City must enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
CWA. Once the MOU has been approved by Council, the City will be
reimbursed for a total of $7,738.00 to pay for retrofitting 42 public toilets.
The retrofit program is designed to provide financial support to those
public agencies who require funding assistance in purchasing 1.6 gallon
per flush ultra-low flow toilets for use in its public facilities. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Administration and Director of
Public Works)
11. RESOLUTION 17078 AlmiORIZING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURES TO CONDUCT TIiE
CULTURAL ARTS FESTIVAL ON MAY 8, 1993 - The Parks and Recreation
Department is requesting permission to temporarily close Park Way
between Third and Fourth Avenue, and Garrett Avenue between "G" Street
and Park Way, to conduct the Cultural Arts Festival on 5/8/93. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation)
12. RESOLUTION 17079 ORDERING TIiE SUMMARY VACATION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT
TIiE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PASEO DEL REV AND TELEGRAPH
CANYON ROAD - Real Estate Investment Trust, owner of the property at
the northwest comer of Paseo del Rey and Telegraph Canyon Road, has
requested vacation of a drainage easement for a portion of Telegraph
Canyon Channel across their property. They will rededicate the drainage
easement along the entire channel adjacent to their property. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
13. RESOLUTION 17080 ACCEPTING DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ORIGINAllY GRANTED AS AN
IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION AND PREVIOUSLY REJECTED BY
COUNCIL ON MAPS NUMBER 3104 AND 3163 - On 2/16/93, by
Resolution 16992, Council accepted bids and awarded contract for the
construction of the Naples Street drainage channel improvements project
(DR-112). The improvements lie within a 40 foot wide drainage easement
originally tendered in 1954 and rejected by Council with the option to
accept at a future date. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Public Works)
Agenda
-4-
April 20, 1993
14.A. RESOLUTION 17081
APPROVING SUBDMSION AGREEMENT FOR PARCEL MAP 92-15, CHULA
VISTA AUTO PARK AND AUTIiORIZING TIlE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
On 3/11/93, the Directors of the Departments of Public Works and
Planning conditionally approved Tentative Map 92-15, Chula Vista Auto
Park. The Final Parcel Map for said tentative parcel map is now ready for
approval. Generally, final parcel maps are administratively approved.
However, the conditions of approval of the tentative map for the
development require a Subdivision Agreement to satisfy conditions of
approval numbered nine, fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen. Condition eight
requires a Supplemental Subdivision Agreement with the developer, Chula
Vista Auto Park, Inc. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions.
(Director of Public Works)
B. RESOLUTION 17082
APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDMSION AGREEMENT REGARDING
CONDmON EIGHT AND AUTIiORIZING TIlE MAYOR TO EXEClITE SAME
PROPOSED CEQA WORKSHOP WITH TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION. In October 1992, Council
requested input from the Planning Commission regarding scheduling of
joint workshops between the Council and the Planning Commission on
issues of mutual concern. The Planning Commission subsequently
reviewed the matter and indicated interest in having quarterly workshop
meetings with Council. Subsequently, on 2/2/93, Council directed staff to
schedule a joint workshop on the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) with Council, the Planning Commission and the Resource
Conservation Commission. Staff recommends Council approve the outline
for the proposed joint workshop on CEQA and direct staff to coordinate
scheduling of the workshop with the Planning Commission and Resource
Conservation Commission at the earliest possible date. (Director of
Planning)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
15. REPORT
PUBUC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The foUDWing items have been advertised and/or posted as publiJ; hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak
to ony item, p1eJJse fill out the 'Request to Speak Form' available in the lobby and submit it to the CiIy Clerk prior
to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form
to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individual
16. PUBUC HEARING UPDATE OF TIlE PUBUC FACIUTIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE - In
August 1989, Council adopted the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee
(PFDlF), which was later amended by ordinance in January 1991. Staffis
presenting the latest update of the PFDlF. Staff recommends Council place
the ordinance on first reading and approval of the resolution.
(Administration)
A. ORDINANCE 2S54 ADDlNG CHAPTER 3.50 TO TIlE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO A
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR VARIOUS PUBUC FACIUTIES
WITI-llN TIlE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AREA BOUNDARY AND REPEAUNG
ORDINANCES 2432 AND 2320 (first readinl!)
B. RESOLUTION 17083 APPROVING TIlE 1993 UPDATE OF TIlE PUBUC FACIUTIES
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Agenda
-5-
April 20, 1993
17.
PUBliC HEARING
CONSIDERING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER SIXIY-FOUR
FOR TIlE DEVELOPMENT OF A GOLF DRlVING RANGE, BATnNG AND
PITCHING CAGES, AND ACCESSARYUSES ON FIFTH AVENUE NORm OF
"C" STREET - The project involves construction of an athletic and sport
recreational center on approximately 12.94 acres located on Fifth Avenue
north of "COO Street within the Inland Parcel of the Local Coastal Program.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community
Development) Continued from the meeting of 3/23/93.
RESOLUTION 17084 ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-91-50(B), TWO
ADDENDUMS THERETO AND MITIGATION MONITORlNGPROGRAMAND
ISSillNG COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 64 TO DEVELOP A
GOLF DRlVING RANGE, BATnNG AND PITCHING CAGES, AND
ACCESSORY USES ON FIFTH AVENUE NORm OF "C" STREET SUBJECT
TO CONDITIONS
18.
PUBliC HEARING
APPROPRIATION OF $1,214,000 OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TIlE sourn IJBRARY
PROJECT - In the Spring of 1991, the City used CDBG funds to purchase
six acres of land at Fourth and Orange Avenues for the south library.
Subsequently, the State Library awarded the City a matching grant for the
new library. The grant reimburses the City for 65 per cent of the cost of
the land acquisition. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Community Development) 4/5th's vote required.
RESOLUTION 17085 APPROPRIATING OF $1,214,000 OF CDBG FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF TIlE sourn IJBRARY PROJECT
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportuniJ.y for the general public to address the City Council on any subject matter within the Council's
jurisdU:tion that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the City Council from
taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council on such a
subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in the lobby
and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address
for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council will consider items whU:h have been forwarded to them for consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions and/or Committees.
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantwl discussions and deliberations by the
Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council and staff
recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out
a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prUir to the meeting. Public
comments are limited to five minutes.
Agenda
-6-
April 20, 1993
19.
REPORT
CHULA VISTA HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL - Last Spring, the Chula Vista
Human Services Council (CVHSC) initiated Project CARE to provide a
safety net for isolated senior citizens. Project CARE includes a health and
safety home repair component. The CVHSC requested that the City draft
a legal waiver for volunteers who perform the home repairs. In reviewing
the request, staff determined that the home repair program raises a
significant legal liability which cannot be easily resolved. The larger issue
which has surfaced is the role of the CVHSC and its relationship to the
City. The report contains a history of the development of the CVHSC,
explains the current issues, and proposed options for resolution of the
issues. Staff recommends Council accept the report and approve the
resolution. (Director of Community Development) Continued from the
meeting of 3/23/93.
RESOLUTION 17050 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH TIlE CHULA VISTA HUMAN
SERVICES COUNCILSETl1NG FORTH TIlE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TIlE
CI1Y AND TIlE CVHSC AND TRANSFERRING $900 OF COMMUNl1Y
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
20.
REPORT
KEY CONCERNS REGARDING PROPOSED SOUD WASTE PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT - At the 3/30/93 workshop on regional solid waste issues
and a proposed Solid Waste Participation Agreement, staff was directed to
prepare a list of specific concerns with the Agreement. The list will be
addressed by the Council's representative to a Solid Waste Task Force of
elected officials on 4/30/93. Council discussion and action at this time
will provide the Council's representative with the City's official position.
Staff recommends that Council: (1) determine that the City is not
prepared at this time to make a commitment of total flow of solid waste
within its jurisdictional boundaries to the County system; (2) affirm to the
Solid Waste Task Force that the issue of the amount of flow commitment
necessary to allow the San Marcos landfill expansion financing to take
place be addressed independently of the long-term commitment of flow for
long range facilities planning purposes; (3) approve in concept an
organizational structure which calls, first, for the formation of a Solid
Waste Commission with final authority in policy matters and capital
planning and financing issues, and then with responsibility for exploring
the possible evolution of the Commission into an entirely separate legal
entity; and (4) direct staff to return to Council with a revised Agreement
for action at the conclusion of the work of the Task Force.
(Administration)
ITEMS PULLED FROM TIlE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is flu! time flu! City Council will discuss items whiJ;h have been removed from flu! Consent Calendar. Agenda
items pulled at flu! request of flu! publiJ:: will be considered prior 10 those pulled by CounciImembers. PubliJ::
comments are limited to five minutes per individual
OTHER BUSINESS
21. Cl1Y MANAGER'S REPORTfS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
Agenda
-7-
April 20, 1993
22. MAYOR'S REPORTCS)
23. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council will meet in closed session immediately following the Council meeting to discuss:
Instruction to negotiators regarding salary and compensation in the form of fringe benefits pursuant
to Government Code Section 54957.6 - Executive Management, Mid-Management, Unrepresented,
Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA), Western Council of Engineers (WCE) , Police Officers
Association (POA), and International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF)
The meeting will adjourn to a Regular Worksession/Meeting on Thursday, April 22, 1993 at 4:00 p.m. in
the Council Conference Room and thence to the Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, April 27, 1993
at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City Council meeting.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
l/a..
Meeting Date 4/20/93
ITEM TITLE:
Proclamation - proclaiming the Month of April 1993 as
"FAIR HOUSING MONTH"
SUBMITTED BY:
Mayor Tim Nade~~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes NoXx )
The proclamation declaring the month of April 1993 as FAIR HOUSING MONTH will
De presented by Mayor Tim Nader to Ms. Tamara Sockey, Executive Director of
Fair Housing Council of San Diego.
Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79)
.~A,' /
PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF APRIL 1993 AS
"FAIR HOUSING MONTH"
IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, April 1993 marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of
1968 which guarantees equal housing opportunities for all; and
WHEREAS, there are just laws at the state and national level which prohibit
discrimination in the sale, rental, marketing or financing of housing; and
WHEREAS, it is the solemn and sworn duty of government at all levels to protect
and defend the rights of all its citizens and oppose housing discrimination whenever and
wherever it occurs; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista, in its commitment to equal access, has
adopted polices on affirmative marketing and balanced communities; and
WHEREAS, despite all of the laws and policies, segregated housing patterns and
barriers to equal housing access still remain; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Annual Fair Housing Poster Award Program will be held
April 20, 1993 at the Chula Vista Council Chambers to recognize the progress in
achieving equal housing opportunity in Chula Vista:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, TIM NADER, Mayor of the City of Chula Vista, California,
do hereby proclaim the month of April 1993 as "FAIR HOUSING MONTH" in the City of
Chula Vista and commend the many individuals and organizations who continue to play
a key role in the establishment and ongoing success of the Annual Fair Housing Poster
Contest.
LJ a., - J-.
;.
.'
.
."',.
f
<,
'~ .'
,.~"
,
~,
:l
~.-'
,
"'"
~,.,
"
f...:.
f'-'
f
r
~-.
WINNERS 'TO RECEIVE THE ,1993 ' , "
CITY OF CHULA VISTA FAIR HOUSING POSTERAW~DS
, ,.-
,
.
K-2.GRADE DIVISION
3RD PLACE: SYLVIA SPRACKIN ' "2NDGRADE YMCA ,'ROSEBANK ,
$25.00
2ND PLACE: ASHLEYMAKELY,' KINDEGARTEN, YMCA' HILLTOP'
$50.00
1ST PLACE: 'DAVID, MANZO ".2ND,GRADE"YMCAHILLTOP
$100.00 .
3-4 GRADE DIVISION
3RD PLACE:' VIVIAN MORENO: '4TH GRADE VALLEY 'VISTAMS~ CORDER
, $25.00
2ND PLACE: YOSHIEA MUKOSA<1TH GRADE VALLEY VISTA ,MR. CAUFIELD'
$50.00
1ST PLACE: ,JENNIFER ELLIS 4TH GRADE' BOYS GIRLS tWB MR NORMAND ,'"
$100.0,0
5-6 GRADE DIVISION
3RD PLACE: DANIEL GOULARTE6TH',(;RADE VALLEYVI,STA' MISS WESLEY
$25.00
JEFFREY KAMANSKY , 5TH (;RADE VALLEY VISTA MS ' BRIDGES
$50.00
1ST PLACE: KARINA GERSCHLER6TH GRADE VALLEY VISTA MISS WESLEY
2ND PLACE:
,SPECIAL RECOGNITION: ,EZRA CAVAZOS' GRADES MUELLER'SCHOOL
'JIBOAST PROGRAM" MS,:~B"'ZIEUKIWIEZ
,$5.00 AND $25.00 GIFT CERTIFICATE TOYS 'R US
,.., "', ,
- ...".. h
,'.....
.Lt.Q--3
:,C,.".--'.'
...
.
,..
.-"'"
.-, .'.,; ::~(
DATE:
March 3, 1993
TO:
Kay Dennison, Chairperson
Members of the Commission on Aging
~,f'-, "'l~r
~tf- ri." I...Y
j I .~)'
FROM:
Linda Gilstrap, Commission on Aging
RE:
Resignation
The travel requirements for my job have increased tremendously and the Commission
on Aging meetings, unfortunately, fall during these regularly scheduled travel periods.
Because I will be unable to attend future meetings I am respectfully submitting my
resignation as a member of the Commission on Aging.
My service on the COA has been a gratifying experience. My hope was to complete
this second term however the change in the frequency of business trips prohibits me
from fulfilling the primary obligation of my term.
- The commissioners who I have had the pleasure of serving beside have been a
wonderful group of hardworking, committed and innovative individuals. It has been a
personal honor to share in the success that we, as a commission, have achieved.
My best wishes will always be with you and I extend my appreciation also to the City of
Chula Vista for allowing me to serve on this very meaningful commission.
.~~
~,/
RECEIVED
To the Honorable Mayor Tim Nader and Council Members:
'93 APR 14 AS :3'
My name is Ted Neff.
CITY OF CHlJLA ViSf
CITY CLERK'S OFFIC
I moved to 841 Fairway Court six and a half years ago, and ever
since I have enjoyed the rural atmosphere that surrounds my
home. My family and I have spent countless hours watching the
many birds which are drawn to the large trees lining the creek
behind my property.
Recently I was made aware that all of the big trees are now
threatened. The City Council is considering replacing the
natural creek with a 16-foot-wide concrete channel. This will
immediately cause the removal of those trees in the path of
the. channel. The loss of the year-round water supply now pro-
vided by the existing creek will doom the trees left standing.
This will be a catastrophe.
The red-tailed hawks which now nest every year in the tall trees
will be gone. The great horned owls which have stopped in the
trees will not return. The many species of migrating birds
which stop by on their long journeys will not be seen again.
I agree that something needs to be done to stop the erosion
along the creek. I do not agree to the proposal to kill the
trees and destroy a bird paradise. There has got to be a
better way.
THANK YOU.
cc; , ifl79: (1)
d~7~
~~
WR~TTEN COMMUNICATIONS
r~/~
5b../
JLSb
}>r.n cR. rPulfu., rPf.!.1:>. (rP '!I ,6,)
!DI<Uto.
dVaZlDnJ cJfuu4_.t&u
'28 Caw.t.y Club ~
C!IuJ:.. tVw.., M 919"
'Jd (6'9) 42"'3992 9.... (6'9) 69'-794"
9..w,n C!oulngton
c:4nn ~'L4tr~
90wuku
Chula Vista City Council
, -:-:::1
~o',"""',:>
~- f' :., \~ ,--.
r~~- .~~,,~~~_,5.._\\ -,~~~ ,. -,:~ ~.,::'
\ t._ ~ :. '-, ,', ';'
,\i; i.! t>.PR \ 5 b:,~
\\.1'.1\
l....'~.c...., ," , ' ".' \
('..;'V --. _..,', _-
\,I.",;. ,-""":"'-".~___
_ c,._~..-_.
Apr 11 12, 199 3
RE: Telegraph canyon Creek Canal
Dear City Council Members:
I regret that rec~nt meetings regarding the discussion of the
Telegraph Canyon eree!<. problem had been at times when I was
providing consultation in Kuwait, as well as Costa Rica. I do not
take the flooding potential matter lightly, one which is of such
importance to so many of us.
After the terrible flood we experienced here, perhaps 10 or 12
years ago, I certainly do have an interest. The recent heavy
rains, however, heavier than any I have ever experienced in this
area, actually proved only a slight threat to my property, sizable
as it is. Investigation on my part, and that of Mr. James Warren,
my neighbor, showed that the earlier floOding was caused by a
decorative, if not whimsical small dam a neighbor had put on the
stream. Nature quickly provided the material that made it larger
than intended.
Resolution of whatever problem we have at this time could go so
far, I am told, as a large trapezoidal type canal, similar to that
which courses through the Telegraph Canyon area up toward Community
Hospi tal. I would be pleased to see the Ci ty of Chula Vista
exploring this possibility with great caution, if that is being
considered. The ugliness of such a canal would be great, and the
loss of the trees which line the canal would be expensive to our
population in ways society and science is just beginning to
appreciate. I would particularly support a covered water way,
perhaps using pipes such as is used under K Street and 2nd Avenue,
for example, or a simple reinforcement of the banks with gunite at
least in vulnerable places along the current and natural course of
the stream.
5'b-3
quu.. foo dfJp foo oJ""i.ctyloJ90~ tf..o"9' .:JYow <400wt/; ~"fuoi.cn=
,
.
My wife and I have had an excellent experience with the city of
Chula Vista for the best part of 20 years, and appreciate the hard
work you do to provide such good services. It would appear that we
need help at this time, but an over-reaction could damage the
beauty we enjoy as well as the natural environment now appreciated
as so vi tal to. our planets survival. Thank you for giving
consideration to my thinking.
R. Pullen
Country Club Drive
la Vista, CA 91911
JRP:tm
cc:.Chula Vista City Engineering Department
5b-4
CITY OF POWAY
htC-
DON HIGGINSON, Mayor
BOB EMERY, Deputy Mayor
B. TONY SNESKO, Councilmember
SUSAN CALLERY, Councilmember
MICKEY CAFAGNA, Councilmember
RECEIVED
Mayor Tim Nader
City of Chula Vista
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 91910
"-
'....,.",.~.....d ,... .;::;.;;..~
'tl3 1M 14 All:5 rn [~ :S [i fi "; j IN THE CO
7 nm . U r~'-'-~-- " :, ,:
CITY OF CHULA \;i~ iA rQL APR -,1993 \0
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE --l
Cll" ('N "~71L'{l':-t"'O
, ,'J....j'.t,. ".I"'~
CHULJ\ \%1" CA
April 2, 1993
Dear Mayor Nader:
The Federal Government's inability to restrict the flow of illegal immigrants across our
border has impacted each of our cities in various ways. One trend that disturbs me the
most is the number of our unemployed construction workers who have been displaced by
illegals who will work for substantially lower wages. The Federal Government does not
have the funds to increase the number of Immigration Naturalization Service (INS)
officers in San Diego County and from the looks of the Federal budget, we won't be
seeing an increase in the near future.
I have proposed a program to the Legislative counsel of the INS that would allow cities
JO--Cmltract with tht:.l~S t~provide officers to individual cities,to enforce immigration
,~~~l!tplllces_of ~mplQ)'illeQC -SOme Citles -maiiiiiFoelargeeriougIlfo wai'rant' the
expense of employing one officer and in that situation, may wish to join with one or
more smaller cities to share an officer.
According to the INS Legislative Counsel, our new Attorney General may be receptive
to supporting legislation that would permit this activity and has suggested that I first
;;stablish a~()!llitiQIlof San Diego County cities which would be williIlg t(jembark llPon a
o~!l.Q!.P!.?~l"~m:-- ' -' -- --
I would appreciate your scheduling this topic on your next agenda to determine whether
or not your City Council supports this idea. Please call me with the results of your
meeting as soon as possible.
If you have any questions or suggestions, I can be reached at 679-4202.
Sincerely,
B.TO~y;~kO ""a~ WRITTEN COMMU~IC~",:P~ ~~
C'c c;,"",hnembe< (<I) 0;, u$~ P' '1',;0/13
. ~~H'"~:;"f,::~", D,;w
Mailing Address: P,O, Box 789, Poway, Califor~207\0789 . (619) 748-6600, 695-1400
@ Printed on Recycled Paper ~G ., I
{Iff;; ~ d'~ -~"" ~
~~.~~~~~
~.
0IY--.
wV~;~~r~"'I'E~~
A:;..:!/!-O
tr""OAA!.Il\Vl' U"'< ", ,'- ...Suite207
..... 6ftj~i<l' ii""'i"~-',i\ 'tr.:'". ~.'~H)~. CA 92117
.. .. .11 _. Iii Iii ':~l.9U-4800
, FAX 16191488.3101
March 31, 1993
Honorable Mayor Tim Nader
Members of the City Council
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
--. '~.;.." -.-
RE: Sommerset Plaza, 1610, 1655, 1660 and 1665 Broadway, Chula Vis
Dear Mayor Nader and Council Members,
We are the owners of Sommerset Plaza, a 100,000 square foot shopping center complex
located on Broadway between Palm and Main in' the City of Chula Vista. We are
extremely proud of our Center, which, hopefully, has added to the City of Chula Vista.
The current economic climate has been difficult, to say the least, and we have been
assisting our tenants whenever and wherever possible. As a result of our hands-on
approach, we have succeeded through this recessionary period and are looking forward
to adding additional tenants to the Center over the next few months.
We have been approached by a laundromat tenant, who has completed their feasibility
study and are desirous of taking premises within our Center. The laundromat would be
comprised of a minimum of 50 machines and will undertake conservation as a part of
their day-to-day business operations. Tenant improvements to accommodate the 50
machines, including all plumbing services for a 2,400 square foot space, will be
approximately $65,000. in addition to this, the fees scheduled for a 50 unit laundromat
would require an additional $60,000 expenditure. The laundromat works on an extremely
small margin, providing a benefit to the people within the area. Their rent would enable
the $125,000 capital expenditure to be recouped over a 5-year period with no provision
for rent during this same period. Obviously, receiving no rent over a 5-year period is not
practical. in an effort to create the laundromat and still receive rental income over and
above the capital expenditure, we would appreciate your considering the following:
1. The fees of approximately $60,000 be paid at a rate of $6000 per annum, on a
monthly basis, over a 10-year period.
2 No interest be charged on the above and the amaunt be guar~d b'I}Poth the
tenant and ourselves. . -<-< :u
00 ill!: fT1
"'. r--'T\ ,a (")
~.. ~ /"1) I ~~ - fT1
. '~'t.. ( ..., :x:~ 1.11 -
~~..,0~ .5'el-1 ~~ ; ~
4" e:
c",..... ~ ~ l>
Mayor Tim Nader
City Council Members
March 31, 1993
Page 2
~
3. The tenant sign a lease for a 20-year period to ensure that the area 'enjoys the
full benefit of services for which we are paying the City the $60,000.
Your review of the above would be greatly appreciated as expeditiously as possible. We
are attempting to bring this tenant to the area, and believe that the laundry service will
have a positive impact on the City, its residents and our Shopping Center.
Thanking you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
~
5r1,~
.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY:
Item ~ c.c.{.I\~1
Meeting Date ~~ q eN1~
ORDINANCE .1.. .5'f P Ordinance Amending V\O~
Chapter 3.48 of the Chula vista Municipa~O
Code to Permit the Financing of proje~ by
Tax- Exempt Organizations ~~~
Community Development Dire~~ - .
/ \1..' 'i>\.\)J
City Manage~ ~'ZJl.IlI\
()~
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND
.
In 1982, Chapter 3.48 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code was
created. This Chapter authorizes the city to issue bonds
for the purpose of financing or otherwise assisting the
acquisition and construction of projects located within the
city to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the City,
to encourage industrial and commercial development within
the City and to enhance the financial resources of the City.
Since 1982, many projects have been funded, such as the
South Bay Ambulatory Surgerical Center of Third Avenue.
Currently, Chapter 3.48 does not expressly allow the
beneficiary of bond funds to be a non-profit corporation.
In the near future, the contemplated acquisition of Bayscene
Mobile Home Park by a non-profit corporation will be coming
to the Council, and this project cannot be accomplished if
the Chapter is not amended. Approval of this Ordinance does
not obligate the Council to approve the contemplated
acquisition of Bayscene by a non-profit.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Ordinance
Amending Chapter 3.48 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
(First Reading)
BOARD AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION
.
In November of 1992, the Agency directed staff to continue
working with the Richard A. Hall Company and a non-profit
corporation to determine the feasibility of assisting a non-
profit to acquire Bayscene Mobile Home Park so that. the Park
may be used as a relocation mobile home park. Since .
November of 1992, staff has been actively pursuing this
project, and found that in order to structure the financing
for this project, Chapter 3.48 must be amended to permit the
beneficiary of bond proceeds to be a non-profit corporation.
The financing for the project is currently structured so
~
I.e, - (
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date
/tJ
4/13/93
that the City would issue revenue bonds, pursuant to the
amended Chapter 3.48. Then, the proceeds would be loaned to
a non-profit corporation to enable the corporation to
purchase the Park. In order to make these revenue bonds
more credit worthy, the bonds will be backed by a pledge
from the Agency, if approved. As in the case with the South
Bay Ambulatory Surgical Center, these conduit revenue bonds
are limited obligations of the City. Therefore, the
bondholders may only be paid from the revenue generated by
the project or from the amount pledged by the Agency.
Staff plans to present the complete financial structure for
the acquisition of Bayscene Mobile Home Park by a non-profit
corporation to the Council/Agency on May 11, 1993. However,
since an ordinance is not effective until 30 days after its
passage, the Ordinance needs to be passed prior to the
decision on the project so that staff will be able to
complete the project in a timely manner. Approval of this
Ordinance does not necessarily mean that this project will
be approved. However, if approved, it will enable the City
Council to assist a non-profit corporation to purchase
Bayscene Mobile Home Park.
FISCAL IMPACT: The adoption of this Ordinance will allow
the city to assist with the financing of projects that
involve non-profit corporations as borrowers, such as the
Olympic Training Center. The adoption will not result in
any added expenses for the City.
~
(r;)..
""""
""""
"'"'"
.
.
.
~5.5() 'r\>o'?'\\O~
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.48 r,. 'r~\>
OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ~\~
PERMIT THE FINANCING OF PROJECTS B~ ~~
TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS cP~
<?<,)
ORDINANCE NO.
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista (the "city") is a municipal
corporation and charter city duly organized and existing under a
charter (the "Charter") pursuant to which the City has the right
and power to make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect
to municipal affairs and certain other matters, in accordance with
and as more particularly provided in Article XI of the Constitution
of the State of California and Section 200 of the Charter; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 3.48 of the Municipal Code of the City (the
"Municipal Code") authorizes the City to issue bonds for the
purpose of financing or otherwise assisting the acquisition and
construction of projects located within the city to promote the
health, safety and welfare of the city, to encourage industrial and
commercial development within the. City and to enhance the financial
resources of the City; and
Whereas, the City is currently considering the institution of
proceedings to provide financing 'for the acquisition and
construction of various projects by organizations which are exempt
from federal income taxation pursuant to Section 501(c) (3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the City Council
wishes to amend Chapter 3.48 of the Municipal Code to authorize
such financing proceedings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, acting under the Constitution of
the State of California and under the Charter, finds and determines
that the public interest and necessity require the adoption of this
ordinance to authorize the issuance of revenue bonds for the
purpose of financing such projects, and that providing such
financial assistance constitutes a municipal affair of the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, the city Council of the City of Chula Vista
does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Amendment. The definition of the terms "Bonds,"
"Exempt organization," "Participating Party" and "Project" in
paragraphs B, H, J and X, respectively, of section 3.48.020 of the
Municipal Code are each hereby amended in their entirety to read as
follows:
1
~-, '
-
"Bonds" means any bonds, notes, interim certificates,
debentures or other obligations issued by the city
pursuant to this chapter, which are payable exclusively
fr~m ~t;v~nues ~.T!d ..ot~ez; ~un..ds p,ermi tted by this, chapter. """"
8Pl_ \w.u~e&.. are ~ft_t1s_r_a_ _e..~e_epmepl't sellas" \:J.~RiR 'the:
lIIeaRiR~ sf EieetiSR 193 (8) s~ t~e IRterfl~l,ReYefllie ;:8: :f
19St, as a.eRded, SY &fty s~m~laF ,re~~s~eft af ~~--~~e:
t.aeJ\ ift effeet.
ting Party" means any person, corporation,
firm or other entity or gro~p o~ entities,
te e s, which
ncing for the acquisition of a project
his chapter.
"Project" mean real property improved with an industrial
or commercial s ucture, inc1udina but not limited a real
er t d
on ec i w h u . ed s and all property
in connection ther ith or incidental thereto, including
all machinery, equi ent and furnishings, the acquisition
of which is finance or otherwise assisted pursuant to
this chapter; provide however, that no project to be
financed may be locate outside the city unless the city
council shall find and d ermine that such project would . ~
directly benefit the itizens of the city by
substantially promoting e or more of the public
interests recited in Secti 348.010. Project also
included aua1ified residentia ~ rental property ~
fami~y liRits as described in a d within the meaning of
~ Sectio
as amended,
thereunder, including all prope
therewith and incidental thereto.
"Exempt Organization" means an eRtity ellem19t fpsm feaera1
" i t' s 'bed 'n
501(c)1ll of the Internal Revenue Code of ~
amended.
Section 2. Effect of Amendment. The amendmen made pursuant
to Section 1 hereof shall apply to bonds or other ob gations to be
issued by the city under Chapter 3.48 of the M icipa1 Code
following the effective date of this ordinance, and no to any such
bonds or other obligations issued by the City prior to such
effective date.
2
~
< I~-)/-
~,.'t
.
.
.
section 3. Publication Hereof. That the City Clerk is hereby
authorized and directed to cause a digest or a copy of this
ordinance to be published at least once in the Chula vista star
News within fifteen days after the adoption of this ordinance
pursuant to section 312 of the Charter.
section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect
and be in force on the thirtieth day from and after its passage.
Presented by:
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
F:\hcme\coa:u:ndcv\chaptcr .Old
3
It) -f
(.,,-s-
Approved as to form by:
C~~~
Ruth M. Fritsch
Assistant City Attorney
-..,
nus PAGE BlANK
..........
"""'"
~
~,(p
Item No. --2-
Date 4120/93
7.
ORDINANCE 2551
AMENDING CHAPTER. 9.50 OF TIm MUNIeJPAL CODE TO MAKE CERTAIN
ACI10NS RELATING TO TIm OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A
MOBILE HOME PARK IIJ.EGAL (first readinlr)
The staff report and ordinance will be delivered to Council on Monday, April 19, 1993.
(-I
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ?
Meeting Date ~
SUBMITTED BY:
Ordinance ~~~ Amending Chapter 9.50
of the Municipal Code to Make certain
Actions Relating to the Operation and
Maintenance of a Mobile Home Park Illegal
(First Reading) ~.
Community Development DirectorcP
City Attorney
city Manage:t4'1
ZJ (4/5ths Vote: Yes
No X
-
)
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
On April 13, 1993, Council directed staff to return with
amendments to Chapter 9.50 of the Chula vista Municipal Code
which would allow criminal enforcement of the Chapter.
Attached as Exhibit F is the proposed Ordinance amending
Chapter 9.50 from the City Attorney, and he will walk you
through this proposed Ordinance at the meeting on April 20,
1993.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt one of the options
below:
1. Delay action on this item until staff
completely evaluates the implications of
amending the Chapter as proposed;
2. Adopt all of the changes to Chapter 9.50
presented to you by the City Attorney;
and,
3. Amend Chapter 9.50 by only adopting the
proposed amendments, presented to you by the
City Attorney, which concern criminal
and civil remedies for violations of the
Chapter.
Because utilizing the city's police power to regulate the
market is such a complicated issue, as the City Attorney
will demonstrate when he walks the Council through his
proposed revisions, staff recommends that the Council adopt
option number 1.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: On 4/13/93, Council
directed staff to return with the proposed amendments to
Chapter 9.50 on 4/20/93. As a result, the Mobile Home Rent
7-//7-J
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 4/20/93
Review Commission was unable to meet and consider the
proposed Ordinance.
DISCUSSION
since August of 1992, six park residents from Otay Lakes
Mobile Home Park have deposited funds for arbitration,
because the rent for their spaces was increasing upon the
sale of their mobile homes, as provided in Chapter 9.50 of
the Chula vista Municipal Code. In each case, staff
notified the Park Owner as required by Chapter 9.50.
However, in each case, the Park Owner did not deposit funds
for arbitration as required by Chapter 9.50. As a result,
staff notified the Park Owner, by certified mail, that his
proposed increase was ineffective because he had not
utilized the procedural process required by the Chapter for
receiving his proposed increase. Staff also informed the
Park Owner that he must reduce the space rent, for each of
the six spaces, to the space rent charged prior to the
change of tenancy. Staff notified the park residents, by
copy of the letter to the Park Owner, of the City's
conclusion regarding the Park Owner's failure to deposit
arbitration funds. Examples of the letters sent to the Park
Owner are attached as Exhibits A and B.
When staff notified the Park Owner of the first deposit for
arbitration in August of 1992, the Park Owner faxed a letter
to staff asking for additional information. Staff provided
this information, but did not receive any additional written
or oral communication from the Park Owner. As a result, the
above described letter was sent to the Park Owner notifying
him of his ineffective rent increase. Since the faxed
letter of September 1992, staff did not receive any
communication from the Park Owner until February 8, 1993
even though five of his proposed increases in space rent had
been denied. The February 8, 1993 letter from the Park
Owner's attorney is attached as Exhibit C.
Between September of 1992 and February of 1993, staff did
receive calls from the residents, who had filed for
arbitration, who stated that one of the Park Managers was
upset by staff's letters and did not know how to handle the
situation. Apparently, the Park Managers were not receiving
any communication from the Park Owner either. Staff
immediately began carbon copying the above described letters
to the Park Managers. The confusion among the Park Managers
persisted as these residents reported that one Park Manager
would accept their reduced space rent and the other would
not. Then, staff was informed that both Park Managers would
accept the reduced rent, but that the difference between the
/-~
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 4/20/93
reduced space rent and the noticed space rent would accrue.
The issue of accruing rents bothered some of the residents
who had filed for arbitration, and these residents contacted
staff. Staff communicated these concerns to the City
Attorney's Office who stated that if the Park Owner ever
attempted to collect these accruing rents that the affected
residents could use Chapter 9.50 as their defense against
the alleged outstanding rent. Staff relayed this
information to the affected residents. Nonetheless, as
stated above, staff had not, until February of 1993,
received any communication from the Park Owner which
indicated that he was not accepting staff's determination
that the his noticed increases in space rent were
ineffective.
In February of 1993, staff did receive a letter from the
Park Owner's attorney who stated that his client had not
responded to staff's letters because he was out of the
country, because of the year end holidays, and because of
time pressures. This letter is attached as Exhibit C. In
this letter, the attorney briefly mentions the issue of the
accruing rents, but the letter does not state what the Park
Owner intends to do about the accruing rents. Instead, the
attorney threatens the City with a regulatory taking based
upon a case which has subsequently been decertified by the
California Supreme Court. Staff prepared a response letter,
which was reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's
Office, and this letter is attached as Exhibit E. In staff's
response letter, staff again states that the residents of
Otay Lakes Mobile Home Park are free to use Chapter 9.50 as
their defense against the alleged outstanding rent until
someone successfully legally challenges Chapter 9.50 in a
court of competent jurisdiction. Finally, on April 9, 1993,
staff received a letter, dated April 5, 1993, from the Park
Owner which states, "we do not agree with your statement
that the proposed increase in space rent [for space 100] is
ineffective." This letter is attached as Exhibit E.
As stated above, staff responded to the Park Owner's letter
and the concerns of the affected residents by explaining
that the residents could use Chapter 9.50 as a defense
against the alleged outstanding rent. This respond was
given based upon the structure of the current Chapter and
the Ordinances which created it. When Chapter 9.50 was
created by Ordinance Number 1997, the following enforcement
language was included:
The failure of either the mobilehome park
residents or owners to adhere to the procedures
established herein shall not constitute a
?,f
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 4/20/93
crime...An individual resident or two or more
residents or a resident's association may at any
time bring an action in the state or Federal
Courts alleging a violation by the owner, two or
more owners, or an owners' association of any
legal, equitable or other rights which the
resident or residents or their association may
have under the law as now enacted or under laws
enacted in the future.
The accompanying staff report states, "The Ordinance clearly
provides that there are not criminal sanctions for a
violation thereof, but...[does] grant rights to the parties
on either side to pursue civil action." The above language
was removed from the Chapter in 1988 when the Chapter was
amended to include binding arbitration. The staff report
stated, "Enforcement, would be eliminated as binding
arbitration would become the enforcement mechanism and would
be legally binding on both parties." As evidenced above,
criminal prosecution for a violation of Chapter 9.50 was not
envisioned until recently.
Per Council's direction, the City Attorney prepared changes
to the Chapter that define what violations of the Chapter
constitute a criminal act, remedies for criminal acts, and
civil remedies. As indicated above, the city Attorney will
walk the Council through his proposed amendments to Chapter
9.50.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City Attorney's Office has estimated that one
prosecution, without any extenuating circumstances, will
require approximately 8 hours of work or $800.00. Staff
costs from the Community Development Department will be
total approximately $1000.00. Therefore, if six cases were
prosecuted, total staff costs would be approximately
$10,800. These estimates are very conservative, and if any
unusual circumstances arise, staff's estimates could be
grossly underestimated.
?-t
~'
~Jf?
-..~
r - --
----
~
EXHIBIT A
C1lY OF
CHUlA VISTA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
September 30, 1992
Mr. Richard Kelton
Otay Lakes Mobile Home park
2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, suite 3006
Santa Monica, California 90405-5207
Dear Mr. Kelton:
On September 14, 1992, Mr. Michael C. Conlin of space 103
placed a deposit for arbitration. You served the Notice of
Increase on September 1, 1992, and the Mr. Conlin deposited
25% of the estimated cost for one day of arbitration on
september 14, 1992. You have seven days from the receipt of
this letter to deposit with my Department 75% of the
estimated cost for one day of arbitration as well as a
signed document submitting the dispute to arbitration. The
appropriate document is enclosed. I expect to receive your
deposit and the signed submittal no later than October 12,
1992. Arbitration will begin as soon as it can be scheduled
with the American Arbitration Association.
Failure to timely submit the deposit and agreement will
result in the waiver of your notice of proposed increase as
to space 103.
If you have any questions, please contact Alisa Duffey
Rogers at (619) 691-5047.
sincerely,
~
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Michael Conlin
(ADR,disk5,kelt103.doc)
7-? / '1-8
276 FOURTH AVEiCHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/(619\ 691-5047
~{f?
-.-
. - --
~----
~~
EXHI BIT B
C1lY OF
CHULA VISfA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Reqistered Letter
October 23, 1992
Mr. Richard Kelton
Otay Lakes Mobile Home Park
2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, suite 3006
Santa Monica, California 90405-5207
Dear Mr. Kelton:
On September 30, 1992, you were notified of the request for
arbitration from Mr. Michael Conlin who resides at space 103 in
the Otay Lakes Mobile Home Park. You were informed that you had
seven days from the receipt of the September 30, 1992 letter to
place a deposit for arbitration as well as to provide a signed
document submitting the dispute to arbitration. To date, my
office has not received either your deposit or a document
submitting the dispute to arbitration.
As a result, your purposed increase in space rent for space 103
is ineffective because you have not utilized the procedural
process required by the Ordinance for receiving this increase.
Therefore, you must reduce the space rent for space 103 to the
space rent charged prior to the change in tenancy. By copy of
this letter, we are informing Mr. Conlin of the city's conclusion
regarding the application of the Ordinance to his space rent.
Since the proposed rent increase never became effective, you are,
of course, free to utilize the Ordinance anew to effectuate any
rental increase you believe required or justified and which the
Chula vista Mobilehome Rent review Commission would ultimately
approve. Obviously, a new Notice to the tenant would be required
to initiate the arbitration process outlined in Chapter 9.50 of
the Chula vista Municipal Code.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact either
Alisa Duffey Rogers, in my office or Richard Rudolf, in the city
Attorney's Office.
Sincerely,
~S-~
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
cc: Mr. Michael C. Conlin
?- 'j /,-10
276 FOURTH AVEICHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5047
EXHI BIT C
C. BRENT SWANSON
TERRY R, DOWOALL
THOMAS M GIESER
SWANSON AN D DOWDALL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
LINDA J. LESTER
JIM P. MAHACE:K
MAUREEN A, HATCHELL LEVINE
ROBERT G. WILLIAMSON. JR
KATHRYN L. BRUNNER
ROBIN G. EIFLER
DAWN E. JOHNSON
P. O. BOX 2504-
4- HUTTON CENTRE DRIVE
SUITE 200
SANTA ANA, CALIfORNIA 92707-0504
OUR FILE NO
TELEPHONE (714) 755-3500
FACSIMILE (7141 755-3505
MYLENE M. D. CHOW
AO....INISTRATOR
February 8, 1993
Mr. Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
Re: otay Lakes Lodge, Inc.
Dear Mr. Salomone:
I represent otay Lakes Lodge, Inc., and they have forwarded me a
letter from you dated January 7, 1993, a copy of which is enclosed.
They have advised me that this is one of a series of letters which they
have been receiving from your office. The first one arrived last year
shortly before Richard Kelton, the principal in charge of this matter,
went on an extended vacation. The others were received in his office
when he was out of the country. The year end holidays and time
pressures have prevented a sooner response to you on this matter.
You have previously been advised on several occasions that it is my
client's contention that the rent control statute of the City of Chula
vista is not valid or enforceable, especially as it applies to
individuals who purchase a mobilehome and move into the park.
Accordingly, my client's failure to comply with a statute it believes to
be unenforceable cannot be construed as nor is it intended to be a
waiver of its objection to that statute, nor a waiver of its right to
the rent to which my client believes it is entitled under the terms of
the leases executed between the mobilehome owners and the park. To the
extent that the statute is not valid or enforceable, the higher rent
contained in my client's agreements with the individual mobilehome
owners continue to accrue.
To the extent that the City may, in the future, prevail in its
assertion that this higher rent cannot be contracted for or does not
accrue, these notices would then constitute a regulatory taking pursuant
to the laws and Constitution of the State of California and the united
States of America, and the case decisions regarding such statutes and
constitutions, including, but not limited to, Colony Cove vs. The city
of Carson, and my client would hold the city liable for damages arising
therefrom.
'/-11
,'--'
,,-.'-
Mr. Chris Salomone
February 8, 1993
Page 2
Furthermore, your notices with respect to Heinrich and Conlin are
further deficient in that both of these coach owners had reached a
mediated agreement with the park management and signed agreements with
the management at lower rents. In these agreements, they waived their
right to arbitration prior to their coming into the city and requesting
arbitration. Apparently, your staff failed to inquire as to these facts
before sending out your notices demanding arbitration with respect to
these mobilehome. park tenants.
Very truly ycu:r"s',
~.~o~~
For the Firm
TRD:cs
Enclosure(s)
cc: Richard Kelton
a:\ltrs172
7"'/~
~v~
~
--~--~
- - -
EXHIBIT D
CllY OF
CHULA VISfA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
March 2, 1993
Terry R. Dowdall, Esq.
Swanson and Dowdall
P. O. Box 2504
4 Hutton Centre Drive, suite 200
Santa Ana, California 92707-0504
Dear Mr. Dowdall:
I am writing in response to your letter dated February 8,
1993.
It is difficult to accept that your client, as a prudent
business person, would leave the country and totally neglect
his business affairs. Nonetheless, I am aware of your
client's historic contention that Chapter 9.50 of the Chula
vista Municipal Code is not valid or enforceable, especially
as it applies to individuals who purchase a mobilehome and
move into otay Lakes Lodge. However, until your client, or
someone else, successfully legally challenges Chapter 9.50
in a court of competent jurisdiction, the City believes it
is quite valid and enforceable "''-
The issue of the outstanding accruing rent is between your
client and his tenants. However, if a dispute arises
between your client and his tenants, the tenants are free to
use Chapter 9.50 as their defense against the alleged
outstanding rent.
As to the regulatory taking issue, the Court of Appeal
decision in Colony Cove vs. citv of Carson has been
decertified by the California Supreme Court, and no longer
can be cited as authority supporting your views.
7--13
?7f1 FOI lRTH AVFlr:HIII A \/ISTA rAI wnRJ\IIJ'. ()1()1r\',CCH)\
(Or")1 r:n~-"
Lastl~, my staff is fully aware of the circumstances
surrounding Mr. Heinrich and Mr. Conlin. However, prior to
either of these gentlemen placing a deposit for arbitration,
I sent a letter to your client stating that his notice
offering a tenant less rent, if the tenant did not
arbitrate, was an invalid notice under the Chapter , and
unacceptable. I have enclosed a copy of this letter for
your information. A waiver is only good if the waiving
party is fully informed. Your client's notice misinformed
them, forming the basis for the "waiver."
Sincerely,
~
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Enclosure
cc: D. Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney
Juan Arroyo, Housing Coordinator
Alisa Duffey Rogers, Community Development Specialist
?- ) If
CITY OF CHUlA VISTA
Sections:
9.50.010
9.50.015
9.50.020
9.50.030
9.50.040
9.50.050
9.50.060
9.50.065
9.50.070
9.50.080
9.50.085
9.50.090
9.50.100
9.50.110
11)
C \IGk~ v\VWl bet s Wt lJ
b (' \J f, cd TI ('~ kV'e r1 c e.
lIfV'e.r!9t:..1 Sf-tt+-P r.ep~('t-.
~ Marked to Show Proposed Revisions
Chapter 9.50
MOBILEHOME PARK SPACE-RENT REVIEW
Applicability.
Applicability of Chapter 9.50 to Recreational
Vehicles.
Repealed.
Definitions.
Repealed.
Owner Meetings and possible Voluntary Negotiations.
Repealed.
Notice of Rent Increases.
Initiation of space Rent Review.
Repealed.
Repealed.
Repealed.
Severability.
Repealed.
9.50.050 Purpose.
The city intends bY this Chapter to maintain a supplY of
affordable housinq. The city council finds that there is an ample
supply of apartments for rent and that the apartment market place
does not need requlation in order to keep the rents at an
affordable leyel. The Council finds that the supplY of mobilehome
space available for rent is not adequate. and that as a result. the
limited supply of such spaces is drivinq UP the space rents in a
manner that would. in the absence of requlation. allow for an
unconscionable amount of rents to be collected.
The city also intends bY this Chapter to prevent existinq
tenants. who are rendered larqely incapable of movinq their
mobilehomes without sufferinq a substantial loss in their value.
from beinq charqed excessive and unconscionable rents due to this
lack of mobility. The Council finds that the limited supplv of
mobilehome space available for rent in this city would. in the
absence of requlation. allow for an unconscionable enhancement of
rents to existinq mobilehome park residents.
The city also intends bY this Chapter to prevent existinq
tenants. who are rendered larqely incapable of movinq their
mobilehomes without sufferinq a substantial loss in their value.
mobhom3.wp proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 1
?-,)i
from loss of the resale value of their Mobilehomes due to the fact
that an incominq Resident is beinq charqed excessive rents.
The Council finds that the limited supplv of mobilehome space
available for rent in this citv would. in the absence of space rent
requlation. allow for an unconscionable loss of resale value of
Mobilehomes to existinq mobilehome park residents.
9.50.010 Applicability.
~
This chapter shall apply to a mobilehome that requires a
permit to be moved on a street or highway.
The procedures contained in this chapter are intended to
provide a mechanism for the resolution of disputed increases in
rents by making it advantageous for mobilehomes owners and
mobilehome park owners to establish a better understanding for each
other's positions which will result in agreement on the amount of
rent to be charged. A binding arbitration provision is provided
for. The procedures of the ordinance are established with the
intent that they be accomplished in a timely fashion. The
participating parties shall commit to the goal of completing the
arbitration process within sixty (60) days of the serving of the
notice of rent increase, and that the entire dispute resolution
process be completed within one hundred-twenty (120) days following
receipt of the notice of space rent increase.
This chapter shall not apply to ~ses exempted by civil Code
section 798.17 ("Green Bill" leQOeO).~
This Chapter shall not applv to a Mobilehome Park if the rents
that may be charqed for spaces are requlated pursuant to an aqree-
ment with the Redevelopment Aqency of the city of Chula vista under
the authority of section 33334.2 throuqh 33334.4. inclusive. of the
California Health and Safety Code. for such period of time as the
aqreement is in effect.
(Ord. 2451 S3, 1991; Ord. 2306 Sl (part), 1989; Ord. 2282 S2,
198a; Ord. 2163 Sl, S2, 1986; Ord. 1997 Sl (part), 1982).
9.50.015 Applicability of Chapter 9.50 to Recreational Vehicles.
Recreational vehicles as defined in California civil Code
section 799.24 are subject to the rights and duties set forth in
Chapter 9.50 and shall have the right to arbitration as set forth
herein where the recreational vehicle owner/occupant has been in
residency for nine or more consecutive months. Notwithstanding the
above, this chapter shall not be applicable to recreational
vehicles residing in parks operated as recreational vehicle parks,
where the predominant number of spaces are occupied for less than
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 2
7'~
nine months. (Ord. 2306 S1 (part), 1989; Ord. 2282 S2, 1988; Ord.
2227 S1, 1987).
9.50.020 Created.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2306 S1, 1989; Ord. 2282
S2, 1988; Ord. 2163 S3, 1986; Ord. 1997 S1 (part), 1982).
9.50.030 Definitions.
Words used in this chapter shall have the meaning described to
them in this section:
A. "Space rent" means the consideration, including any bonus,
benefits, or gratuity demanded or received in connection with
the use and occupancy of the mobilehome space in a mobilehome
park, or for the transfer of the lease for parkspace,
services, owner-provided utilities, and amenities, subletting
and security deposits, but exclusive of any amounts paid for
the use of the mobilehome dwelling or of major capital
improvement or other allowable pass-throughs as defined in
this ordinance.
B. "Mobilehome" means a mobilehome as defined in the California
Mobilehome Home Residency Law.
C. "Mobilehome park owner" or "Owner" means the owner, lessor,
operator, manager of a mobilehome park within the purview of
this ordinance.
D. "Mobilehome resident" of "Resident" means any person entitled
to occupy a mobilehome dwelling unit by virtue of ownership
thereof.
E. "Dispute" or "Controversy" means a disagreement or difference
which is subject to the arbitration process.
F. "Consumer Price Index" or "CPI" shall mean the all urban
consumers/all items component of the San Diego Metropolitan
Area U (broader base) consumer price index.
G. "Major Capital Improvement Pass-Through" means a separately
identified monthly charge to residents which represents the
repayment of a cost for a major capital improvement with the
following characteristics:
1. Said improvement shall have a cost of more than $10,000.
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 3
7~)
2. Said improvement shall be exclusive of maintenance or
replacement of existing facilities.
H.
3. Said improvement shall have been approved in concept by
more than fifty percent (50%) of the mobilehome spaces
within the mobilehome park after all spaces in the park
have been informed of the nature, general design, timing,
and overall cost of said improvement, and the amount and
duration of the related pass-through.
other Allowable Pass-Throughs" means separately billed utility
service fees and charges excluded from rent in accordance with
the provisions of civil Code section 798.41; increases in
rates of owner-provided utilities and governmental assessments
such as real property taxes, license fees, and assessments for
municipal services or improvements. Copies of bills,
invoices, or other appropriate supporting documentation shall
be kept on file in the park owner's on-site business office,
and made available for review by affected residents upon
reasonable request at any time during normal business hours.
1....
"Mobilehome Park" or "Park" is an area of land where two or
more mobilehome sites are rented. or held out for rent. to
accommodate mobilehomes used for human habitation. and where
the predominant number of sites are occupied for nine or more
consecutive months.
~
(Ord. 2451 S4, 1991; Ord. 2306 Sl (part), 1989; Ord. 2163 S4, 1986;
Ord. 1997 Sl (part), 1982).
9.50.040 Negotiation commission-Membership.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2306 Sl (part), 1989; Ord.
2291 Sl, 1989; 2282 S2, 1988; Ord. 2163 S5, 1986; Ord. 1997 Sl
(part), 1982).
9.50.050 Owner Meetings and possible Voluntary Negotiations.
within five (5) days, but not more than 10 days, after service
of a notice of increase, as provided in section 9.50.065, the park
owner must hold an informal meeting for the benefit of the affected
residents to discuss his or her increase. It is hoped that such a
meeting may lead to voluntary settlement of the dispute. The
meeting should be set for a time and date believed to be convenient
for residents and may be changed to a different date based on the
reasonable request of the residents.
The residents shall have the option to choose whether or not
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 4
?,.2:l
to attend the meeting. Attendance at the meeting shall not affect
the residents' right to arbitrate under section 9.50.070. (Ord.
2451 S5, 1991; Ord. 2306 S1 (part), 1989; Ord. 2282 S2, 1988; Ord.
2163 S6, 1986; Ord. 1997 S1 (part), 1982).
9.50.060 Powers of a negotiation commission.
t@)
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2306 S1 (part), 1989; Ord.
2282 S2, 1988; Ord. 2163 S7, 19~rd. 1997 S1 (part), 1982).
9.50.065 Notice of rent increas~thout chanae of ownership.
A. In any situation where a mobilehome park owner wishes to
increase the space rent above the applicable CPI, he or she
must first give notice to affected residents, at the same time
the sixty (60) day notice required by civil Code section
798.30 is given, as follows:
NOTICE - RENT INCREASE IN EXCESS OF CPI
IF YOU DO NOT TAKE ACTION TO ARBITRATE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS,
THIS INCREASE SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY EFFECTIVE
This is a notice of space rent increase which exceeds the
percentage increase of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the
most recent twelve (12) month period, as reported by the
Bureau of Labor statistics, preceding this notice. The CPI is
___% and this increase is ____% of your current rent. Under
the city's Municipal Code, you are entitled to the following
rights:
1. I am required to hold a meeting with the residents to
discuss the reasons for the increase. The meeting will
be at (time and place). You are encouraged to attend but
are not required to do so. Under the City's ordinance,
owners and residents are encouraged to attempt to resolve
differences regarding this increase.
2. You have the right to file for arbitration with the
City's Community Development Department. You may file
for arbitration whether or not you attend the meeting to
discuss the increase. To file for arbitration, you must
place a deposit of $ with the City's Community
Development Department within thirty (30) days of the
date this notice is served on you. If you do not place
the deposit, you forfeit your right to arbitrate the rent
increase.
mobhom3.wp Proposed ReVisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 5
?, ~:J
If you or other affected residents are lower-income
(below $13,000-$15,000 per year), you may be eligible to
receive assistance with part of the cost of arbitration
from the City's Community Development Department. If you
have questions regarding arbitration or need more
information, you can call the city at 691-5047.
This increase is in addition to the following allowable
pass-throughs: [identify type and ;amount of major
capitol improvement or other allowable pass-through]
The following space numbers are subject to this increase:
[insert numbers of affected spaces].
B. If the residents within the affected mobilehome park have
established a representative body and notify the owner in
writing of its existence, a copy of the rent increase notice
must be sent to the chairperson of that body.
C. A copy of the rent increase notice must be given to the
Community Development Department of the city of Chula vista at
the same time as issuance of the notice to residents.
D. The rent increase notice must contain the space numbers of all
residents who are subject to the increase which is above the
amount of the applicable CPl.
E. The notice shall advise recipients that a deposit of 25% of
the cost of arbitration shall be made within thirty (30) days
of the date of service of notice or the right to arbitration
is waived. The deposit shall be made with the Director of
Community Development.
(Ord. 2451 S6, 1991; Ord. 2306 Sl (part), 1989.
w
9.50.067 Notice of rent increase ucon chanqe of ownershic.Y
1. The Council needs to make the fundamental decision at this
point: Do they want to control rents on vacancy? There can be at
least three legitimate purposes to mobilehome rent control as
follows:
(1) Prevent rent gouging of existing space tenants who will
suffer economic losses if they are required to move their
unit;
(2) Maintain an adequate supply of affordable housing; or
(3) Prevent loss of Mobilehome resale value by rent escalation
(continued. . .)
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 6
?'J'I
The review orocess shall also be aoolicable to the situation
where soace rent is increased uoon chanqe of ownershio of the
mobilehome or removal of the unit. Either the incominq or
outqoinq owner-occuoant shall have the riqht to arbitrate. as
orovided in this section:
1. ( . . . continued)
to an incoming tenant.
If our purpose is only anti-gouging where we are trying to prevent
economic eviction of existing tenants, but not interfere with an
incoming resident striking an agreement with the park owner, then
we should delete this section, and any attempt to control the rent
on vacancy.
If we are attempting to keep a supply of affordable housing, we
should keep this section in here, but at the same time prohibit a
Mobilehome owner from getting a windfall by the sale of a unit at
a price that is greater than the coach's "true value" because of
below market rents (i.e., that rent not enhanced by rent control
regulation) .
If our purpose is to prevent loss of resale value of the
Mobilehome, we should add, as a factor in setting space rents on
vacancy, that the rent to the incoming Resident should not be set
above CPI if to do so would lower the resale price of the
Mobilehome.
This is a very important decision, and I recommend that it be
deferred to a time when it can be made by a full council with input
from both the Commission and the concern and affected residents.
staff is writing this ordinance on the presumption that the Council
wants to achieve all three purposes!
If the Council disagrees with this premise, this ordinance needs to
be modified.
The Council should then amend this section to read:
"Upon re-rental of a space, as in the case of a vacancy or
resale of a Mobilehome, the initial rents to the incoming
Resident shall not be subject to regulation by this Chapter."
or:
[To be supplied later.]
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 7
7....:1.>'
@
fi)
A. outooino Mobilehome Resident's Rioht to Arbitrate. If an
outooino Mobilehome Resident intends to sell his or her
mobilehome. the Owner shall be oblioated to provide within 15
davs of the receipt of a written notice of intent to sell. a
written statement as to the rental rate to be offered to the
incomino Mobilehome Resident. as set forth below in subsection
Ic). If the rate of increase in rent to the new owner-occu-
pant is above the amount of the applicable CPI as provided in
section 9.50.070 IA). then the current resident shall have the
rioht to arbitrate the increase under the provisions of
section 9.50.070. The rioht is subiect to the outooino
resident placino a deposit pursuant to section 9.50.070 IB)
below. within 30 days of service of the owner's written
statement. as shown in subsection Ic) below. to the outooino
resident.
B. Incomino Mobilehome Resident's Rioht to Arbitrate. The
Owner shall be oblioated to provide within 15 days of the
notice of sale of a unit. a written statement to the incomino
Mobilehome Resident as to II) the rental rate to be offered to
the incomino Mobilehome Resident. as set forth below in
subsection C. below. and (2) notice that the outooino
Mobilehome Resident either did not aoree in writino to the new
space rent for the incomino Resident or did not complete
arbitration in oood faith as to the increase. At such time as
an incomino Mobilehome Resident receives such notice. then if
the outooino Resident did not. in oood faith. either exercise
or pursue to completion their rioht to arbitrate stated above
in subsection AY. the incomino Mobilehome Resident shall have
the rioht to arbitrate the increase under the provisions of
section 9.50.070. The rioht is subiect to the incomino
Mobilehome Resident placino a deposit pursuant to section
9.50.070 B. within 30 days of the date on which the incomino
Mobilehome Resident receives the park owner's statement
reoardino the proposed rental amount as set forth in
subsection C. below.
C. The park owner's statement shall contain the followino:
~ 2. Staff considered and rejected inserting at this point:
"or reach written aoreement as to the amount of the space rent
for the incomino Mobilehome Resident"
Allowing consent between the outgoing Resident and the Park
Owner as to the amount of the Incoming Resident's rent is a partial
adoption of the "anti-gouging/economic eviction" purpose of the
ordinance as opposed to the "supply of affordable housing" purpose
of the ordinance. See footnote 2 above.
mobhom3.wp proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 8
')...",1"
NOTICE - RENT INCREASE IN EXCESS OF CPI
IF YOU DO NOT TAKE ACTION TO ARBITRATE IN A TIMELY
MANNER. THIS INCREASE SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY EFFECTIVE
UPON THE SALE OF YOUR MOBILEHOME
This is a statement of space rent increase which exceeds the
percentaqe increase of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the
twelve (12) month period. as reported by the Bureau of Labor
statistics. precedinq this statement. The CPI is % and
this increase is % of your current rent. This increase is
in addition to the followinq allowable pass-throuqhs:
r identifY type and amount of maior capitol improvement or
other allowable pass-throuqhl.
Under the city's Municipal Code. the outqoinq Resident has the
first riqht to arbitrate the rental increase. and in the event
he or she fails to pursue arbitration to completion. the
incominq Resident is entitled to file for arbitration with the
city's Community Development Department. In order to
arbitrate. YOU must place an arbitration deposit of $
with the city's Community Development Department within thirty
(30) days of the date this notice is served on YOU. If YOU do
not place the deposit. YOU forfeit your riqht to arbitrate the
rent increase.
If YOU are low income (below $13.000-15.000 per year). YOU may
be eliqible to receive assistance for part of the cost of
arbitration from the city's Community Development Department.
If YOU have questions reqardinq arbitration or need more
information. vou can call the city at 691-5047.
9.50.070 Initiation of space Rent Review.
A. In any situation where the space rent increases in a twelve
(12) month period exceed cumulatively the percentage increase
of the consumer price index, as reported by the Bureau of
Labor statistics for the most recent twelve (12) month period
preceding the rent increase notice, the following procedures
shall apply unless the owner receives written consent to the
increase from more than 50% of the spaces affected by the
notice of increase. The owner must file the original of the
written consent with the community Development Department and
notify the residents that this has been filed.
B. Residents shall be required within thirty (30) days of the
date of service of the notice of increase to deposit with the
City Community Development Department 25% of the estimated
arbitration cost for one day of arbitration. Arbitration
shall begin in not less than 20 days nor more than 30 days
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 9
7..,'J.'/
after the date of service of the notice of increase, provided
the residents' deposit has been made.
C. Upon receipt of the residents' deposit and notification to the
park owner, the park owner shall have 7 days to provide a
deposit which shall be equal to 75% of the estimated cost for
one day of arbitration. The park owner shall sign an
appropriate document sUbmitting the dispute to arbitration
when making the deposit.
D. The cost of arbitration including costs incurred by the
American Arbitration Association in cases where a settlement
is reached prior to any hearing will be shared.
The owner shall be responsible for 75% and the residents
responsible for 25% of the first $750. Any costs of
arbitration above $750 shall be shared equally by both
parties. Additional costs above the amount of deposit shall
be due and payable subject to the requirements of the American
Arbitration Association.
E. The arbitration shall be conducted according to the applicable
rules of arbitration of the American Arbitration Association
and under the auspices of the American Arbitration
Association.
F.
The decision of the arbitrator shall be advisory to the
Mobilehome Rent Commission and shall be applicable to all
mobilehome residents subject to the rent increase being
reviewed. Factore to be coneiaerea shall include but not be
limi tea to a juet and reasonaele retlirR OR the mmer' 0
property. The eurdeR of proof ohall ee OR the llarl( olmer to
dcmeH~tFatc that the rent iftercaoe io RcecDoary te ~r0~idc a
jlist aRd reasonal9le retlirR OR the property. 3/ The
arbitrator's decision shall be submitted to the Mobilehome
Rent Commission within thirty (30) days 'from the beginning of
arbitration.
(j)
G. The arbitrator's decision shall be submitted to the City's
Mobilehome Rent Commission, which shall affirm, modify, or
revoke the arbitrqtor's decision at a public hearing held
@within sixty (60) days following such submission. which
lO decision shall thereupon be final. The parties may stipulate
to merely a review of the record at arbitration, or either
side may request a "denovo" hearing by the Commission. If a
de novo hearing is requested, it shall be conducted in
3 . This is now going to be replaced by a separate section on
Factors to Consider in Setting Rent.
mobhom3.wp proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 10
?.. :JY'
H.
@'
accordance with procedures adopted by the Commission which
satisfy the requirements of "due process" and will constitute
a hearing at which evidence is required by law, so that the
commission's decision is reviewable by the courts by a writ of
administrative mandamus pursuant to Code of civil Procedure
section 1094.5.
In the event that the owner reduces the rent increase to the
applicable CPI, or more than 50% of the affected residents
agree in writing to settle the dispute, the arbitration
process automatically terminates.
The reviem prooeGG ohall alGo Ise applioable te the si tuatiofl
\lhcrc Op::lCC rCRt ia inc:n:-caEicd upon cna19.ffJc of o\.~RcrE\hip of the
mobilehome or removal of the uflit. Either the inoomifl~ er
out'SJoifl~ e,;ner oeeuIlaflt Ghall have the right te arbitrate:
If afl eut'SJoiflg melsilehome OVfler ifl-EeFHiG to Gell hiG or her
mobilehome, he er she may reE!liest, aHd the eUl'ler Ghall Ise
ololi~ated to Ilre'dae ,:ithin 15 €lays af the re,!uest, a \frittefl
statemeflt aG ta the reHtal rate ta Ioe affered ta the ifleamiflg
e,:ncr oCCUp3nt. If the rate of iRsrcaoc in rent te the He".l
O\..Rcr OCCUP::lflt is a13e.,;~ the amount af the aJ?131icablc err aEJ
Ilraviaea ifl seotiofl 9.59.979 (1'.), thefl either the eurreflt
resident or iflesmifl~ reGident ohall have the right ta
arlsitrate the iflorease uflaer the Ilrovioiofls af 8eetiofl
9.59.979. The ri~ht iG sulsjeet ta the out'SJoiflg or ifleemiH~
reoident IllaeiH'SJ a deIlOGit Ilurouant ta sliloseetion B above,
'.:ithin 30 days af either (a) Ger';ice of the a':fler's ,:rittefl
statemeflt to the aut~aifl~ resideflt er (b) the €late af
Clccc\::ltisR of Q pUrCh:lDC eantract ect;"CCR the incomin~ :lnd
out'SJoifl~ residefltG, ,:hich io the latter.
The par], O\:fler' s statemcflt Ghall contain the follo\liflg:
NOTICE
RENT INCRE~SE IN EXCESS OF OFI
IF YOU DO NOT TAKE l.CTIOn TO l.RBITR.\'l'E Hr A THIELY
Hl.NnER, TIllS INCREASE SIll.LL BE. AUTOH1'.TICALLY EFFECTI\'E
uratr TIlE 8l.LE OF YOUR n013ILEIlmIE
ThiG io a statemeflt af sIlace rent iflcreaoe ,:hich el!eeeas the
peroefltage iflerease af the CaflGUmer rrioe Index (CrI) far the
t....elvo (12) mOflth Ileriaa, aG reIlorted by the Bureau af Lalsar
StatiGtioo, Ilreceain~ this statemeflt. The crI is ~ afla
thiG iflcrease is ~ sf your ourreflt rent. This iflcreaGe is
ifl addi tiofl ta the folloving allmlalsle IlaGG througho:
[iacfltify tYIle afla amouflt of IRaj aF eaIli tol impro'Jemeflt ar
other alla\falsle IlaGG through].
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 11
?...~,
Under the City's lIunieipal Cs~e, either the s'tltEjoinEJ sr the
inoominEj reaident is entitled to file for arlsitration '.Iith the
City'a Community Deyclopment Departmcnt. In order to
arlsitrate, you must plaee an arlsitratisn ~epoait sf $
.Ii th the City' a cS_Hni ty Developmel'l'E Department \Ii thin thirty
(30) ~ays of the date thia nstiee is serve~ on YS'tl sr the ~ate
af Clcc€lution of a purehazc cORtract on tho lRobilchsme.. If :tela
~s not plaee the ~eposit, you fsrfeit your riEjht to arlsitrate
tRe rent inorease.
If YS'tl arc 10\1 inesme (Isels\: $13, ooe 15,000 per year), YO'tl may
Ise eliEjible ts rceei'"e asaiatal'lee fsr part sf tRe cost sf
arbitration frsm the City's Community Deyelopment Departmel'lt.
If YSH have EJ:'tlestiona reEjardinEj arlsitratiol'l or nee~ more
il'lformation, YSH can call tRe city at 691 5047.
(Ord. 2451 S7, 1991i Ord. 2227 S2, 1987).
9.50.073 Factors to Consider in Fixinq SDace Rent
~ [This section was not readv as of the deferred aqenda
deadline. It will be modeled after the 11 Escondido factors. and
in addition. for fixinq rents in the event of vacancv. will permit
consideration of the impact of the rent on the resale value of the
Mobilehome.l
9.50.075 Fixinq of Pad Rent~
The rent on anv particular mobilehome pad shall be fixed as
follows:
A. In the event that the tenant and an Owner reach aqreement.
with or without the benefit of mediation or arbitration. the rent
for the pad shall be fixed at the aqreed upon rent at such time as
the aqreement is reached unless the aqreement otherwise provides
for a different effective date.
B. In the event that the tenant and an Owner do not reach
aqreement. and the rent has been established bv the Commission
accordinq to the procedures herein established. the rent for the
pad shall be fixed at the rental rate so established bv the
Commission as of the date of the Commission's decision. unless the
Commission shall fix a different date.
C. Unilateral Refusal to Pursue Arbitration. In the event
that the tenant or Owner fail or refuse in qood faith to follow the
procedure herein fixed for the establishment of rent. which mav
include but not be limited to refusal to deposit funds as required.
refusal to attend noticed hearinqs. then the rent for the pad shall
be fixed as follows:
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 12
7"'3P
@
1. If the tenant has failed or refused in aood faith to
follow the procedures herein fixed for the establishment
of rent. then the rent shall be fixed at the rental rate
contained in the Notice of Rent Increase in Excess of
cpr.
2. If the Owner has failed or refused in aood faith to
follow the procedures herein fixed for the establishment
of rent. then the rent shall be fixed at oriainal rental
rate not increased bv either the CPI or the amount
contained in the Notice of Rent Increase in Excess of
cpr.
D. Waiver of Fixed Rent. Notwithstandina the aforementioned
manner in which the rent shall be fixed. a refusal or failure.
accompanied with the assertion that a areater rental is due bv the
Owner or his or her aaent. to accept a rent payment from a Resident
in an amount which is eaual to or areater than the rent fixed bv
Subsections A. B or C of this section shall constitute a waiver bv
the Owner of the riaht to collect said rent. in its entirety. for
the rental period for which the rent was refused.
E. Waiver of Rent for Failure to Institute Leaal Action.
Notwithstandina the aforementioned manner in which the rent shall
be fixed. a failure to institute leaal action within 90 days after
a rental payment is due shall constitute a waiver of bv the Owner
of the riaht to collect said rent. in its entirety. for the rental
period sooner than 90 days prior to institution of action.
9.50.076. Riaht to Mediate Mobilehome Resale Price.
A. In line with the purpose of this Chapter to maintain a
supplY of affordable housina in the mobilehome market. it is the
aoal and obiective of the city that an outaoina Resident should not
be able to command. due to limited Mobilehome Space availability.
a hiaher price for a Mobilehome upon sale due to the fact that the
space rent is reaulated bv the provisions of this Chapter.
However. the Council finds that the extent and prevalence of
overcharaina for Mobilehomes is not so sianificant a problem in
Chula vista. and that it has little. if any. sianificant effect on
the supplY of affordable housina in the city of Chula vista. to
reauire Mobilehome resale price reaulation bv the city. The Council
feels that this is due. in part. to permitina CPI increases in
rents without review. However. on a case-by-case basis. there may
be isolated occurances of overcharaina for Mobilehomes due to space
rent reaulation. and in such event. any abuses can be adeauatelv
addressed bv the mediation offered bv this section. The Council
further finds that if. after time. it appears that the mediation
process offered bv this section is inadeauate to address the
problem. it mav reconsider more strinaent control over Mobilehome
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 13
/,JI
overcharqinq.
B. If. prior to executinq a Mobilehome purchase aqreement.
the incominq Resident contends that the price at which the Mobile-
home is offered bv the outqoinq Resident is hiqher because of space
rent requlation than the price of the Mobilehome without space rent
requlation. the incominq Resident has the riqht. upon tender to the
seller of an offer to purchase the Mobilehome at a price acceptable
to the incominq Resident. to submit the price dispute to the
Mobilehome Rent Review commission for mediation.
C. Upon submittal of the price dispute to the Mobilehome Rent
Review commission bY the incominq Resident. the Commission shall
convene as soon as possible to hear the dispute. not sooner than 10
days notice to the buyer and seller of the time and place at which
the mediation shall occur. If the Seller fails to appear. the
Commission should hear the complaint and evidence of the incominq
resident for the purpose of creatinq a record of such abuses. if
any. However. the Commission shall have no power to set the resale
price of a Mobilehome with or without the presence of the parties.
If the parties fail to mediate. or fail to aqree in mediation. the
offer to purchase shall be deemed revoked.
D. The purpose of the mediation. and the sole iurisdiction of
the Commission in the mediation. is to qet the parties to aqree. if
possible. to a price which reflects the value of the Mobilehome if
the s ace rents in the ark were not re ulated b this Cha ter.
9.50.078. Criminal Acts
The followinq acts shall constitute a criminal violation of
this Chapter. includinq the Owner of a Park if done bY an Owner's
aqent with the knowledqe or consent of the Owner:
A. Demandinq. acceptinq or retaininq any rent in excess of
the amount fixed bY this Chapter. includinq the demandinq of
rent waived under the proyisions of Subsection IC) of section
9.50.075.
B. Commencinq. or threateninq to commence. an eviction or
unlawful detainer proceedinq aqainst a Resident for the
failure to pay a rent in excess of the amount fixed bY this
Chapter.
9.50.080 Mediation of negotiation commissioner's decision.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2282 52, 1988; Ord. 2163
59, 1986; Ord. 1997 51 (part), 1982).
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 14
7-3~
9.50.081.
civil
Remedies@
A. civil Action. Anv person who demands. accepts. receives
or retains anv pavment of rent in excess of the maximum rent
allowable bY this Chapter shall be liable in a civil action.
includinq unlawful detainer. to the person upon whom the demand was
made or from whom the rent was accepted or received. for reasonable
attornev's fees and costs as determined bY the court. plus damaqes
("Overcharqe Damaqes"l in the amount bv which the paYment or
paYments demanded. accepted. recei ved or retained exceeds the
maximum lawful rent. A civil penaltv of treble (three timeslthe
amount of the Overcharqe Damaqes ("Treble Damaqes"l shall be
awarded aqainst the landlord upon a showinq that the landlord has
acted willfullv or with oppression. fraud or malice. No
administrative remedY need be exhausted prior to filinq suit
pursuant to this subsection.
B. Administrative Action. In the event that either a
Resident or Owner has a dispute as to whether a rental paYment is
due or has been waived. or a dispute exists as to the amount of the
rental paYment due as in the case of a dispute over the proper of
CPI. or as the the amount of the Overcharqe Damaqes or Treble
Damaqes. the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission is herebY empowered
to hear and resolve all such disputes. and. as appropriate. reduce
or waive future rental payments due the Owner bY the proper amount
of Overcharqe Damaqes or Treble Damaqes the Commission determines
are due.
9.50.083. Criminal Remedies.
A. Any person comitting a criminal violation of this Chapter
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person convicted of a
misdemeanor under the provisions of this Chapter shall be punished
by a fine of not more than a $1,000 or by imprisonment in the
county jail for a period of six (6) months in jailor by both such
fine or imprisonment.
9.50.085 Arbitration.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2306 ~1 (part), 1989; Ord.
2282 ~1, 1988).
9.50.090 Deferral of Rent Increases.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2451 ~8, 1991; Ord. 2306
~1, 1989; Ord. 2282 ~2, 1988; Ord. 2163 ~10, 1986; Ord. 1997 ~1
(part), 1982).
mobhom3.wp proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 15
'"':13
9.50.100 Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this chapter is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional, such portion shall be deemed a separate and
independent provision and such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remainder. (Ord. 2163 Sll, 1986; Ord. 1997 Sl
(part), 1982).
9.50.110 Enforcement.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2282 S2, 1988; Ord. 2163
Sll, 1986; Ord. 1997 Sl (part), 1982).
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 16
7-.31
Sections:
950.010
9.so.015
950.020
950.030
9.50.lW>
9.50.050
9.50.060
950.065
950.070
9.50.080
9.50.085
9.50.090
9.50.100
9.50.110
CiNpter 9.50
MOBILEHOME PARK SPACE.RENT REVIEW
Appli<Ahilily.
Appli<Ahilily of O1.apur 950 to Recr:eational Vehicles.
Repealed.
Definitions.
Repealed.
Owner Meetings and Possible VoluntaIy Negotiations.
Repealed.
Notice of Rent Increases.
Initiation of Space Rent Review.
Repealed.
Repealed.
Repe3led.
Severability.
Repe3led..
9.50.010 Applicability.
This chapter shall apply to a mobilehome that requires a permit to be moved on a street or highway.
The procedures contained in this chapter are intended to provide a mechanism for the resolution of
disputed increases in rents by making it advantageous for mobilehomes owners and mobilehome park
owners to establish a better understanding for each other's positions which will result in agreement on the
amount of rent to be charged.. A binding arbitration provision is provided for. The procedures of the
ordinance are established with the intent that they be accomplished in a timely fashion. The participating
parties shall commit to the goal of completing the arbitration process within sixty (60) days of the serving
of the notice of rent increase, and that the entire dispute resolution process be completed within one
hundred-twenty (120) days following receipt of the notice of space rent increase. This chapter shall not
apply to leases exempted by Civil Code Section 798.17 ("Green Bill" leases). (Ord..- 2451 !i3, 1991; Ord. 2306
!il (part), 1989; Ord. 2282 !i2, 1988; Ord. 2163 !iI, !i2, 1986; Ord. 1997 !il (part), 1982).
9.50.015 Appli<Ahilily of O1.apur 950 to Recreational Vehicles.
Recreational vehicles as defined in California Civil Code Section 799.24 are subject to the rights and
duties set forth in Chapter 9.50 and shall have the right to arbitration as set forth herein where the
recreational vehicle owner/occupant bas been in residenCy for nine or more consecutive months.
Notwithstanding the above, this chapter shall not be applicable to recreational vehicles residing in parks
operated as recreational vehicle parks, where the predominant nim1ber of spaces are occupied for less than
nine months. (Ord.. 2306 !il (part), 1989; Ord.. 2282 !i2, 1988; Ord.. 2227 !iI, 1987). .
9.50.020 Created.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2306 !iI, 1989; Ord. 2282 !i2, 1988; Ord. 2163 !i3, 1986;Ord.
1997 !l1 (part), 1982).
?':J?
"-,.,
"
950.030 Dcl1nitious,
Words used in this chapter shall have the meaning desmOed to them in this section:
A "Space rent"' means the consideration. including any bonus, benefits, or gratuity demanded or received
in connection with the use and occupancy of the mobilehome space in a mobilehome Park. or for the
tranSfer of the lease for parlcspace, services, owner-provided utilities, and amenities, subletting and
security deposits, but exclusive of any amounts paid for the use of the mobilehome dwelling or of
major capital improvement or other allowable pass-throughs as defined ill this ordinance.
B. "Mobilehome" means a mobilehome as defined in the California Mobilehome Home Residency L;jw,
C. "Mobilehome park owner" or "Owner" means the owner, lessor, operator, manager of a mobilehome
park within the purview of this ordinance.
D. "Mobilehome resident"' of "Resident"' means any person entitled to occupy a mobilehome dwelling unit
by virtue of ownership thereof.
E. "Dispute" or "Controversy" means a disagreement or difference which is subject to the arbitration
process.
F. "Consumer Price Index" or "CPI" shall mean the all urban consumers/all items component of the San
Diego Metropolitan Area U (broader base) consumer price index. '
G. "Majo~ Capital Improvement pass-1brough" means a separately identified monthly charge to-residents
which represents the repayment of a cost for a major capital improvement with the following
characteristics:
1. Said improvement shall have a cost of more than $10,000.
2. Said improvement shall be exclusive of maintenance or replacement of existing facilities.
3, Said improvement shall have been approved in concept by more than fifty percent (50%) of the
mobilehome spaces within the mobilehome park after all spaces in the park have been informed
'of the nature, genetal design, timing, and overall cost of said improvement, and the amount and
duration of the related pass-through.
H. Other Allowable Pass-Throughs" means separately billed utility service fees and charges excluded from
rent in accordance with the provisions of Civil Code Section 798.41; increases in rates of
owner-provided utilities and governmental assessments such as rea! property taxes,license fees, and
assessments for municipal services or improvements. Copies of bills, invoices, or other appropriate
supporting documentation shall be kept on file in the park owner's on-site business office, and made
available for review by ;rlfected residents upon reasonable request at any time during normal business
hours.
(Ord. 2451 ~, 1991; Or<!. 2306 !II (part), 1989; Ord. 2163 ~, 1986; Ord. 1997 !II (part), 1982).
9.50.040 Negotiation commission-Membership_
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2306 !II (part), 1989; Ord. 2291 !II, 1989; 2282 !i2, 1988; Ord.
-"";3 !is, 1986; Ord. 1997!il (part), 1982).
618
7...'/0
(R 11191)
-- .
950.050 Owner Meetings and possible Voluntary Negotiations.
Within five (S) days, but: not more than 10 days, after service of a notice of increase, as provided in
Section 950.06S, the park owner must hold an informal meeting for the benefit of the affected residents to
discuss his or her increase. It is hoped that such a meeting may lead to voluntarY seulement of the dispute.
The meeting should be set for a time and date believed to be convenient for residents and may be changed
to a different date based on the reasonable request of the residents.
The residents shall have the option to choose whether or not to attend the meeting. Attendance at
the meeting shall not affect the residents' right to arbitrate under Section 950.070. (Ord..24S1 !is, 1991;
Ord. 2306!il (part), 1989; Ord. 2282 !i2, 1988; Ord.. 2163 !i6, 1986; Ord.. 1997 !il (part), 1982).
950.060 Powers of a negotiation commission.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2306!il (part), 1989; Ord.. 2282 !i2, 1988; Ord.. 2163 !i7,1986;
Ord. 1997 !il (part), 1982).
950.065 Notice of rent increase.
A. In any situation where a mobiIehome park owner wishes to,increase the space rent above the
applicable 0'1, he or she must first give notice to affected residents, at the same time the sixty (60)
day notice required by Civil Code Section 798.30 is given, lIS follows: .
NOTICE _ RENT INCREASE IN EXCESS OF 0'1
IF YOU DO NOT TAKE ACTION TO ARBITRATE WI1HIN TIllRTY DAYS, THIS INCREASE SHALL BE
AUTOMATICAILY EFFECTIVE
This is a notice of space rent increase which exceeds the percentage increase of the Consumer Price
Index (a>\) for the most recent twelve (12) month period, as reported by the BureaU of Labor
Statistics, preceding tIiis notice. The 0'1 is _ % and this increase is _ % of your current rent. Under
the City's Municipal Code, you are entitled to the following rightS:
1. I am required to hold a meeting with the residents to discuss the reasons for the increase. The
meeting will be at (time and place). You are encouraged to attend but are not required to do
so. Under the City's ordinance, owners and residents are encouraged to attempt to resolve
differences regarding this'increase.
2. You have the right to file for arbitration with the City's CommunitY Development Department.
You may file for arbitration whether or not you attend the meeting to discuss the increase. To
file for arbitration, you must place a deposit of $~ with the City's CommunitY Development
Departmentwithin thirty (30) days of the date this notice is served on you. If yOU do not place
the deposit, you forfeit your right to arbitrate the rent increase.
If you or other affected residents are lower-income (below $13,QOO-$IS,OOO per year), you may
be eligible to receive assistance with part of the cost of arbitration from the City's Community
DevelopmentDepartment. If you have questions regarding arbitration or need more information,
you can call the CitY at 691-5047.
7-4/
~ -- ,,,....
619
;..- ..'
TIlls increase is in addition to the following allowable pass-throughs: [identify type and ;arnount
of major capitol improvement or other allowable pass-through]
The following space numbers are subject to this increase: [insert numbers of affected spaces].
B. If the residents within the affected mobiIehome park have established a representative body and notify
the owner in writing of its existence, a copy of the rent increase notice must be sent to the chairperson
of that body.
C. A copy of the rent increase notice must be given to the Community Development Department of the
City of alUla VISta at the same time as issuance of the notice to residents.
D. The rent increase notice must contain the space numbers of all residents who are subject to the
. increase which is above the amount of the applicable CPL
E- The notice shall advise recipients that a deposit of25% of the cost of arbitration shall be made within
thirty (30) days of the date of service of notice or the right to arbitration is waivec:L The deposit shall
be made with the Director of Community Development-
(Ord. 2451 96, 1991; Ord. 2306 91 (part), 1989.
950_070 Initiation of Space Rent Review_
A In any situation where the space rent increases in a twelve (12) month period exceed cumulatively
the percentage increase of the consumer price index, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for
the most recent twelve (12) month period preceding the rent increase notice, the following procedures
shall apply unless the owner receives written consent to the increase from more than 500h of the
spaces affected by the notice of increase. The owner must file the original of the written consent with
the Community Development Department and notify the residents that this has been filec:L
B. Residents shall be required within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the notice of increase to
deposit with the City Community Development Department 25% of the estimated arbitration Cost for
one day of arbitration. Arbitration shall begin in not less than 20 days nor more than 30 days after
the date of service of the notice of increase. provided the residents' deposit has. been made.
C. Upon receipt of the residents' deposit and notification to the park owner, the park owner shall have
7 days to provide a deposit which shall be equal to 75% of the estimated co~ for one day of
arbitration. The park owner shall sign an appropriate document submitting the dispute to arbitration
when malting the deposit-
D. The cost of arbitration including costs incurred by the American Arbitration Association in cases where
a settlement is reached prior to any hearing will be sharec:L
The owner shall be responsible for 75% and the residents responsible for 25% of the first $750. fmy
costs of arbitration above $750 shall be shared equally by both parties. Additional costs above the
amount of deposit shall be due and payable subject to the requirements of the American Arbitration
Association.
The arbitration shall be conducted according to.the applicable rules of arbitration of the American
Arbitration Association and under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association.
,
The decision of the arbitrator shall be advisoI)' to the Mobilehome Rent Commission and shall be
applicable to all. mobilehome residents subject to the rent increase being reviewec:L Factors to be
620
?,J/,z.
CR 11/91)
,
considered shall include but not be limited to a just and reasonable return on the owner's property.
The burden of proof shall be on the park owner to demonstrate that the rent increase is necessary to
provide a just and reasonable return on the property. The arbitrator's decision shall be submitted to
the Mobilehome Rent Commission within thirty (30) days from the beginning of arbitration.
G. -The arbitrator's decision shall be submitted to the City's Mobilehome Rent Commission. which shall
affirm, modifY, or revoke the arbitrator's decision at a public hearing held within sixty (60) days
following such submission. The parties may stipulate to merely a review of the record at arbitration.
or either side may request a "denovo" hearing by the Corinnission. If a de novo hearing is requested,
it shall be conducted in accordance with procedures adopted by the Commission which satisfY the
requirements of "due process. and ;will constitute a hearing at which evidence is required by law, so
that the Commission's decision is reviewable by the courts by a writ of administrative mandamus
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5.
H- In the event that the owner reduces the rent increase to the applicable 0'1, or more than 50% of the
affected residents agree in writing to settle the dispute,the arbitration process automatically
terminates.
L The review process shall also be applicable to the situation where space rent is increased upon change
of ownership of the mobiIehome or removal of the unit. Either the incoming or outgoing
owner-occupant shall have the right to arbitrate.
If an outgoing mobiIehome owner intends to sell his or her mobiIehome, he or she may request, and
the owner shall be obligated to provide within 15 days of the request, a written statement as to the
rental rate to be offered to the incoming owner-occupant. If the rate of increase.in rent to the new
owner-occupant is above the amount of the applicable CPI as provided in Section 9.50.070 (A), then
either the current resident or incoming resident shall have the right to arbitrate the increase under
the provisions of Section 9.50.070. The right is subject to the outgoing or incoming resident placing
a deposit pursuant to subsection B above, within 30 days of either (a) service of the owner's written
statement to the outgoing resident or (b) the date of execution of a purchase contract between the
incoming and outgoing residents, which is the latter.
The park owner's statement shall contain the following:
NOTICE - RENT INrnEASE IN EXCESS OF CPI
IF YOU DO NOT TAKE AcnON TO ARBITRATE IN A TIMELY MANNER. n-nS INffiEASE SHAll.
BE AUTOMATICAU.Y EFFECTIVE UPON TIlE SALE OF YOUR MOBILEHOME
This is a statement of space rent increase which exceeds the percentage increase of the Consumer
Price Index (CP1) for the twelve (12) month period, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
preceding this statement. The CPI is _% and this increase is _% of your current rent. This
increase is in addition to the following allowable pass.throughs: [identifY type and amount of major
capitol improvement or other allowable pass-through]. .
Under the City's Municipal Code, either the outgoing or the incoming resident is entitled to file for
arbitration with the City's Community Development Department. In order to arbitrate, you must place
an arbitration deposit of $_ with the City's Community Development Department within thirty (30)
days of the date this notice is served on you or the date of execution of a purchase contract on the
mobiIehome. If you do not place the deposit, you forfeit your right to arbitrate the rent increase.
7,1/3
"."
. 50/{, of c,uY)"::1 t'h~ 'nOl<ML-
If you are low income (below ~per year), you may be eligible to receive assistance for
part of the cost of arbitration from the City's Community Development Department. If you have
questions regarding arbitration or need more information, you can call the City at 691.5047.
(Ord. 2451 !l7, 1991).
950.080 Mediation of negotiation counnissionex's decision.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2282!12, 1988; Ord. 2163 !l9. 1986; Ord. 1997 !II (pan). 1982).
950.085 Arbitration.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2306 !II (part), 1989; Ord. 2282 !II, 1988).
950.090 Deferral of Rent Increases.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2451 !l8, 1991; Ord. 2306 !II, 1989; Ord. 2282 !l2, 1988; Ord.
2163 !l10, 1986; Ord. 1997 !II (part), 1982).
950.100 Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, dause, phrase or portion of this chapter is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional, such portion shall be deemed a separate and independent provision and such
cision shall not affect the validity of the remainder. (Ord. 2163 !Ill, 1986; Ord. 1997 !II (part), 1982).
950.110 Enforcement:.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2282 !l2, 1988; Ord. 2163 !Ill, 1986; Ord. 1997 !II (part), 1982).
622
/--J./1
(R 11/91)
EXHIBIT H
"
k ~ /p/ ///'3 t
f!' 7/. /:1):;-;1(/ /';) /t!j!fO /
. ~r1~~./" - i ..' ~. ~
~:~s~~~~~ .-
)
171 ~~~~ /~ ;4Jr!?~- ~ ~~~~~;Z~
II, 1h~~~/~7/7~/Y7~
---. -" -_._,---_.~.__....._- ....
~~.~~ t/~~~ :tAO/JI/~77 /TY-:
h ~j;;::;:~~~::f~7J
~r/t~ ~~J~.,
",[.
---' ~,/ ?
J?~;V / C ()).rj/? c) L.
;'121 ~.5f. /D'/.:::-::: /773 ~ -.4"30'/.:3/
1ft. ~ _~.u&N ~~.~ .-4Acz---:' .-k-,,/ -,A~.
IC:~)- ~n~ ~::-/ ~~~{~ ~/~~k
Gr~ ""~ ~~~ ,f"~ ~-~ cJ.~ ."
+:::;:--" ~;;~Z::~~)~ !
~. (p~/u:/u) kA-0-'~~~~ ~/J2-v:H-?-~~ I
7~:;::=_~?A-=~- 1,
~J . _ ~~~~7V/~ .~(7, ~~ ~7;~ /~/~ ////:.~. ~o;c
T/!;TPP )/;EY/. e>{ ~J..~.J~c:.-- Lp-LI'~r~p-;;/ /z;;6> 'l s,
t c:k-&/ p~/ ~~?;hh7?? ;P~;:-~~ - !/-/~{ -tf~7',il./ ::.
~ / 9.5t> 4;<;/.--J /~;;-=-::'/ r<:P~~-;'h) /t,-'7'_J'--r/ '~ -/->
"PJ~J.z,) //'/3l t
;f' a-#/ J___
~L?-'/ ~~ -L~? /~~-&-,,;t4~
9;;--:;;, #6~M/c/:: ~~~L/ --LV7~-
~~-:Ei:~~~~-:f--
J)~ /'~ ,.J#--J ~ ~ ~
~ J3~,~,~~~~~
.:fi./.~~pf ~...7" i ~ ~- r ----: ....k-'
~ ~~..// ..-d~V ~ ~..-c-~~~, -:.-J ~~~.-./~--"J
:;j;t;:;J:;:c;;;:.~~~;~
. I
fer ~e-V t /?~ a-r~~~. "
~~~-5;::::;;~Lr~rl~~JA~#~~
?~0. ~ ./~--V a-;r~ ~~// ~ ~ ~
I ~~A"7.)~ r-7~~ ~~.~..?-~~./~,.,' ~
>
ro
o
t
.1.'//0'2; c.c! : &,..~ &",;vh:J
G
, r
llv\.&~ ~'-
r~J4
#~c-__I
2//5' d/J2/~~rY- -f /.21.J II
~~/~~) (.'i1. '7/}'I/
/ "
4 d-X) \ c) '".
I \.~
"
@/t) /j/-1!;, /0;;2-
"
:1'
7'~'
@
,
13
~'\
CHULA VISTA PARK OWNERS ASSOCIATION
April 19, 1993
c Chula vista Mayor Tim Nader/Honorable City.Council
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor and city council Members:
Within twenty-four hours of being informed of the
situation concerning turnover rent increases to new
purchasers of mobile homes in a particular mobilehome
park, we held an emergency meeting of our association.
We quickly arrived at a consensus on several issues of
concern to all of us. In view of the fact that the past
five rears have been relatively free of turmoil and
confl~ct in our industry and before your council, we
believe that any exception to the prevailing calm and
harmony must be addressed.
In light of our good working relationship with the
council and city staff we have jumped on the situation and
have attempted to bring about a positive solution by
speaking with the park owner in question and offering our
best suggestions and ideas to him.
In addition we respectfully submit the following
recommendations and ideas for you~ consideration:
1) In accordance with Mayor Nader's suggestion,
stronger enforcement provisions for non-compliance
with your ordinance, which has worked well.
2) A speedier method of alerting the Chula vista Park
Owners Association of existing or looming problems
on any industry problem including matters such as
turnover rental increases. This would allow for
better implementing effective peer pressure.
3) As you know, the vast majority of Chula vista park
owners have owned their businesses for many years.
In a show of understanding and good faith our
industry would again like to offer to work with
you to form a rental assistance program which would
help residents in financial need.
As a group we stand ready to work with you to resolve
problems or create greater affordable housing opportuni-
ties.
:-; -1.f7
As a demonstration of industry resolve and responsi-
bility we have made a special effort to have this proposal
endorsed by the park owners who have signed our letter to
you.
As long term Chula vista business owners we ask that
you take us up on the offer to help resolve this matt'er in
the..best interest of all parties involved. '.'
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
CHULA VISTA PARK OWNERS ASSOCIATION
/--~~a.. ~
Betty Beck
CABRILLO MOBILE LODGE
t..--
Roy Muraoka
PALACE GARDEN MOBILE HOME PARK
y-~~~
Joe Blake
EL MIRADOR
~~
Esequiel Campos
FLAMINGO TRAILER PARK
7-'1Y
dL,
steven Luecht
FARM HOUSE TRAILER PARK
7J? ~ k:. )nwtO
Marie Kae Merc
CHULA VISTA MOBILEHOME PARK
c?u4 /~
Luis Cacho
DON-LUIS MOBILE ESTATES
~/L~
Ralph Fogerty
FOGERTY BROTHERS TRAILER PARK
Bert Epsten
LYNWOOD SOUTH MOBILE ESTATES
(J?~2v I~
Richard Birdsell
TERRY'S MOBILE HOME
CONTINENTAL COUNTRY
5 & 10 MOBILE RANCH
PARK
CLUB
Jerry Fick
CARAVAN TRAILER PARK
ROSE ARBOR MOBILE HOME
. n
Cd Cf~~
PARK
7-L(-Y
~p
Lois Hines
THUNDERBIRD MOBILE HOME PARK
"ri"'"
K~, iJ-v-,,,.u{. ~
Robert Vessel
RANCHO BONITA MOBILE HOME PARK
--......---....- -
~--~/ --
...__.._..~"'t...-:'z.--
.,---- stacy argo
GEORGEANNA MOBILE
~
PARK
,
7-9
EXHIBIT E
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
2716 OCEAN PARK BLVD., SUITE 3006
SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 90405-5207
PHONE (310)396-4514
FAX (310) 399-0062
April 5, 1993
Mr. Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
city of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: otay Lakes Lodge, Inc.
Dear Mr. Salomone:
As you have been advised by our attorney, Otay Lakes Mobile Home
Park believes that the city of Chula vista statute dealing with
rent control on mobile home parks is not valid and enforceable,
and unconstitutionally deprives the mobile home park owner of his
property rights.
Accordingly, this will advise you that our failure to participate
in arbitration pursuant to that statute is not intended to
constitute a waiver of any of our rights, including of our notice
of proposed increase as to space #100.
Furthermore, we do not agree with your statement that the
proposed increase in space rent is ineffective.
Sincerely yours,
OTAY LAKES LODGE, INC.
By: d; /teL-
Richard Kelton
Vice President
cc: Harry Brown/Otay Lakes Mobile Home Park
Terry Dowdall, Esq./Swanson and Dowdall
Glenn Hansen/Otay Lakes Mobile Home Park
cs930402
?~J> /7-$1
E
nrf,.c.I~.et(.J co VI1 M ev\,iS)
LQ..f-c. r'\ote.s"tv ~V"'Li]j
1!)
Sections:
9.50.010
9.50.015
9.50.020
9.50.030
9.50.040
9.50.050
9.50.060
9.50.065
9.50.070
9.50.080
9.50.085
9.50,090
9.50.100
9.50.110
@- C \IC)~ ~ 11\ Ul~~ be t s tAt)).j
b~ v i;cd 10 r"cfeV'er1G ~
JIl'\lerb&..\ ::; t-~ ~I r-~P"('f-.
Marked to Show Proposed Revisions
- T....+er I in u..tiDI"\S f'.trN~ ff'rtSe4
Chapter 9.50 t:lw\~~ t1tt~ ~
rHit V' 1\ <. ~'L a
MOBILEHOME PARK SPACE-RENT REVIEWd(
Applicability.
Applicability of Chapter 9.50 to Recreational
Vehicles.
Repealed.
Oefinitions.
Repealed.
Owner Meetings and Possible Voluntary Negotiations.
Repealed.
Notice of Rent Increases.
Initiation of Space Rent Review.
Repealed.
Repealed.
Repealed.
Severability.
Repealed.
o~
9.50.0~ Purpose.
The Citv intends bv this Chapter to maintain a supply of
affordable housinq. The City Council finds that there is an ample
supplY of apartments for rent and that the apartment market place
does not need requlation in order to keep the rents at an
affordable leyel. The Council finds that the supply of mobilehome
space available for rent is not adequate. and that as a result. the
limited supply of such spaces is drivinq UP the space rents in a
manner that would. in the absence of re;;ulation...J aIle,; fel' an
J1RO'QI:uilo;;i:r:.aJ:>l ~ am~%t- l'~; feet- t~ 10>11 gell~Cl'e~d. cre~vl't i" -tkc.
e.{'I\'lI'lt^ft" " a. .-.e{,..6, ,,"Stn4.. .
The City also intends by th'is Chapter to prevent existinq
tenants. who are rendered larqely incapable of movinq their
mobilehomes without sufferinq a substantial loss in their value.
from beinq charqed excessive and unconscionable rents due to this
lack of mobility. The Council finds that the limited supply of
mobilehome space available for rent in this City would. in the
absence of requlation. allow for an unconscionable enhancement of
rents to existinq mobilehome park residents.
The city also intends bY this Chapter to prevent existinq
tenants. who are rendered larqelY incapable of movinq their
mobilehomes without sufferinq a substantial loss in their value.
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 1
..~
v
~-S5
"
C.
A
.t +i"'~~ 0+ (~ Dr c16 VlllP.N-~
from loss of t e resale value of their Mobilehomes due to the fact
that an inco n Resident is bein char ed excessive rents.
The Council finds that the limited su 1 of mobilehome s ace
available f r rent in this cit would in the absence of s_ace rent
requlation. allow for an unconscionable loss of resale value of
Mobilehornes to existinq mobilehome park residents.
9.50.010 Applicability.
This chapter shall apply to a mobilehome that requires a
permit to be moved on a street or highway.
The procedures contained in this chapter are intended to
provide a mechanism for the resolution of disputed increases in
rents by making it advantageous for mobilehomes owners and
mobilehome park owners to establish a better understanding for each
other's positions which will result in agreement on the amount of
rent to be charged. A binding arbitration provision is provided
for. The procedures of the ordinance are established with the
intent that they be accomplished in a timely fashion. The
participating parties shall commit to the goal of completing the
arbitration process within sixty (60) days of the serving of the
notice of rent increase, and that the entire dispute resolution
process be completed within one hundred-twenty (120) days following
receipt of the notice of space rent increase.
This chapter shall not apply to wses exempted by Civil Code
Section 798.17 ("CrecR Bill" lcascs).3 .
.lc& ~~ .
, ~ This Cha ter shall not a 1 to a Mobilehome Park if the rents
at may be charqed for spaces are requlated pursuant to an aqree-
ment with the Redevelopment Aqency of the City of Chula Vista .under
the authority of Section 33334.2 throuqh 33334.4. inclusive. of the
California Health and Safety Code. for such period of time as the
aqreement is in effect.
. (Ord. 2451 53, 1991; Ord. 2306 51 (part), 1989; Ord. 2282 52,
1988; Ord. 2163 51, 52, 1986; Ord. 1997 51 (part), 1982).
9.50.015 Applicability of Chapter 9.50 to Recreational Vehicles.
Recreational vehicles as defined in California Civil Code
Section 799.24 are subject to the rights and duties set forth in
Chapter 9.50 and shall have the right to arbitration as set forth
herein where the recreational vehicle owner/occupant has been in
residency for nine or more consecutive months. Notwithstanding the
above, this chapter shall not be applicable to recreational
vehicles residing in parks operated as recreational vehicle parks,
where the predominant number of spaces are occupied for less than
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 2
7-~
nine months. (Ord. 2306 ~1 (part), 1989; Ord. 2282 ~2, 1988; Ord.
2227 ~l, 1987).
9.50.020 Created.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2306 ~l, 1989; Ord. 2282
~2, 1988; Ord. 2163 S3, 1986; Ord. 1997 S1 (part), 1982).
9.50.030 Definitions.
Words used in this chapter shall have the meaning described to
them in this section:
A. "Space rent" means the consideration, including any bonus,
benefits, or gratuity demanded or received in connection with
the use and occupancy of the mobilehome space in a mobilehome
park, or for the transfer of the lease for parkspace,
services, owner-provided utilities, and amenities, subletting
and security deposits, but exclusive of any amounts paid for
the use of the mobilehome dwelling or of major capital
improvement or other allowable pass-throughs as defined in
this ordinance.
B. "Mobilehome" means a mobilehome as defined in the California
Mobilehome Home Residency Law.
C. "Mobilehome park owner" or "Owner" means the owner, lessor,
operator, manager of a mobilehome park within the purview of
this ordinance.
D. "Mobilehome resident" of "Resident" means any person entitled
to occupy a mobilehome dwelling unit by virtue of ownership
thereof.
E. "Dispute" or "Controversy" means a disagreement or difference
which is subject to the arbitration process.
F. "Consumer Price Index" or "CPI" shall mean the all urban
consumers/all items component of the San Diego Metropolitan
Area U (broader base) consumer price index.
G. "Major Capital Improvement Pass-Through" means a separately
identified monthly charge to residents which represents the
repayment of a cost for a major capital improvement with the
following characteristics:
1. Said improvement shall have a cost of more than $10,000.
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 3
7-57
2. Said improvement shall be exclusive of maintenance or
replacement of existing facilities.
H.
3. Said improvement shall have been approved in concept by
more than fifty percent (50%) of the mobilehome spaces
within the mobilehome park after all spaces in the park
have been informed of the nature, general design, timing,
and overall cost of said improvement, and the amount and
duration of the related pass-through.
Other Allowable Pass-Throughs" means separately billed utility
service fees and charges excluded from rent in accordance with
the provisions of civil Code Section 798.41; increases in
rates of owner-provided utilities and governmental assessments
such as real property taxes, license fees, and assessments for
municipal services or improvements. Copies of bills,
invoices, or other appropriate supporting documentation shall
be kept on file in the park owner's on-site business office,
and made available for review by affected residents upon
reasonable request at any time during normal business hours.
.L.
"Mobilehome Park" or "Park" is an area. of land where two or
more mobilehome sites are rented. or held out for rent. to
accommodate mobilehomes used for human habitation. and where
the predominant number of sites are occupied for nine or more
consecutive months.
~
(Ord. 2451 S4, 1991; Ord. 2306 S1 (part), 1989; Ord. 2163 S4, 1986;
Ord. 1997 S1 (part), 1982).
9.50.040 Negotiation commission-Membership.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2306 S1 (part), 1989; Ord.
2291 S1, 1989; 2282 S2, 1988; Ord. 2163 S5, 1986; Ord. 1997 S1
(part), 1982). .
9.50.050 OWner Meetings and Possible Voluntary Negotiations.
Within five (5) days, but not more than 10 days, after service
of a notice of increase, as provided in Section 9.50.065, the park
owner must hold an informal meeting for the benefit of the affected
residents to discuss his or her increase. It is hoped that such a
meeting may lead to voluntary settlement of the dispute. The
meeting should be set for a time and date believed to be convenient
for residents and may be changed to a different date based on the
reasonable request of the residents.
The residents shall have the option to choose whether or not
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 4
)-5~
to attend the meeting. Attendance at the meeting shall not affect
the residents' right to arbitrate under Section 9.50.070. (Ord.
2451 55, 1991; Ord. 2306 51 (part), 1989; Ord. 228252, 1988; Ord.
2163 56, 1986; Ord. 1997 51 (part), 1982).
9.50.060 Powers of a negotiation commission.
@
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2306 51 (part), 1989; Ord.
2282 '2, 1988, Ord, 2163 '7, 19:t;~rd' 1997 " (part), 1982),
9.50.065 Notice of rent increas ~1thout chanqe of ownershiD.
r:"h 0:" ex~ti"4 "RCSl'dtl\t.
A. In any situation where a mobilehomel park owner wishes to
increase the space rent above the applicable CPI, he or she
must first give notice to affected residents, at the same time
the sixty (60) day notice required by civil Code Section
798.30 is given, as follows:
NOTICE - RENT INCREASE IN EXCESS OF CPI
IF YOU DO NOT TAKE ACTION TO ARBITRATE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS,
THIS INCREASE SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY EFF~CTIVE
This is a notice of space rent increase which exceeds the
percentage increase of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the
most recent twelve (12) month period, as reported by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics; preceding this notice. The CPI is
___% and this increase is ____% of your current rent. Under
the City's Municipal Code, you are entitled to the following
rights:
1. I am required to hold a meeting with the residents to
discuss the reasons for the increase. The meeting will
be at (time and place). You are encouraged to attend but
are not required to do so. Under the City's ordinance,
owners and residents are encouraged to attempt to resolve
differences regarding this increase. .
2. You have the. right to file for arbitration with the
City's Community Development Department. You may file
for arbitration whether or not you attend the meeting to
discuss the increase. To file for arbitration, you must
place a deposit of $ with the City's Community
Development Department within thirty (30) days of the
date this notice is served on you. If you do not place
the deposit, you forfeit your right to arbitrate the rent
increase.
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 5
7-:57
If you or other affected residents are lower-income
(below $13,000-$15,000 per year), you may be eligible to
receive assistance with part of the cost of arbitration
from the City's Community Development Department. If you
have questions regarding arbitration or need more
information, you can call the City at 691-5047.
This increase is in addition to the following allowable
pass-throughs: [identify type and ;amount of major
capitol improvement or other allowable pass-through]
The following space numbers are subject to this increase:
[insert numbers of affected spaces].
B. If the residents within the affected mobilehome park have
established a representative body and notify the owner in
writing of its existence, a copy of the rent increase notice
must be sent to the chairperson of that body.
C. A copy of the rent increase notice must be given to the
Community Development Department of the City of Chula Vista at
the same time as issuance of the notice to residents.
D. The rent increase notice must contain the space numbers of all
residents who are subject to the increase which is above the
amount of the applicable CPl.
E. The notice shall advise recipients that a deposit of 25% of
the cost of arbitration shall be made within thirty (30) days
of the date of service of notice or the right to arbitration
is waived. The deposit shall be made with the Director of
Community Development.
(Ord. 2451 ~6, 1991; Ord. 2306 ~1 (part), 1989.
w
9.50.067 Notice of rent increase upon chanqe of ownership.!'
1. The Council needs to make the fundamental decision at this
point: Do they want to control rents on vacancy? There can be at
least three legitimate purposes to mobilehome rent control as
follows:
(1) Prevent rent gouging of existing space tenants who will
suffer economic losses if they are required to move their
unit;
(2) Maintain an adequate supply of affordable housing; or
(3) Prevent loss of Mobilehome resale value by rent escalation
(continued. . .)
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the MObilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 6
7- (Po
, -tk
\ 1hi& ~'i,,(l(1l-
I.-- 5" ~t.flrt-
A5 . l...-
t 11\ A1AA~t
~" ~eg
(Ie~Jtv .
se- L
,,1,0 lie. t\-t~ e..re llw~k.. c f.r
The review rocess shall also be a licable to the situation
where s ace rent is increased u on chan e of ownershi of the
mobilehome or removal of the unit. Either the incominq or
outqoinq owner-occupant shall have the riqht to arbitrate. as
provided in this section:
(...continued)
to an incoming tenant.
If our purpose is only anti-gouging where we are trying to prevent
economic eviction of existing tenants, but not interfere with an
incoming resident striking an agreement with the park owner, then
we should delete this section, and any attempt to control the rent
on vacancy.
If we are attempting to keep a supply of affordable housing, we
should keep this section in here, but at the same time prohibit a
Mobilehome owner from getting a windfall by the sale of a unit at
a price that is greater than the coach's "true value" because of
below market rents (i.e., that rent not enhanced by rent control
regulation).
If our purpose is to prevent loss of resale value of the
MObilehome, we should add, as a factor in setting space rents on
vacancy, that the rent to the incoming Resident should not be set
above CPI if to do so would lower the resale price of the
Mobilehome.
This is a very important decision, and I recommend that it be
deferred to a time when it can be made by a full council with input
from both the Commission and the concern and affected residents.
lea.
Staff is writing this ordinance on the presumption that the Council
wants to achieve all three purposes!
If the Council disagrees with this premise, this ordinance needs to
be modified.
The Council should then amend this section to read:
"Upon re-rental of a Space, as in the case of a vacancy or
resale of a MObilehome, the initial rents to the incoming
Resident shall not be subject to regulation by this Chapter."
or:
[To be supplied later.]
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 7
r; -(PI
A. oin Mobilehome Resident's Ri ht to
out oin Mobilehome Resident intends to
mobilehome. the Owner shall ~g ~~li~a~87 ~~
davs of the receipt of a written notice of intent to sell. a
written statement as to the rental rate to be offered to the
incominq Mobilehome Resident. as set forth below in subsection
(c1. If the rate of increase in rent to the new owner-occu-
pant is above the amount of the applicable CPI as provided in
Section 9.50.070 (A1. then the current resident shall have the
riqht to arbitrate the increase under the provisions of
Section 9.50.070. The riqht is subiect to the outqoinq
resident placinq a deposit pursuant to Section 9.50.070 (B1
below. within 30 davs of service of the owner's written
statement. as shown in subsection (c1 below. to the outqoinq
resident.
\-k OQ~DI"\
KtSUtt;
If an
@
fj)
C. The park owner's statement shall contain the followinq:
1)2. Staff considered and rejected inserting at this point:
"or reach written aqreement as to the amount of the space rent
for the incominq Mobilehome Resident"
Allowing consent between the Outgoing Resident and the Park
Owner as to the amount of the Incoming Resident's rent is a partial
adoption of the "anti-gouging/economic eviction" purpose of the
ordinance as opposed to the "supply of affordable housing" purpose
of the ordinance. See footnote 2 above.
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 8
?~o(
NOTICE - RENT INCREASE IN EXCESS OF CPI
IF YOU DO NOT TAKE ACTION TO ARBITRATE IN A TIMELY
MANNER. THIS INCREASE SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY EFFECTIVE
UPON THE SALE OF YOUR MOBILEHOME
This is a statement of space rent increase which exceeds the
percentaqe increase of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the
twelve (12) month period. as reported bv the Bureau of Labor
statistics. precedinq this statement. The CPI is % and
this increase is % of vour current rent. This increase is
in addition to the followinq allowable pass-throuqhs:
r identifY type and amount of ma;or capitol improvement or
other allowable pass-throuqhl.
Under the city's Municipal Code. the outqoinq Resident has the
first riqht to arbitrate the rental increase. and in the event
he or she fails to pursue arbitration to completion. the
incominq Resident is entitled to file for arbitration with the
city's Community Development Department. In order to
arbitrate. YOU must place an arbitration deposit of $
with the City's Community Development Department within thirty
(30) days of the date this notice is served on YOU. If YOU do
not place the deposit. YOU forfeit your riqht to arbitrate the
rent increase.
If YOU are low income (below $13.000-15.000 per year). vou maY
be eliqible to receive assistance for part of the cost of
arbitration from the City's Community Deyelopment Department.
If YOU have questions reqardinq arbitration or need. more
information. YOU can call the City at 691-5047.
9.50.070 Initiation of Space Rent Review.
A.
In any situation where the space rent increases in a twelve
(12) month period exceed cumulatively the percentage increase
of the consumer price index, as reported by the Bureau of
Labor statistics for the most recent twelve (12) month period
preceding the rent increase notice, the following procedures
shall apply unless the owner receives written consent to the
1ncrease from hJA&Fe t.A~R i9\ of t.kt:. 515ace:.l3 affaerEeEi liy "the.
Rg~iQa af inerea3~. The owner must file the original of the
written consent with the community Development Department and
notify the~sident;' that this has been filed.
~~sident, shall be required within thirty (30) days of the
date of service of the notice of increase to deposit with the
city community Development Department 25% of the estimated
arbitration cost for one day of arbitration. Arbitration
shall begin in not less than 20 days nor more than 30 days
@,
th~ A.~.{lU-h~
C "C.Si'J(~i.
B.
mobhom3'. wp proposed Reyisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 9
7-1,3
C.
aft7,5 the date of service of the notice of increase, provided
the ~esident~eposit has been made.
Upon receipt of the j(esiden1!s~posit and notification to the
park owner, the park owner shall have 7 days to provide a
deposit which shall be equal to 75% of the estimated cost for
one day of arbitration. The park owner shall sign an
appropriate document submitting the dispute to arbitration
when making the deposit.
D.
The cost of arbitration including costs incurred by the
American Arbitration Association in cases where a settlement
is reached prior to any hearing will be shared.
The owner shall be responsible for 75% and the ~esidentll'
responsible for 25% of the first $750. Any costs of
arbitration above $750 shall be shared equally by both
parties. Additional costs above the amount of deposit shall
be due and payable subject to the requirements of the American
Arbitration Association.
E. The arbitration shall be conducted according to the applicable
rules of arbitration of the American Arbitration Association
and under the auspices of the American Arbitration _ -th '-
Association. : :: ~"""i\, p.,f 0., m'1 ". ~"" .,.1+ r<r,," ".,.,
'\\.c:... nrm: tlllol nO-ve- Theil" c.:":se. -he.R.r~ &.lnt.-+I.., ~_'1
F. The decision of the arbi tratd'r shall be advisory to tlie tl..e- c.'1I'I1tl i:I-
Mobilehome Rent Commissiollt a'fld ~ll.iilll Jail a1313lieal3l~ ~~ ;l-l ~"'n1" t'" th~
~~~~~:~I1lQ ::,::iQIlRts Slil3jQ<;;,t tg Ule Fel'l~ ineua3~ ~':'ftg ~~ t
~~":~~d. Factors ts ee eORsiaerea shall iRcllia~ ~lit ~~; ~~ ,rf
limitea to a jliot aRa reasonaele retlirR SR h o. r _ 1r,,S,.,..U
prsperty. The BunioR sf l'll;oof shal~ ee OR the park 0\:~7r to
~~m~Rstrate that the rent lRcrease lS Recessary to pFs.~ae a
just ana reasoRaele retHrR SR the prsperty. 3/ The
'arbitrator's decision lil:l.llH~be submitted to the MObilehome
Rent Commission within thirty (30) days 'from the beginning of
arbitration. I ,a '
.s hOule{.
G. The arbitrator's decision shall be submitted to the City's
MObilehome Rent Commission, which shall affirm, modify, or
revoke the arbitrqtor's decision at a public hearing held
e within sixty (60) days following such submission. which
lO decision shall thereupon be final. The parties may stipulate
to merely a review of the record at arbitration, or either
side may request a II de novo II hearing by the Cobunission. If a
de novo hearing is requested, it shall be conducted in
3, This is now going to be replaced by a separate section on
Factors to Consider in Setting Rent.
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 10
7-ty
@'
r;r,
-:~ I
~
~~
~~
'-.....~
~~
~~
~\O)
~
n
~~
,~ V\
.-c::~
l \- ~\
accordance with procedures adopted by the Commission which
satisfy the requirements of "due process" and will constitute
a hearing at which evidence is required by law, so that the
Commission's decision is reviewable by the courts by a writ of
administrative mandamus pursuant to Code of civil Procedure
section 1094.5.
H.
In the event that the owner reduces the rent increase to the
applicable CPI, or more than 50% of the affected residents
agree in writing to settle the dispute, the arbitration
process automatically terminates.
..:hcrc o13acc refit io iflcrcazca. UpOA ch;::u~gc sf a..;ncrzhip af the
mohilehome or remeval of the Hnit. Either the incemin~ er
outgoing o,mer eeeupant shall have the right te arlaitrate:
If an outgoing mohileheme e',mer intenes to sell his or her
mobilcas:m.c,. he or she. may rCEflif::st, aRd the BURer Eihall be
ohli~ated to pre'dde \:ithin 15 daya of the requeat, a \:ritten
otatement as te the rental rate te Iae effered te the incoming
o',mer occupant. If the rate of iFlcreaoe in rent to the F1e\:
o\mer eccupant is above the ameuFlt of the applicable orI aa
provided in section 9. 59.070 (.".), theFl either the Elurrent
rcoidcnt er iRceming resident shall h~vc th~ right te
arbitrate the increaoe Hnder the provisiens of section
9.50.070. The right io salaject to the aatgoin~ er ineoming
resident placing a depoait pursaant to aulaoection B above,
\Iithin 30 days ef either (a) service of the O\lRer's \:ritten
otatement to the outgeiFlg reaident or (b) the date ef
eHecution ef a purchaoe centraet Iset\:een the incoming aFla
outgoing residents, \:hich is the latter.
The parle mmer' s statement snaIl contain the follm1ing:
NOTICE
RElIT INSREASE IN EXCESS OF SPI
IF YOU DO NOT T.".KE ACTION TO ARBITR1\TE HI Pi. TIUEL'l
H)'.NNER, TllIE U10RE.".fJE EIIALL BE. .'\UTOnt.TICALLY EFFECTIVE
UrON TllE G.".LE OF YOUR UOBILEllorm
This io a atatellleFlt of space rent increase \Thich euceeds the
pcrccRta~c iRercasc sf the Conoumcr rriec IndeK (crr) fer the
t\:elve (12) menth periOd, as reported lay the Burcaa ef Labor
fJtatiotic5, preceaing this statcment. The orI is t ane
thio incrcooc io \ af yeHr eurrcnt rent. This iRsreaoe ia
in addition to the felle\:ing alle\lable pass throu~hs:
[identify type and amount ef. major oapitol impro'/ement er
other allmlable pass through].
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 11
? -(,5
~:~:: :~e City's Plunieipal Code, either the out~oin~ or the
~~:~~ing resid~nt is entitled to file for arbitrationo~::: t~~
::~~:r ~ 0 Communl ty Development D~part~ent. I:i.~;;i -C'" to
~;~~t::at~: you must place an arlntratlon depos _~
~~~~ ~~~ c~:,y~: C~~unit:( De'..e~opm~nt Department ~;=~i: ~h~~~~
~;e~ days.sf the date tale notlee lO serves on.ysh ;~ -hi _y~~
~; :~~c~;:~~ ~~ a p..':.rohase eontraet en the melnle. e". f ~::
~~ n~: pl~oe the deposit, yelol forfeit ye"u, ri;j;t t~ ~reitr
the rCRt ~RerC~DC.
~; ~:~ ~o~ i~~~: (eele\J 03, eee 15, eoe per year), ye~ m:i
~= ~~ligi~le to reeeiv.e assistano~ fer part ef t:: ~'::n~ t
~;e:~~~t~en from th:, Glty'S cem~uRlty ~eYel~pmeRt __pa~ _.,,;;;:;.
;: !::...u have l!IloIestlens regarslng areltratleR er Recti e
informatien, yeu eaR e~ll the City at (91 5017.
COrd. 2451 ~7, 1991; Ord. 2227 ~2, 1987).
9.50.073 Factors to Consider in Fixinq Space Rent
~ rThis section was not ready as of the deferred aqenda
deadline. It will be modeled after the 11 Escondido factors. and
in addition. for fixinq rents in the eyent of vacancy. will permit
consideration of the impact of the rent on the resale value of the
Mobilehome.l
9.50.075
Fixinq of~~Rent~{.3\ S
~ ~.. c..L..
rent on any particular mobilehome _d shall be fixed as
The
follows:
~ A. In the event that the tenant and an Owner reach aqreement.
with or without the benefit of mediation or arbitration. the rent
for the pad shall be fixed at the aqreed upon rent at such time as
the aqreement is reached unless the aqreement otherwise provides
~ different effective date.
I'?:. 'a
B. In the event that the tenant and an Owner do not reach
aqreement. and the rent has been established by the Commission
accordinq to the procedures herein established. the rent for the
pad shall be fixed at the rental rate so established by the
Commission as of the date of the Commission's decision unless the ~ h
mission shall fix a different date. HIl"'....el'/e.llc.eft U"'e..e r'e>l.l"'~
1'3C \,~ tu'" 'l~t..we 1 v*I" 'f' ""1'" ~t~ F"p' ..... \tJ\'AC,rbt.. t~"Vu..t' ~e. ~"lht~h e~ .,. Tt'::!: fAIL:-
C. nl a era Re usa 0 ursue r l ra lon. In e event -J~~
at the tenant or Owner fail or refuse in qood faith to follow the~ss~.f
procedure herein fixed for the establishment of rent which ma (; tk Cn.t,-
include but not be limited to refusal to deposit funds as required. ~ S~ ~
refusal to attend noticed hearin s then the rent for the ad shall I~ I I
be fixed as follows:
?- ~to
CM\~~S~ MI.I1 tlq,t .ut tIu. tCr'\f !,wel'
i-h........ ti-u... ,\)r-eJetISI-iIl" l'en-b 6,.. 1-\<1"1411-
Mobilehome Rent Cont~l Ord
~)\ tI..t A.mllltltT Pag~ 12 , 'Rer'\~
C6l\,tll.ll\cl ttl. ~ tJ~tibt. ~]':
J::'v,Uu.se ~" -f'lt,"e~.s Df CllI,
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the
April 19, 1993
C[B>
1. If the tenant has failed or refused in qood faith to
follow the procedures herein fixed for the establishment
of rent. then the rent shall be fixed at the rental rate
contained in the Notice of Rent Increase in Excess of
CPr.
1
1-hL
2. If the Owner has failed or refused in ood faith to
follow the rocedures herein fixed for th establishment
of rent. then the rent shall be fixed at oriainal rental
rate not increased by either the CPI or. the amount
contained in the Notice of Rent Increase in Excess of
CPr.
~ I..... tl'O P€....
~ D. Waiyer of Fixed Rent. Notwithstandin the aforementioned
manner in which the rent shall be fixed a refusal or failure
accom anied with the assertion that a reater rental is due b the
Owner or his or her aqent. to accept a rent paYment from a Resident
in an amount which is eaual to or areater than the rent fixed by
Subsections A. B or C of this section shall constitute a waiver bY
the Owner of the riaht to collect said rent. in its entirety. for
the rental eriod for which the rent was refused.
@
. ,
/36r E. waiver of Rent for Failure to Institute Leaal Action.
twithstandina the aforementioned manner in which the rent shall
be fixed. a failure to institute leaal action within 90 days after
a rental paYment is due shall constitute a waiver..r bY the Owner
of the riqht to collect said rent. in its entirety. for the rental
period sooner than 90 days prior to institution of action.
~ 9.50.076. Riqht to Mediate Mobilehome Resale Price.
A. In line with the purpose of this Chapter to maintain a
supplY of affordable housinq in the mobilehome market. it is the
qoal and obiective of the City that an outqoinq Resident should not
be able to command. due to limited Mobilehome Space availability.
a hiqher price for a Mobilehomeupon sale due to the fact that the
space rent is requlated by the provisions of this Chapter.
However. the Council finds that the extent and prevalence of
overcharqinq for Mobilehomes is not so siqnificant a problem in
Chula vista. and that it has little. if any. siqnificant effect on
the supplY of affordable housina in the City of Chula Vista. to
require Mobilehome resale price requlation bY the city. The Council
feels that this is due. in part. to permitina CPI increases in
rents without review. However. on a case-by-case basis. there may
be isolated occurances of overcharqinq for Mobilehomes due to space
rent requlation. and in such event. anv abuses can be adequately
addressed bY the mediation offered bY this section. The Council
further finds that if. after time. it appears that the mediation
process offered bY this Section is inadequate to address the
problem. it may reconsider more strinqent control over Mobilehome
-1
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 13
7-t7
overcharaina.
B. If. prior to executina a Mobilehome purchase aareement.
the incomina Resident contends that the price at which the Mobile-
home is offered by the outaoina Resident is hiaher because of space
rent reaulation than the price of the Mobilehome without space rent
reaulation. the incomina Resident has the riaht. upon tender to the
seller of an offer to purchase the Mobilehome at a price acceptable
to the incomina Resident. to submit the price dispute to the
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission for mediation.
C. Upon submittal of the price dispute to the Mobilehome Rent
Review Commission by the incomina Resident. the Commission shall
convene as soon as possible to hear the dispute. not sooner than 10
davs notice to the buyer and seller of the time and place at which
the mediation shall occur. If the Seller fails to appear. the
Commission should hear the complaint and evidence of the incomina
resident for the purpose of creatina a record of such abuses. if
anv. However. the Commission shall have no power to set the resale
price of a Mobilehome with or without the presence of the parties.
If the parties fail to mediate. or fail to aaree in mediation. the
offer to purchase shall be deemed revoked.
D. The purpose of the mediation. and the sole iurisdiction of
the Commission in the mediation. is to aet the parties to aaree. if
ossible to a rice which reflects the value of the Mobilehome if
the s ace rents in the ark were not re ulatedb this Cha ter. US
9.50.078. Criminal Acts
rI
The followinq acts shall constitute a criminal violation of
Chapter. includinq the Owner of a Park if done by an Owner's
with the knowled e or consent of the Owner:
& ~ . ~~~~di acce tin or retainin an rent in excess of
the amount ixed by this Chapter. includinq the demandinq of
rent waived under the provisions of Subsection (Clof Section
9.50~~. ~ b( "'~\~YQ.i"i\o-
l5'b . \::. comm~cin ./ or threaten in to commence an eviction or
unlawful detainer proceedina aqainst a Resident for the
failure to pay a rent in excess of the amount fixed by this
Chapter.
~
9.50.080 Mediation of negotiation commissioner's decision.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2282 52, 1988; Ord. 2163
59, 1986; Ord. 1997 51 (part), 1982).
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 14
"?-~~
9.50.081.
civil
Remedies@
.
A. civil Action. Any person who demands. accepts. receives
or retains any payment of rent in excess of the maximum rent
allowable bY this Chapter shall be liable in a ciyil action.
includinq unlawful detainer. to the person upon whom the demand was
made or from whom the rent was accepted or received. for reasonable
attorney's fees and costs as determined bY the court. plus damaqes
("Overcharqe Damaqes"l in the amount by which the pavrnent or
pavrnents demanded. accepted. received or retained exceeds the
maximum lawful rent. A civil penalty of treble (three timeslthe
amount of the Overcharqe Damaqes ("Treble Damaqes"l shall be
awarded aqainst the landlord upon a showinq that the landlord has
acted willfully 'or with oppression. fraud or malice. No
administrative remedY need be exhausted prior to filinq suit
u suant to this subsection.
\1 B. Administrative Action. In the event that either a
ident or Owner has a dispute as to whether a rental pavrnent is
due or has been waived. or a dispute exists as to the amount of the
rental payment due as in the case of a dispute over the proper of
CPI. or as the the amount of the Overcharqe Damaqes or Treble
Damaqes. the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission is hereby empowered
to hear and resolve all such disputes. and. as appropriate. reduce
or waive future rental pavrnents due the owner' bY the proper amount
of Overcharqe Damaqes or Treble Damaqes the Commission determines
are due.
9.50.083. Criminal Remedies.
A. Any person comitting a criminal violation of this Chapter
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person convicted of a
misdemeanor under the provisions of this Chapter shall be punished
by a fine of not more than a $1,000 or by imprisonment in the
county jail for a period of six (6) months in jailor by both such
fine or imprisonment.
9.50.085 Arbitration.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2306 ~1 (part), 1989; Ord.
2282 Sl, 1988).
9.50.090 Deferral of Rent Increases.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2451 S8, 1991; Ord. 2306
~1, 1989; Ord. 2282 ~2, 1988; Ord. 2163 ~10, 1986; Ord. 1997 !ill
(part), 1982).
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 15
7-&7
.
9.50.100 Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this chapter is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitut.ional, such portion shall be deemed a separate and
independent provision and such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remainder. (Ord. 2163 Sll, 1986; Ord. 1997 Sl
(part), 1982).
9.50.110 Enforcement.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2282 S2, 1988; Ord. 2163
Sll, 1986; Ord. 1997 Sl (part), 1982).
mobhom3.wp Proposed Revisions to the Mobilehome Rent Control Ord
April 19, 1993 Page 16
7-7~
L!-
Proposed section 9.50.073
9.50.073 Factors to Consider in Fixing Space Rent
If a proposed rental increase is submitted to either the
American Arbitration Association or the Commission ("Rent Reviewing
Authority") pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter, the Rent
Reviewing Authority shall determine the rent that is fair, just and
reasonable, and, in doing so, may consider the following factors:
1. The need for the proposed rental increase of the space in
order to permit the Owner to secure a fair and reasonable return,
when considering the existing rental scheme for all spaces in the
Park and all existing or expected expenses in owning and operating
the Park, on the Owner I s investment in the Park. A fair and
reasonable return may be determined by the Rent Reviewing Authority
by reference to industry standards, risk of investment, or other
acceptable standards.
A. In considering the existing or expected expenses in
owning and operating the Park, the Rent Reviewing
Authority may considering the following items of expense,
the reasonableness of such items, and changes to them:
(1) Property or other taxes.
(2) Mortgage or ground rent payments.
(3) utility costs.
(4) Capital improvements or rehabilitation work.
(5) Repairs required.
(6) Other operating and maintenance costs
2. The extent to which the proposed rental increase will
cause a reduction in the resale value of the Mobilehome.V
3.
consumers
Bureau of
Changes in the Consumer Price Index .for All Urban
in the San Diego Metropolitan Area published by the
Labor statistics.
4. Rents lawfully charged for comparable mobilehome spaces in
surrounding market.
1. This is new and is designed to permit the Rent Reviewing
Authority to discount a proposed increase if necessary in order
that the resale value of the Mobilehome is not reduced by the rent
regulation. This language is not designed to permit the Authority
to reduce the rent in order to enhance the resale value of the
Mobilehome. Any adjustment based on this factor may only be used
to return the resale value of the coach to its "pre-regillation"
value.
7-7/
5. The timing and amount of rents and rent increases for this
and other Spaces at the Mobilehome Park.
6. The quantity and quality of the improvements and features
at the Mobilehome Park.
7. The quantity and quality of services offered to Park
Residents.
/-7~
..
])
Unmarked, Final version incorporating
all proposed changes by the city Attorney
ORDINANCE NO. d<55;
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 9.50 OF
THE MUNICIPAL TO MAKE VARIOUS CHANGES IN
THE REGULATIONS REGARDING MOBILEHOME
PARKS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
section 1. Chapter 9.50 of the Municipal Code shall be
amended in its entirety to read as follows:
II
Sections:
9.50.005
9.50.010
9.50.015
9.50.030
9.50.050
9.50.065
9.50.067
9.50.073
9.50.075
9.50.076
9.50.078
9.50.081
9.50.083
9.50.100
Chapter 9.50
MOBILEHOME PARK SPACE-RENT REVIEW
Purpose
Applicability.
Applicability of Chapter 9.50 to Recreational
Vehicles.
Definitions.
Owner Meetings and possible Voluntary
Negotiations.
Notice of Rent Increases Without Change of
Ownership.
Notice of Rent Increase Upon Change of
Ownership.
Factors to Consider in Fixing Space Rent
Fixing of Space Rent
Right to Mediate Mobilehome Resale Price
Criminal Acts.
civil Remedies.
Criminal Remedies
Severability.
9.50.005 Purpose.
The City intends by this Chapter to maintain a supply of
affordable housing. The City Council finds that there is an
ample supply of apartments for rent and that the apartment
mobhom5 . wp
April 20, 1993
Proposed Ord re Mobilehome Rent Control
Page 1
)-23
...
market place does not need regulation in order to keep the
rents at an affordable level. The Council finds that the
supply of mobilehome space available for rent is not adequate,
and that as a result, the limited supply of such spaces is
driving up the space rents in a manner that would, in the
absence of regulation result in the elimination of affordable
housing.
The City also intends by this Chapter to prevent existing
tenants, who are rendered largely incapable of moving their
mobilehomes without suffering a substantial loss in their
value, from being charged excessive and unconscionable rents
due to this lack of mObility. The Council finds that the
limited supply of mobilehome space available for rent in this
City would, in the absence of regulation, allow for an
unconscionable enhancement of rents to existing mobilehome
park residents.
The city also intends by this Chapter to prevent existing
tenants, who are rendered largely incapable of moving their
mobilehomes without suffering a substantial loss in their
value, from loss of the resale value of their Mobilehomes due
to the fact that an incoming Resident is being. charged
excessive rents.
The Council finds that the limited supply of mobilehome
space available for rent in this City would, in the absence of
space rent regulation at the time of such sale or other
vacancy, allow for an unconscionable loss of resale value of
Mobilehomes to existing mobilehome park residents.
(Ord. , 51 (part) 1993)
9.50.010 Applicability.
This chapter shall apply to a mobilehome that requires a
permit to be moved on a street or highway.
The procedures contained in this chapter are intended to
provide a mechanism for the resolution of disputed increases
in rents by making it advantageous for mobilehomes owners and
mobilehome park owners to establish a better understanding for
each other's positions which will result in agreement on the
amount of rent to be charged. A binding arbitration provision
is provided for. The procedures of the ordinance are
established with the intent that they be accomplished in a
timely fashion. The participating parties shall commit to the
goal of completing the arbitration process within sixty (60)
days of the serving of the notice of rent increase, and that
the entire dispute resolution process be completed within one
mobhom5.wp
April 20, 1993
Proposed Ord re Mobilehome Rent Control
Page 2
7 - 7'/
hundred-twenty (120) days following receipt of the notice of
space rent increase.
This chapter shall not apply to leases exempted by Civil
Code Section 798.17.
This Chapter shall not apply to a Mobilehome Park if the
rents that may be charged for spaces thereat are regulated
pursuant to an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Chula vista under the authority of section 33334.2
through 33334.4, inclusive, of the California Health and
Safety Code, for such period of time as the agreement is in
effect.
(Ord. , S1 (part) 1993; Ord. 2451 S3, 1991; Ord. 2306
S1 (part), 1989; Ord. 2282 S2, 1988; Ord. 2163 S1, S2, 1986;
Ord. 19~7 S1 (part), 1982).
9.50.015 Applicability of Chapter 9.50 to Recreational
Vehicles.
Recreational vehicles as defined in California Civil Code
section 799.24 are subject to the rights and duties set forth
in Chapter 9.50 and shall have the right to arbitration as set
forth herein where the recreational vehicle owner/occupant has
been in residency for nine or more consecutive months.
Notwithstanding the above, this chapter shall not be
applicable to recreational vehicles residing in parks operated
as recreational vehicle parks, where the predominant number of
spaces are occupied for less than nine months.
(Ord. , S1 (part) 1993; Ord. 2306 S1 (part), 1989;
Ord. 2282 S~988; Ord. 2227 S1, 1987).
9.50.030 Definitions.
Words used in this chapter shall have the meaning
described to them in this section:
A. "Space rent" means the consideration, including any
bonus, benefits, or gratuity demanded or received in
connection with the use and occupancy of the mobilehome
space in a mobilehome park, or for the transfer of the
lease for parkspace, services, owner-provided utilities,
and amenities, subletting and security deposits, but
exclusive of any amounts paid for the use of the
mobilehome dwelling or of major capital improvement or
other allowable pass-throughs as defined in this
ordinance.
mobhom5.wp
April 20, 1993
Proposed Ord re Mobilehome Rent Control
Page 3
7-15
B. "Mobilehome" means a mobilehome as defined in the
California Mobilehome Home Residency Law.
C. "Mobilehome park owner" or "Owner" means the owner,
lessor, operator, manager of a mobilehome park within the
purview of this ordinance.
D. "Mobilehome resident" of "Resident" means any person
entitled to occupy a mobilehome dwelling unit by virtue
of ownership thereof.
E. "Dispute" or "Controversy" means a disagreement or
difference which is subject to the arbitration process.
F. "Consumer Price Index" or "CPI" shall mean the all urban
consumers/all items component of the San Diego
Metropolitan Area U (broader base) consumer price index.
G. "Major Capital Improvement Pass-Through" means a
separately identified monthly charge to. residents which
represents the repayment of a cost for a major capital
improvement with the following characteristics:
1. Said improvement shall have a cost of more than
$10,000.
2. Said improvement shall be exclusive of maintenance
or replacement of existing facilities.
3. Said improvement shall have been approved in
concept by more than fifty percent (50%) of the
mobilehome spaces within the mobilehome park after
all spaces in the park have been informed of the
nature, general design, timing, and overall cost of
said improvement, and the amount and duration of
the related pass-through.
H. Other Allowable Pass-Throughs" means separately billed
utility service fees and charges excluded from rent in
accordance with the provisions of civil Code Section
798.41; increases in rates of owner-provided utilities
and governmental assessments such as real property taxes,
license fees, and assessments for municipal services or
improvements. Copies of bills, invoices, or other
appropriate supporting documentation shall be kept on
file in the park owner's on-site business office, and
made available for review by affected residents upon
reasonable request at any time during normal business
hours.
mobhom5.wp
April 20,< 1993
Proposed Ord re Mobilehome Rent Control
Page 4
7-7(.,
I. "Mobilehome Park" or "Park" is an area of land where two
or more mobilehome sites are rented, or held out for
rent, to accommodate mobilehomes used for human
habitation, and where the predominant number of sites are
occupied for nine or more consecutive months.
(Ord. , 51 (part) 1993; Ord. 2451 54, 1991; Ord. 2306 51
(part)~89; Ord. 2163 54, 1986; Ord. 1997 51 (part), 1982).
9.50.050 Owner Meetings and possible Voluntary Negotiations.
within five (5) days, but not more than 10 days, after
service of a notice of increase, as provided in Section
9.50.065, the park owner must hold an informal meeting for the
benefit of the affected residents to discuss his or her
increase. It is hoped that such a meeting may lead to
voluntary settlement of the dispute. The meeting should be
set for a time and date believed to be convenient for
residents and may be changed to a different date based on the
reasonable request of the residents.
The residents shall have the option to choose whether or
not to attend the meeting. Attendance at the meeting shall
not affect the residents' right to arbitrate under section
9.50.070. (Ord. , 51 (part) 1993; Ord. 2451 55, 1991;
Ord. 2306 51 (part~989; Ord. 2282 52, 1988; Ord. 2163 56,
1986; Ord. 1997 51 (part), 1982).
9.50.065 Notice of rent increase without change of
ownership.
A. In any situation where a mobilehome park owner wishes to
increase the space rent to an existing Resident above the
applicable CPI, he or she must first give notice to
affected residents, at the same time the sixty (60) day
notice required by civil Code section 798.30 is given, as
follows: .
NOTICE - RENT INCREASE IN EXCESS OF CPI
IF YOU DO NOT TAKE ACTION TO ARBITRATE WITHIN THIRTY
DAYS, THIS INCREASE SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY EFFECTIVE
This is a notice of space rent increase which exceeds the
percentage increase of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for
the most recent twelve (12) month period, as reported by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, preceding this notice.
The CPI is % and this increase is % of your
current rent. Under the city's Municipal Code, you are
mobhom5.wp
April 20, 1993
Proposed Ord re Mobilehome Rent Control
Page 5
7 - "??
entitled to the following rights:
1. I am required to hold a meeting with the residents
to discuss the reasons for the increase. The
meeting will be at (time and place). You are
encouraged to attend but are not required to do so.
Under the city's ordinance, owners and residents
are encouraged to attempt to resolve differences
regarding this increase.
2. You have the right to file for arbitration with the
City's Community Development Department. You may
file for arbitration whether or not you attend the
meeting to discuss the increase. To file for
arbitration, you must place a deposit of $
wi th the City's community Development Department
within thirty (30) days of the date this notice is
served on you. If you do not place the deposit,
you forfeit your right to arbitrate the rent
increase.
If you or other affected residents are lower-income
(below $13,000-$15,000 per year), you may be
eligible to receive assistance with part of the
cost of arbitration from the City's Community
Development Department. If you have questions
regarding arbitration or need more information, you
can call the City at 691-5047.
This increase is in addition to the
allowable pass-throughs: [identify
iamount of major capitol improvement
allowable pass-through]
The following space numbers are subject to this
increase: [insert numbers of affected spaces].
following
type and
or other
B. If the residents within the affected mobilehome park have
established a representative body and notify the owner in
writing of its existence, a copy of the rent increase
notice must be sent to the chairperson of that body.
C. A copy of the rent increase notice must be given to the
Community Development Department of the City of Chula
vista at the same time as issuance of the notice to
residents.
D. The rent increase notice must contain the space numbers
of all residents who are subject to the increase which is
above the amount of the applicable CPl.
mobhom5.wp
April 20, 1993
Proposed Ord re Mobilehome Rent Control
Page 6
7-7~
E. The notice shall advise recipients that a deposit of 25%
of the cost of arbitration shall be made within thirty
(30) days of the date of service of notice or the right
to arbitration is waived. The deposit shall be made with
the Director of Community Development.
(Ord. , Sl (part) 1993; Ord. 2451 S6, 1991; Ord. 2306 Sl
(part)-;-i9s9.
9.?0.067 Notice of rent increase upon change of ownership.Y
1. The Council needs to make the fundamental decision at this
point: Do they want to control rents on vacancy? There can
be at least three legitimate purposes to mobilehome rent
control as follows:
(1) Prevent rent gouging of existing space tenants who
will suffer economic losses if they are required to move
their unit;
(2) Maintain an adequate supply of affordable housing; or
(3) Prevent loss of Mobilehome resale value by rent
escalation to an incoming tenant.
If our purpose ,is only anti-gouging where we are trying to
prevent econom1C eviction of existing tenants, but not
interfere with an incoming resident striking an agreement with
the park owner, then we should delete this section, and any
attempt to control the rent on vacancy.
If we are attempting to keep a supply of affordable housing,
we should keep this section in here, but at the same time
prohibit a Mobilehome owner from getting a windfall by the
sale of a unit at a price that is greater than the coach's
"true value" because of below market rents (i. e., that rent
not enhanced by rent control regulation).
If our purpose is to prevent loss of resale value of the
Mobilehome, we should add, as a factor in setting space rents
on vacancy, that the rent to the incoming Resident should not
be set above CPI if to do so would lower the resale price of
the Mobilehome.
This is a very important decision, and I recommend that it be
deferred to a time when it can be made by a full council with
input from both the Commission and the concerned and affected
(continued. . .)
mobhom5.wp
April 20, 1993
Proposed Ord re Mobilehome Rent Control
Page 7
7-77'
The review process shall also be applicable to the
situation where space rent is increased above the
applicable CPI upon change of ownership of the mobilehome
or removal of the unit. Either the incoming or outgoing
owner-occupant shall have the right to arbitrate, as
provided in this section:
A. Outgoing Mobilehome Resident's Right to Arbitrate.
If an outgoing Mobilehome Resident intends to sell his or
her mobilehome, the Owner shall provide to the outgoing
Resident within 15 days of the receipt of a written
notice of intent to sell, a written statement as to the
rental rate to be offered to the incoming Mobilehome
Resident, as set forth below in subsection (c). If the
rate of increase in rent to the new owner-occupant is
above the amount of the applicable CPI as provided in
section 9.50.070 (A), then the current resident shall
have the right to arbitrate the increase under the
provisions of section 9.50.070. The right is subject to
the outgoing resident placing a deposit pursuant to
section 9.50.070 (B) below, within 30 days of service of
the owner's written statement, as shown in subsection (c)
below, to the outgoing resident.
B. Incoming Mobilehome Resident's Right to Arbitrate.
The Owner shall also provide within 15 days of the notice
of sale of a unit, a written statement to the incoming
Mobilehome Resident as to (1) the rental rate to be
1. ( . . . continued)
residents.
Staff is writing this ordinance on the presumption that the
Council wants to achieve all three purposes!
If the Council disagrees with this premise, this ordinance
needs to be modified.
The Council should then amend this section to read:
"Upon re-rental of a Space, as in the case of a vacancy
or resale of a Mobilehome, the initial rents to the
incoming Resident shall not be subject to regulation by
this Chapter."
or:
[To be supplied later.]
mobhom5.wp
April 20, 1993
Proposed Ord re Mobilehome Rent Control
Page 8
7 -9Z)
offered to the incoming Mobilehome Resident, as set forth
below in subsection C, below, and (2) notice as to
whether the outgoing Mobilehome Resident completed
arbitration in good faith as to the increase. At such
time as an incoming Mobilehome Resident receives such
notice, properly and truely prepared, then if the
outgoing Resident did not, in good faith, exercise or
pursue to completion their right to arbitrate stated
above in subsection AV, the incoming Mobilehome
Resident shall have the right to arbitrate the increase
under the provisions of section 9.50.070. The right is
subject to the incoming Mobilehome Resident placing a
deposit pursuant to section 9.50.070 B, within 30 days of
the date on which the incoming Mobilehome Resident
receives the park owner's statement regarding the
proposed rental amount as set forth in subsection C,
below.
C. The park owner's statement shall contain the
following:
NOTICE - RENT INCREASE IN EXCESS OF CPI
IF YOU DO NOT TAKE ACTION TO ARBITRATE IN A TIMELY
MANNER, THIS INCREASE SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY
EFFECTIVE UPON THE SALE OF YOUR MOBILEHOME
This is a statement of space rent increase which exceeds
the percentage increase. of the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
for the twelve (12) month period, as reported by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, preceding this statement.
The CPI is % and this increase is % of your
current rent. This increase is in addition to the
following allowable pass-throughs: [identify type and
amount of major capitol improvement or other allowable
pass-through].
2. Staff considered and rejected inserting at this point:
"or reach written aqreement as to the amount of the soace
rent for the incominq Mobilehome Resident"
Allowing consent between the outgoing Resident and the
Park Owner as to the amount of the Incoming Resident's rent is
a partial adoption of the "anti-gouging/economic eviction"
purpose of the ordinance as opposed to the "supply of
affordable housing" purpose of the ordinance. See footnote 2
above.
mobhom5.wp
April 20, 1993
Proposed Ord re Mobilehome Rent. Control
Page 9
") -'is-I
Under the City's Municipal Code, the outgoing Resident
has the first right to arbitrate the rental increase, and
in the event he or she fails to pursue arbitration to
completion, the incoming Resident is entitled to file for
arbitration with the city's Community Development
Department. In order to arbitrate, you must place an
arbitration deposit of $ with the City's Community
Development Department within thirty (30) days of the
date this notice is served on you. If you do not place
the deposit, you forfeit your right to arbitrate the rent
increase.
If you are low income (below $13,000-15,000 per year),
you may be eligible to receive assistance for part of the
cost of arbitration from the City's Community Development
Department. If you have questions regarding arbitration
or need more information, you can call the City at
691-5047.
(Ord. ____, Sl (part) 1993)
9.50.070 Initiation of space Rent Review.
A. In any situation where the space rent increases in a
twelve (12) month period exceed cumulatively the
percentage increase of the consumer price index, as
reported by the Bureau of Labor statistics for the most
recent twelve (12) month period preceding the rent
increase notice, the following procedures shall apply
unless the owner receives written consent to the increase
from the affected Resident(s). The owner must file the
original of the written consent with the community
Development Department and notify the Resident that this
has been filed.
B. The Resident shall be required within thirty (30) days of
the date of service of the notice of increase to deposit
with the City Community Development Department 25% of the
estimated arbitration cost for one day of arbitration.
Arbitration shall begin in not less than 20 days nor more
than 30 days after the date of service of the notice of
increase, provided the Resident's deposit"has been made.
C. Upon receipt of the Resident's deposit and notification
to the park owner, the park owner shall have 7 days to
provide a deposit which shall be equal to 75% of the
estimated cost for one day of arbitration. The park
owner shall sign an appropriate document submitting the
dispute to arbitration when making the deposit.
mobhom5.wp
April 20, 1993
Proposed Ord re Mobilehome Rent Control
Page 10
7-~?
D. The cost of arbitration including costs incurred by the
American Arbitration Association in cases where a
settlement is reached prior to any hearing will be
shared.
The owner shall be responsible for 75% and the Resident
responsible for 25% of the first $750. Any costs of
arbitration above $750 shall be shared equally by both
parties. Additional costs above the amount of deposit
shall be due and payable subject to t~e requirements of
the American Arbitration Association.
E. The arbitration shall be conducted according to the
applicable rules of arbitration of the American
Arbitration Association and under the auspices of the
American Arbitration Association.
F. The decision of the arbitrator shall be advisory to the
Mobilehome Rent Commission. Both parties may waive
arbitration throught the American Arbitration
Association, and have their case heard directly by tghe
commission in the first instance. The arbitrator's
decision should be submitted to the Mobilehome Rent
Commission within thirty (30) days from the beginning of
arbitration.
G. The arbitrator's decision shall be submitted to the
City's Mobilehome Rent Commission, which shall affirm,
modify, or revoke the arbitrator's decision at a public
hearing held within sixty (60) days following such
submission, which decision shall thereupon be final. The
parties may stipulate to merely a review of the record at
arbitration, or either side may reql.lest a "denovo"
hearing by the Commission. If a de novo hearing is
requested, it shall be conducted in accordance with
procedures adopted by the Commission which satisfy the
requirements of "due process" and will constitute a
hearing at which evidence is required by law, so that the
Commission's decision is reviewable by the courts by a
writ of administrative mandamus pursuant to Code of civil
Procedure section 1094.5.
H. In the event that the owner reduces the rent increase to
the applicable CPI, or more than 50% of the affected
residents agree in writing to settle the dispute, the
arbitration process automatically terminates.
(Ord.
1987) .
, Sl (part) 1993; Ord. 2451 S7, 1991; Ord. 2227 S2,
mobhom5.wp
April 20, 1993
proposed Ord re Mobilehome Rent Control
Page 11
7-<?3
9.50.073 Factors to Consider in Fixing Space Rent
If a proposed rental increase is submitted to either the
American Arbitration Association or the Commission ("Rent
Reviewing Authority") pursuant to the provisions of this
Chapter, the Rent Reviewing Authority shall determine the rent
that is fair, just and reasonable, and, in doing so, may
consider the following factors:
1. The need for the proposed rental increase of the
space in order to permit the Owner to secure a fair and
reasonable return, when considering the existing rental scheme
for all Spaces in the Park and all existing or expected
expenses in owning and operating the Park, on the Owner I s
investment in the Park. A fair and reasonable return may be
determined by the Rent Reviewing Authority by reference to
industry standards, risk of investment, or other acceptable
standards.
A. In considering the existing or expected
expenses in owning and operating the Park, the Rent
Reviewing Authority may considering the following
items of expense, the reasonableness of such items,
and changes to them:
(1) Property or other taxes.
(2) Mortgage or ground rent payments.
(3) utility costs.
(4) Capital improvements or rehabilitation
work.
(5) Repairs required.
(6) Other operating and maintenance costs
2. The extent to which the proposed rental increase will
cause a reduction in the resale value of the Mobilehome.~
3. Changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
consumers in the San Diego Metropolitan Area published by the
Bureau of Labor statistics.
3. This is new and is designed to permit the Rent Reviewing
Authority to discount a proposed increase if necessary in
order that the resale value of the Mobilehome is not reduced
by the rent regulation. This language is not designed to
permit the Authority to reduce the rent in order to enhance
the resale value of the Mobilehome. Any adjustment based on
this factor may only be used to return the resale value of the
coach to its "pre-regulation" value.
mobhom5.wp
April 20, 1993
Proposed Ord re Mobilehome Rent Control
Page 12
7-~'i
4. Rents lawfully charged for comparable mobilehome
spaces in surrounding market.
5. The timing and amount of rents and rent increases for
this and other Spaces at the Mobilehome Park.
6. The quantity and quality of the improvements and
features at the Mobilehome Park.
7. The quantity and quality of services offered to Park
Residents.
(Ord. ____, Sl (part) 1993)
9.50.075 Fixing of Space Rent
The rent on any particular mobilehome Space shall be
fixed as follows:
A. In the event that the tenant and an Owner reach
agreement, with or without the benefit of mediation or
arbitration, the rent for the pad shall be fixed at the agreed
upon rent at such time as the agreement is reached unless the
agreement otherwise provides for a different effective date.
B. In the event that the tenant and an Owner do not
reach agreement, and the rent ha.s been established by the
Commission according to the procedures herein established, the
rent for the pad shall be fixed at the rental rate so
established by the Commission as of the date of the
Commission's decision, unless the Commission shall fix a
different date. However, except where the rent has been
waived, or where Overcharge Damages or Treble Damages are
assessed by the Commission, the Commission may not set the
rent lower than the pre-existing rent or higher than the
amount contained in the Notice of Rent Increase in excess of
CPI.
C. Unilateral Refusal to Pursue Arbitration. In the
event that the tenant or Owner fail or refuse in good faith to
follow the procedure herein fixed for the establishment of
rent, which may include but not be limited to refusal to
deposit funds as required, refusal to attend noticed hearings,
then the rent for the pad shall be fixed as follows:
1. If the tenant has failed or refused in good
faith to follow the procedures herein fixed for the
establishment of rent, then the rent shall be fixed
at the rental rate contained in the Notice of Rent
Increase in Excess of CPl.
mobhom5.wp
April 20, 1993
Proposed Ord re Mobilehome Rent Control
Page 13
7-<:;6
2. If the Owner has failed or refused in good
faith to follow the procedures herein fixed for the
establishment of rent, then the rent shall be fixed
at original rental rate not increased by either the
CPI or the amount contained in the Notice of Rent
Increase in Excess of CPI.
D. Waiver of Fixed Rent. Notwithstanding the
aforementioned manner in which the rent shall be fixed, a
refusal or failure, accompanied with the improper assertion
that a greater rental is due by the Owner or his or her agent,
to accept a rent payment from a Resident in an amount which is
equal to or greater than the rent fixed by Subsections A, B or
C of this Section shall constitute a waiver by the Owner of
the right to collect said rent, in its entirety, for the
rental period for which the rent was refused.
E. Waiver of Rent for Failure to Institute Legal Action.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned manner in which the rent
shall be fixed, a failure to institute legal action within 90
days after a rental payment is due shall constitute a waiver
by the Owner of the right to collect said rent, in its
entirety, for the rental period sooner than 90 days prior to
institution of action.
(Ord. ____, ~1 (part) 1993)
9.50.076. Right to Mediate Mobilehome Resale Price.
A. In line with the purpose of this Chapter to maintain
a supply of affordable housing in the mobilehome market, it is
the goal and objective of the City that an outgoing Resident
should not be able to command, due to limited Mobilehome Space
availability, a higher price for a Mobilehome upon sale due to
the fact that the space rent is regulated by the provisions of
this Chapter. However, the Council finds that the extent and
prevalence of overcharging for Mobilehomes is not so
significant a problem in Chula Vista, and that it has little,
if any, significant effect on the supply of af~ordable housing
in the city of Chula Vista, to require Mobilehome resale price
regulation by the City. The Council feels that this is due, in
part, to permiting CPI increases in rents without review.
However, on a case-by-case basis, there may be isolated
occurances of overcharging for Mobilehomes due to space rent
regulation, and in such event, any abuses can be adequately
addressed by the mediation offered by this section. The
Council further finds that if, after time, it appears that the
mediation process offered by this section ip inadequate to
address the problem, it may reconsider more stringent control
over Mobilehome overcharging.
mobhom5.wp
April 20, 1993
Proposed Ord re Mobilehome Rent Control
Page 14
7-~
B. If, prior to executing a Mobilehome purchase
agreement, the incoming Resident contends that the price at
which the Mobilehome is offered by the outgoing Resident is
higher because of space rent regulation than the price of the
Mobilehome without space rent regulation, the incoming
Resident has the right, upon tender to the seller of an offer
to purchase the Mobilehome at a price acceptable to the
incoming Resident, to submit the price dispute to the
Mobilehome Rent Review commission for mediation.
C. Upon submittal of the price dispute to the Mobilehome
Rent Review Commission by the incoming Resident, the
Commission shall convene as soon as possible to hear the
dispute, not sooner than 10 days notice to the buyer and
seller of the time and place at which the mediation shall
occur. If the Seller fails to appear, the Commission should
hear the complaint and evidence of the incoming resident for
the purpose of creating a record of such abuses, if any.
However, the commission shall have no power to set the resale
price of a Mobilehome with or without the presence of the
parties. If the parties fail to mediate, or fail to agree in
mediation, the offer to purchase shall be deemed revoked.
D. The purpose of the mediation, and the sole
jurisdiction of the Commission in the mediation, is to get the
parties to agree, if possible, to a price which reflects the
value of the Mobilehome as if the space rents in the park were
not regulated by this Chapter.
(Ord. , 51 (part) 1993)
9.50.078. Criminal Acts
The following acts shall constitute a criminal violation
of this Chapter, including the Owner of a Park if done by an
Owner's agent with the knowledge or consent of the Owner:
A. Knowingly demanding, accepting or retaining any rent
in excess of the amount fixed by this Chapter, including
the demanding of rent waived under the provisions of
Subsection (C) of section 9.50.075.
B. Knowingly commencing, or threatening to commence, or
maintaining an eviction or unlawful detainer proceeding
against a Resident for the failure to pay a rent in
excess of the amount fixed by this Chapter.
(Ord. , 51 (part) 1993)
9.50.081. civil Remedies.
mobhom5.wp
April 20, 1993
Proposed Ord re Mobilehome Rent Control
Page 15
7-97
A. civil Action. Any person who demands, accepts,
receives or retains any payment of rent in excess of the
maximum rent allowable by this Chapter shall be liable in a
civil action, including unlawful detainer, to the person upon
whom the demand was made or from whom the rent was accepted or
received, for reasonable attorney's fees and costs as
determined by the court, plus damages ("Overcharge Damages")
in the amount by which the payment or payments demanded,
accepted, received or retained exceeds the maximum lawful
rent. A civil penalty of treble (three times) the amount of
the Overcharge Damages ("Treble Damages") shall be awarded
against the landlord upon a. showing that the landlord has
acted willfully or with oppression, fraud or malice. No
administrative remedy need be exhausted prior to filing suit
pursuant to this subsection.
B. Administrative Action. In the event that either a
Resident or Owner has a dispute as to whether a rental payment
is due or has been waived, or a dispute exists as to the
amount of the rental payment due as in the case of a dispute
over the proper of CPI, or as the the amount of the Overcharge
Damages or Treble Damages, the Mobilehome Rent Review
Commission is hereby empowered to hear and resolve all such
disputes, and, as appropriate, reduce or waive future rental
payments due the Owner by the proper amount of Overcharge
Damages or Treble Damages the Commission determines are due.
(Ord. ____, 51 (part) 1993)
9.50.083. Criminal Remedies.
A. Any person comitting a criminal violation of this
Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person
convicted of a misdemeanor under the provisions of this
Chapter shall be punished by a fine of not more than a $1,000
or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of six (6)
months in jailor by both such fine or imprisonment.
(Ord. , 51 (part) 1993)
9.50.100 Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this chapter is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional, such portion shall be deemed a separate and
independent provision and such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remainder.
(Ord. , 51 (part) 1993; Ord. 2163 511, 1986; Ord. 1997 51
(part)-;-i982) ."
mobhom5.wp
April 20, 1993
Proposed Ord re Mobilehome Rent Control
Page 16
7-W'
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
mobhom5.wp
April 20, 1993
Proposed Ord re Mobilehome Rent Control
Page 17
7-?f9
e
I)
council Agenda statement
Item:
Meeting Date: April 7, 1992
Item Title: Report responding to Council referral of request
from Mr. Fred Dufresne of Otay Lakes Lodge
Mobilhome Park, for a determination of the right to
arbitrate, and request for modification of
mobilhome park rent control ordinance to require
notice of rent increase to incoming and outgoing
tenants.
Submitted by: Bruce M. Boogaard, city Attorney
Agenda Classification: ( ) Consent
(XX) Action Item
( ) Public Hearing
( ) Other:
,
4/5ths Vote: ( ) Yes (X) No
On March 4, 1992, Mr. Fred Dufresne of Otay Lakes Mobilhome Lodge
authored a letter (Exhibit A) to the City Council complaining (11
that the City has impermissibly denied Affected outgoing TenantsV
of the ordinance-based right to arbitrate an April 1, 1991 rent
increase in excess of CPI effective upon sale of coach as the
result of a mediation, and (2) requesting a modification of the
mobilehome rent control ordinance to require notices of rent
increases and the right to arbitrate be given to both incoming and
outgoing tenants. On March 17, 1992, the City Council referred the
matter back to the city Attorney for investigation and report back
to the City council for the March 24, 1992 meeting. This Report
responds to that referral.
1. "Affected Outgoing Tenants" is a defined term in this report
intended to describe the tenant in the process of marketing their
mobilehome ("Home") for sale and who has been served with a notice
from the Owner that the Owner intends to increase the rents to
their new buyer. The new buyer, who will now be required to enter
into a ground lease with the Owner at the increased rents shall be
referred to herein as the "Affected Incoming Tenants". As applied
to the Dufresne case, there were 14 Affected Outgoing Tenants which
were given notice of rental increase on sale of their Home on or
about April 15, 1991 by the Park Owner.
omhp2 . wp
April 2, 1992
Al13 re Dufresne complaint
Page 1
7-70
Conclusions of the citv Attornev.
I. Since this referral to the City Attorney, the Yee case was
decided (April 1, 1992). This Office has prepared a separate legal
assessment of the decision and its impact on rent control ordi-
nances in general, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
I believe the Yee decision will require this city, and all other
cities, to more clearly evaluate the following with regard to its
mobilehome rent control ordinances: What is our purpose in
regulating pad rents? Does government have a legitimate state
interest in having such a purpose? Are we achieving our purpose?
("Regulatory Taking Issues") .
The Yee Case should require us to refer our entire mobilehome
rent control ordinance back to the Rent Review Commission to.
address these Regulatory Taking Issues.
In the meantime, the Yee Case did not, in an of itself, render
any aspect of our ordinance invalid. Therefore, although it should
be reviewed to address the Regulatory Taking Issues, it is appro-
priate to assume that our ordinance is constitutionally valid, and
that Mr. Dufresne's rights thereunder should be seriously evalu-
ated.
II. As regards to Mr. Dufresne's first point on the issue of the
continued right to arbitrate, it is the City Attorney's conclusion
that the 14 Affected Outgoing Tenants who participated in, or had
the right to participate in, the mediation, did not lose their
right under the ordinance to arbitrate the rent increase.
III. The majority of the 14 affected outgoing tenants who still
have a stake in the outcome should be entitled to continue the
arbitration.
However, the City Attorney believes there is some question of
their interest or desire to arbitrate.
So far, only Mr. Dufresne, who no longer has any standing to
assert a violation of the ordinance, has complained about not
having the right to arbitrate. He should no longer be permitted,
on his own or as a representative of his parents, to prosecute an
.arbitration.
If a majority ("Required Majority")Y of the 14 Affected
2 . This number would be
Affected Outgoing Tenants,
no longer have a stake in
determined by taking the original 14
and remov~ng from the group, those which
the outcome because they have now sold
(continued. . .)
omhp2 . wp
April 2, 1992
Al13 re Dufresne Complaint
Page 2
., -9/
(
Outgoing Tenants who still have a stake in the outcome (sometimes
called herein "The Remaining Group") express in writing their
desire to arbitrate the April 1, 1991 rent increase, they should be
permitted to continue with the arbitration. The author asked Mr.
Dufresne to assemble a list of those wishing to arbitrate, and
present same to the City Council at the April 7, 1992 meeting if
such a Required Majority can be mustered. If he is unable to do so
or fails to do so, the Staff should make a special effort to notify
the original 14 Affected Outgoing Tenants ("original Group") of the
continued existence of their right. If no request to arbitrate is
made by the Required Majority in 30 days, the matter should be
deemed terminated, and the mediated rent schedule should be
implemented.
If the Required Majority still desire arbitration, the right
to arbitrate should be diligently prosecuted to avoid the
contention that they waived their rights.
IV. The second point raised by Mr. Dufresne is that the ordinance
should be amended to require notice of the right to arbitrate the
increase be given to the Affected Incoming Tenant (receipt for
which notice should be acknowledged in writing, and a copy of both
of which should be provided to the Affected Outgoing Tenant, the
association and the City). It is a valid point, and it is the
recommendation that the matter be referred to the Commission.
V. As a result of this assignment, the City. Attorney has compiled
some other recommendations ("Other Proposed Recommendations") for
clarifying parts of the Mobilehome Rent Control ordinance as
follows:
1. Clarify the standing issue--should an affected
tenant which is given a right to arbitrate be permitted
to continue to exercise that right if they have no
further benefit from the outcome?
2. Clarify that a rental increase can only be
arbitrated one time, not once by the Affected Outgoing
2. ( . . . continued)
their Home according to a contract which gives them no further
interest in the rents charged to the Affected Incoming Tenant.
Thus, if 8 of the original 14 Affected Outgoing Tenants have sold
their coach without right to get an additional amount depending on
the result of arbitration, the "Remaining Group" who would still
have the existing right to either consent to the new rent schedule
or demand arbitration would be the remaining six, and the majority
of them ("Required Majority") would be able to bind the Remaining
Group. See section 9.50.070 (A) and (H). .
omhp2 . wp
April 2, 1992
All3 re Dufresne Complaint
Page 3
7 -1.:2..
Tenant, and once again by the Incoming Tenant.
I,
3. Clarify the extent to which a "group"
receiving a rental increase notice can
individual members.
of Tenants
bind the
4. Clarify the standards for determining the
permissible limits on rental increases in excess of CPl.
CUrrently our ordinance permits a "just and reasonable
return on the property" to be considered. Does that mean
his investment in the property or the value of the
property?
Recommendation:
1. Deem that The Remaining Group's right to arbitrate exists if
they can demonstrate, within 30 days, that the Required
Majority express the desire to continue the arbitration.
2. If the Remaining Group can get the Required Majority to exer-
cise their right to arbitrate, direct staff to assemble an
arbitration regarding the rent increase.
3.
Deem that Mr. Dufresne's original principals, his mother and
father, are no longer a member of the Remaining Group, and no
longer have standing to assert for themselves the right to
arbitrate the April, 1991 rent increase upon sale of Home.
(Mr. Dufresne is entitled to act as a representative of a le-
gitimate member of the Remaining Group, but such represen-
tation should be shown in writing.)
4. Direct the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission~ ("Commission")
to re-evaluate our rent control ordinance in its entirety, and
to provide a report thereon, and include in that evaluation
and'report comment on the following questions:
(
A. The Regulatory Taking Issues: (a) what is our purpose in
3. Note that the recommendation is not to the Mobilehome Issues
Committee. According to my information, the Mobilehome Issues
Committee was an ad hoc committee formed by the local community
members, not the city, to whom the City has subsequently offered
some staff report (agenda, minutes, etc.) and has been used as a
"sounding board" for the City. It is not an official committee of
the city. They are not in our conflict of interest code. They
don't have to file economic disclosure statements. They are not
bound by the Brown Act. They are not readily active. For this
reason, we should not refer to them consideration of this ordinance
for advice, but if they reorganize, we should solicit their input.
omhp2. wp
April 2, 1992
A113 re Dufresne Complaint
Page 4
7-tj3
'.
!
,
engaging in rent control; (b) does our purpose serve. a
legitimate governmental interest; and (c) is our rent control
ordinance narrowly drawn to accomplish such purpose or
purposes?
B. Should we amend the ordinance to require a written notice
of the right to arbitrate be given to the Incoming Tenants,
receipt of which is to be acknowledged by the Incoming Tenant,
and copies of all of which are provided to the Outgoing
Tenant, the City, the association, and other Incoming and
Outgoing Tenants affected by contemporaneously issued notices
of rent increases?
..-
I
C. Should the City Attorney's Other Proposed Recommendations
set forth above and as contained in this report be instituted?
Boards and Commissions Recommendation:
None. Time constraints imposed by Council does not permit
consultation. This report contemplates a substantial referral to
the Commission for consultation and advice.
Backqround.
The Park and the Owner.
The Otay Lakes Lodge ("Park") is a mobilehome park in Chula
Vista on Otay Lakes Road about a mile east of its intersection with
Telegraph Canyon Road. It has approximately 200 spaces ("Spaces")
which it rents. to tenants. ("Tenants") and the Tenants are required
to provide their own mobilehome (also referred to herein as
"Home"). The owner of their Park, or their representative, is a
Mr. Richard Kelton, ("Owner") with offices in Santa Monica. He is
represented by a Mr. Terrance Dowdall, Esq.
Our Rent Control Ordinance.
Chapter 9.50 of our Municipal Code regulates mobilehome rents
by allowing tenants, if they desire, to arbitrate rent increase
disputes if the annual increases are in excess of the CPI index.
This "complaint driven" rent control procedure, applicable even on
sale of a Home, represents an philosophical position somewhere
between no rent control (an unregulated market) and an ordinance
that strictly limits rents to specific amounts based on permitting
the Owner to earn a reasonable return on his or her investment.Y
4. It is also observed that it is a Pad Based, Tenant driven
system because the Tenants have the right to request arbitration
(continued. . . )
omhp2 . wp
April 2, 1992
Al13 re Dufresne Complaint
Page 5
7-9,/
\.
Rent increases which are the subject of an arbitration request
would then be subject to reduction in arbitration based on fac-
torsV which are to include consideration of an amount necessary
to produce a "just and reasonable return on the owner's property".
We have a quasi-vacancy control provision~ which subjects
rent increases on sale of a Home to the same procedural require-
ments and the same right to arbitrate. Thus, in addition to giving
the Affected Outgoing Tenant the right to arbitrate, we also give
the Affected Incoming Tenant the right to arbitrate. However, the
ordinance does not specifically put the duty on the Owner to give
the Affected Incoming Tenant notice of his right to arbitrate the
new rent. By the time he may otherwise find out about the right to
arbitrate, the 30 day period within which to request arbitration
may have lapsed.
The Grouo Power Conceot
Section 9.50.070 (A) of our ordinance, creates the concept of
a group power--that the majority of the tenants affected by a rent
increase may bind the individual minority members of the group by
their consent to an increase ("Group Power"):
4. (...continued)
about increases as to their particular space. An Owner driven
system, such as the subject of the Escondido suit in Yee, lets the
Owner apply for rent increases for the entire park, and in that
context, all pad rents are considered, and the Owner's return on.
his investment can be fully considered. While we have only had two
requests for arbitration in the years that our ordinance has
been on the books, both have been-Ineffective.
Our ordinance theoretically permits each tenant, or group of
contemporaneously noticed Tenants, in each park to request
arbitration when an excessive rental increase is given. If a
reasonable return on the Owner's investment is to be an element of
justification in each such arbitration, it would be unnecessarily
repetitive and complex, in each such case, to demonstrate the
Owner's return, when different pad's in the Park may be paying
different rents, but only one or a small group is at issue in the
arbitration, and then to show the impact of a single pad's rent
increase on the Owner's overall return.
5. I believe the Supreme Court is prepared to require written
articulation of these standards a matter which is part of the
referral to the Commission.
6. It does not say rents on sale are controlled, but rather that
they are subject to arbitration.
omhp2 . wp
April 2, 1992
Al13 re Dufresne Complaint
Page 6
7-fS
\
"A. In any situation where the space rent increases in a
twelve (12) month period exceed cumulatively the
percentage increase of the consumer price index, as
reported by the Bureau of Labor statistics for the most
recent twelve (12) month period preceding the rent
increase notice, the following procedures shall apply
unless the owner receives written consent to the increase
from more than 50% of the soaces affected bv the notice
of increase. The owner must file the original of the
written consent with the Community Development Department
and notify the residents that this has been filed."
This Group Power concept needs further definition other than
by city Attorney interpretation, and it is being recommended for
referral to the Commission.Y Until this can be accomplished, I
have to interpret the provision to mean that the Group Power is one
that exists throughout the dispute resolution processY but should
apply only to those who have a continuing stake in the controversy,
and therefore continues to shrink as the Original Group sells their
Homes without recourse. This means that, as persons sell their
7. Was it the intent that the group of "Noticed Tenants" should be
able to bind the members thereof throughout the duration of the
"space rent review" process ("Durational Group Power Concept")? Or
is it intended to be a "one time exercise of group power" that is
exercised to trigger, for the benefit of all affected tenants, the
individual privilege of subsequent space rent review ("Single
Incident Group Power")?
If Durational Group Power, do those wishing to consent to the
proposed rents ("Consenting Tenants") have to participate in the
"space rent review process"? If the Consenting Tenants can be
excused from the process, is the Durational Group Power only
exercised by the remaining non-consenting Tenants ("Objecting
Tenants")?
Was it the intent that the group could also bind the incoming
tenants?
8. Subsection (H) of Section 9.50.070 further provides that:
"In the event that the owner reduces the rent increase to the
applicable CPI, or more than 50% of the affected residents
agree in writing to settle the dispute, the arbitration
process automatically terminates."
This seems to imply that the power of the group was intended to
extend throughout the process. '
omhp2 . wp
April 2, 1992
Al13 re Dufresne Complaint
Page 7
7-7?
r
Homes at prices which they are content with, and without recourse
to getting a higher coach price after arbitration of the Space
Rent, they no longer have a stake in the outcome of the arbitra-
tion, and should, by principles of estoppel and standing, be deemed
to have lost their right to continue to participate in the
arbitration.
The Affected outqoinq Tenants.
On or about April 15, 1991, the Original Group (i.e., the or-
iginal 14 Affected Outgoing Tenants) had their Homes up for sale.
The Owner gave the Original Group a notice of rent increase in
excess of cpr, one of whom was Sandra Kearns/Keller of Space 92.
Ms. Keller's vacancy rental increase was 41% over her then current
rent at a time when cpr was at 6%. A copy of the Keller Notice is
attached hereto as Exhibit C.V
The 14 Affected Outgoing Tenants, apparently through the
representation of Ms. Keller,W sought to arbitrate the rent
increase, and filed a timely request to arbitratelV.
9. Please note that the notice is given under protest reserving to
the Owner his right to declare the city's ordinance unconstitution-
al because of its vacancy control provisions.
10. There was a question in my mind as to which of the 14 Affected
Outgoing Tenants exercised their right to arbitrate. They appar-
ently did not file a written request to arbitrate. However, Ms.
Keller and four or five other tenants collectively deposited $250,
the required deposit, and it appears that the Owner believed that
all 14 Tenants did, and were represented by Ms. Keller, by virtue
of the fact that his profferred settlement agreement, and some
correspondance, sought to bind all 14 Tenants.
11. Under section 9.50.070 (B) and 9.50.065 (A), the right to
arbitrate had to be exercised within 30 days after the Notice is
properly given.
omhp2 . wp
April 2, 1992
Al13 re Dufresne Complaint
Page 8
7-17
.1.
The Diversion to Mediation.
.
"
After the 14 Affected Outgoing Tenants requested arbitration,
and paid the required arbitration fee1V, but before it could be
heard, on or about June 20, 1991, the AAA, through the person of
Tracey Sherman, Director of Education and Development, offered the
parties a new AAA option of "mediation" (See Exhibit D). This was
apparently done on the request of Mr. Kelton for mediation.IV
The Groundrules Established Prior to Mediation.
As explained in the AAA letter of June 20, 1991 (Exhibit D),
"Mediation is VOLUNTARY and NON-BINDING. .. .and either party can
dispense with the mediation at any time. Negotiations are
furthered by the Mediator, but any settlement is fashioned by the
parties and counsel. The optimum and most common outcome of
mediation is a MUTUALLY AGREEABLE SETTLEMENT of all issues."
It appearslY that about early July, 1991, Mr. Kelton
requested mediation in lieu of arbitration. On July 17, as
demonstrated in Exhibit E, the City's Community Development
Department specified, as part of the rules: "... Both parties
also must agree to continue with arbitration if mediation is not
successful.
Although undated, the written admonition of the rules of this
particular mediation prepared by the AAA .provide, as shown on
Exhibit F: "If the parties reach an agreement, the mediator will
prepare a memorandum recording that understanding which may then be
submitted to the parties' personal attorneys for incorporation into
a formal agreement, or reduced at their' agreement to a formal
arbitrator's award."
The written admonition (Exhibit F) engaged the "Commercial
12. 25% of the costs of the first day of arbitration has to
accompany the filing of the request with the City's Community
Development Department. The fee was $1,000 in this case, $250 of
which was paid by the Affected Outgoing Tenants. Ms. Keller paid
more than 1/14th of her pro rata share, and did so with the claim
that she was representing the said 14 tenants.
13. Staff expressed concern and caution as to the use of the
mediation process in lieu of arbitration, and advised the Tenants
that it could not be required under our ordinance.
14. Source: A letter from our Community Development Department
staff person assigned to MObilehome rent issues, dated July 17,
1991, attached as Exhibit E. .
omhp2 . wp
April 2, 1992
Al13 re Dufresne Complaint
Page 9
7-7~
.\
Mediation Rules of the AM," which, at rule 14, indicate as.
follows:
"14. Termination of Mediation.
The mediation shall be terminated:
(a) by the execution of a settlement agreement by the parties;
(b) by a written declaration of the mediator to the effect
that further efforts at mediation are no longer worthwhile; or
(c) by a written declaration of a party or parties to the
effect that the mediation proceedings are terminated."
Furthermore, it appears that the Mediatior provided a verbal
admonition at the commencement of the mediation that any decision
reached would be of a non-binding nature.~
Apparently, both parties agreed to such rules.W
The Mediation Event.
The mediation took two days. The first was held on July 26
and the second was held on August 2, 1991. Both days were held
before the AM-assigned Mediator, Ms. Dina Feldman-Scarr. Not all
of the 14 Affected Outgoing Tenants were there both days. In fact,
Mrs. Keller (Space 92), Mrs. Dufresne (Space 110) and Mrs. Cookson
(Space 165) were the only ones there both days; Mr. Velazquez
(Space 145) was there on the second day; and 10 'of the 14 did not
show up either of the two days.IV All parties believed that Mrs.
Keller was representing all 14 Affected Outgoing Tenants throughout
the entire process, and that however the matter may have been
concluded with regard to Keller would be binding on all 14 Affected
Outgoing Tenants.
At the mediation, city Staff advised Mr. Kelton that any
settlement agreement arising from the mediation would only be
applicable to the Affected Tenants, not other non-participating
Tenants. Mr. Kelton advised that he intended to apply the results
of the medation agreement "across the board." Staff advised Mr.
Kelton that other Tenants would have the right to arbitrate.
15. Source: Community Development Department staff.
16. The file contains Ms. Keller's July 23, 1991 concurrance in
the rules. The OWner's signed concurrance is not in the file.
17. Source:
an interview.
Staff member's recollection, about March 19, 1992, in
omhp2 . wp
April 2, 1992
Al13 re Dufresne Complaint
Page 10
7-97
~
Was a Consensus Reached at the Mediation Meetinq?
staff1!ll, the Staff of the AAAW, the MediatorW, and the
OwnerW believed a consensus was reached as a result of the
mediation. Mr. Dufresne, representing his mother, indicates a
month later that he does not even believe a consensus was reached:
"We ended the [mediation] meeting saying that Mr. Kelton,
should write up what he expected and we would determin [sic]
if it would be wise of us to sign. The meeting ended with
uncertanties as to our rights, because of coversation [sic]
made while the Medeator [sic] was not present."W
It is my factual opinion that a consensus was in fact reached,
but as you will see, the consensus was non-binding until reduced to
an executed settlement agreement.
On or before August 5, 1991, the Mediator prepared an MOU,
attached as Exhibit G, which provided that the parties would trans-
form the consensus into a settlement agreement. The Owner was to
redraft the MOU as a settlement agreement, and was to send it to
the 14 Tenants for their signatures.
Post Mediation Re;ection of the Mediated Consensus.
Apparently, the Park Owner took a long vacation immediately
following the mediation, instructing the Park Managers, Mr. Harry
18. See Staff letter to file, attached as Exhibit
19. See Letter of Tracey Sherman, of the AAA, dated August 2,
1991, attached as Exhibit _, congratulating the parties "on
reaching a settlement during your recent mediation."
20. See the official Memorandum of Understanding prepared by the
mediator contemporaneously with the second day of mediation,
probably August 2, 1991, attached as Exhibit
21. The Owner commenced setting the new rents in accordance with
the mediated results. See rent increase to a Mr. and Mrs.
Heinrich, Space 103, dated August 13, 1991, indicating "an
agreement was reached." The Heinrich I s were not one of the 14
Tenants. The Owner, by giving this rent increase notice to someone
other that the 14 Tenants, attempted to apply this mediated result
to all selling Tenants, which is probably the key reason that the
mediation effort collapsed.
22. See Mr. Dufresne' s September 17, 1991 letter attached as
Exhibit
omhp2 . wp
April 2, 1992
Al13 re Dufresne Complaint
Page 11
7 -lac)
and Marion Brown, as to how to implement the consensus in the
interim. 231
The Browns, on August 13, 1991, gave the Tenants in space 103
(the Heinrichs), not represented at the mediation table as one of
the 14 Tenants, a rent increase effective on sale according to the
mediated rent schedule. See Exhibit H. It clearly purported to
apply to all Tenants the mediated rent schedule, regardless of
their presence at the mediation. It further attempted to revoke
Non 14 Tenants' right to arbitration: "There will be 1lQ
Arbitration Meeting."
The Heinrich's orally complained to Mr. Dufresne that Mr.
Dufresne had no right to surrender the Heinrich's right of
arbitration,~ a fact with which Mr. Dufresne readily agreed in
his letter of August 24, 1991 denying the mediation results, and
demanding the continuation of arbitration. See Exhibit I.
When Mr. Kelton returned, on or about September 6, 1991--one
month after the mediation--he offered a written settlement agree-
ment, attempting to reduce the mediated result to an agreement.
See Exhibit J.
(
Mr. Dufresne, in his letter of September 17, 1991, attached as
Exhibit K, again explains his reasoning for rejecting the mediated
consensus: That Mr. Kelton was attempting to include all Tenants
within its ambit, not just the 14 Affected Outgoing Tenants. He
again rejects the settlement offer and demands arbitration and
requests the Owner to provide specific information at such
arbitration.
Was the Consensus Bindina on the 14 Affected Outaoina Tenants?
It is my legal opinion that, based on the explained ground-
rules and the understanding of the parties, such consensus was,
until it was reduced to a written settlement agreement .signed by
all parties, not binding or enforceable, and could be retracted by
either of the parties for any reason without consequence.
23. In his letter of September 6, 1991, Mr. Kelton acknowledges
instructing the implementation of the settlement agreement.
24. Our rules provide that if 50% of the spaces affected by the
notice of increase consent in writing to the increase, there is no
right of arbitration. See section 9.50.070. This rule, however,
does not bind persons who were not part of the Original Group of
noticees.
omhp2 . wp
April 2, 1992
Al13 re Dufresne Complaint
Page 12
7 -/01
Subseauent Activities.
(
Upon the request of the Affected outgoing Tenants for renewal
of the arbitration effort after what they saw as the failure of
mediation, staff re-initiated the arbitration process through the
AAA.
The AAA contacted the parties to re-establish the arbitration
schedule.
On or about September 27, 1991, Mr. Dowdall, attorney for the
OWner, objected to the "re-institution" of arbitration proceedings,
seeking to avail the Owner of the mediated rent schedule, and the
non-binding agreement reached thereat.
On October 9, 1991, our Office urged the proper preparation of
such an agreement apparently believing that the objectionable
condition was the secrecy provision.~
Mr. Dufresne's Standina to continue with Arbitration.
Mr. Dufresne currently resides at the Park but not at the
Space, No. 110, which was the subject of the April rent increase.
He participated in the mediation/arbitration process as a represen-
tative of his mother's and father's Home.
In February, 1992, Mr. Dufresne sold his parent's Home at a
price which was $10,000 lower than his asking price. He feels that
the Space rent charged for the space on which the Home was located
contributed to driving down the price.
That Home has now been sold to persons who have bought the
Home and are paying the rent according to the mediated schedule.
Mr. Dufresne admits that he has not been able to contact the new
buyers, and accordingly, he does not represent them. Neither Mr.
Dufresne, nor his parent's estate, will benefit now from a reduced
rent charge which may result from arbitration. Mr. Dufresne feels
that he should be entitled to arbitrate on the basis of principal.
Group Consensus Issue
At the time of writing this report, it is unclear which of the
Original Group still has a remaining stake in the outcome of the
arbitration. The Park Manager has represented to Staff that seven
25. This was not the case. The objectionable provision was the
implied condition that the settlement agreement would apply to all
200 Tenants. Nevertheless, it was clear that the mediated result
would only apply to the 14 Tenants, and not to all Tenants.
omhp2 . wp
April 2, 1992
Al13 re Dufresne Complaint
Page 13
7 - /lJ.:<
(
.
(7) of the original 14 Affected outgoing Tenants have sold their
Homes to Affected Incoming Tenants on the basis that the rents to
the Affected Incoming Tenants would be at the "mediated rent
schedule". Due to the fact that the Owner is represented by an
attorney, I was limited in my ability to verify this information
due to the ethical rule prohibiting contact with an attorney's
client.
The Owner's attorney reported in a March 24, 1992 letter that,
while the OWner, Mr. Kelton, desires to provide direct evidence to
the Council, a "majority have assented to the terms of the accord
[mediation], whether or not formally reduced to a single integrated
settlement agreement executed thereby. The subsequently executed
rental agreements, the reduction of the rents by my client, the
addition of the amenities which were agreed to, and the form some
did in fact execute are each and all a testament to the meeting of
the minds reached by the parties. . . ."
As a result, I suspect that there are only a few signatures,
if any, on the proposed Settlement Agreement.
While I give this report little credence in light of my
request for hard, physical evidence, Mr. Dufresne himself reports,
as of March 30th, that he is having trouble getting the agreement
of the Home owners to assert the request to arbitrate.
I therefore suspect that there may be a problem in getting a
cohesive group that has standing to exercise their right to
arbitrate.
Conclusion as to the Investiqation
This, therefore, is the state of the investigation at this
time:
The right of the Affected Outgoing Tenants to arbitrate was
not lost, it did not lapse, and it did not expire. It is still
alive if they desire to exercise it. However, no one should be
required to engage in an idle act. It should therefore be a
condition to the exercise of the right to arbitration that the
parties have a continued interest in the outcome.
While I can not determine that there is still a cohesive group
that still has standing to pursue arbitration, I have asked Mr.
Dufresne to get the written consent of the remaining Group together
if he can assemble same by the City Council meeting. If he can not
do so by that time, and the City Council agrees with the recom-
mendations in this report, it shoulq be incumbent upon us to send
written notice to the original Affected Outgoing Tenants advising
them of their continued right to arbitrate the rental increase if
omhp2 . wp
April 2, 1992
A113 re Dufresne Complaint
Page 14
7-/~3
;.. .' '1
,
they desire to do so.
Unless they can demonstrate within 30 days after we give such
notice that the Required Majority of the Remaining Group still
desire to arbitrate the April, 1991 rent increase, it is my
recommendation to deem the arbitration terminated by consensus of
the group, and the mediated rents should be deemed to be in effect
for the 14 Affected Spaces.
In the event that a qualifying group can establish their right
to continue with the arbitration, and desire to do so, they should
do so forthwith with the arbitration.
(,
Reconsideration of the Rent Control Ordinance
The City Attorney has also reviewed the Mobilehome Rent
Control Ordinance in light of Mr. Dufresne I s contention that
incoming and outgoing tenants are not being given notice of the
right to arbitrate excess rent increases.
This review has produced several concerns which the city
Attorney has with the Rent Control Ordinance, identified above in
the Recommendation Section of this Report, and does not need
repetition at this point.
I would strongly recommend that our Commission evaluate such
issues in a manner that permits mobile park Owners and Tenants the
opportunity to observe and participate in the discussion.
Fiscal Impact:
We can anticipate the costs of staff and Committee time in
participating in the arbitration, and the possible costs of
litigation, and in making revisions to the Rent Control Chapter.
omhp2 . wp
April 2, 1992
Al13 re Dufresne Complaint
Page 15
7 -)~ <f
, at'
~
Exhibit List to Al13
Exhibit Letter
A. March 4, 1992 letter from Mr. Fred Dufresne of Otay Lakes
Mobi1home Lodge complaining to the city council.
B. Legal assessment of the Yee Decision and its impact on
rent control ordinances
C. A copy of the Keller Notice of rent increase.
D. June 20, 1991, letter from the AAA, through the person of
Tracey Sherman, Director of Education and Development,
offering the mediation option.
E. Letter. dated July 17 from the Community Development
Department specifying that both parties must agree to
continue with arbitration if mediation is not successful.
F. Undated, written admonition of the rules of this
particular mediation prepared by the AAA.
G. Mediator-prepared MOU
H. August 13, 1991 notice of rent increase on Space 103 (the
Heinrichs), effective on sale according to the mediated
rent schedule.
I
1. August 24, 1991 letter from Mr. Dufresne denying the
mediation results, and demanding the continuation of
arbitration.
J. September 6, 1991 proposed written settlement agreement
from Mr. Kelton.
K. September 17, 1991 letter from Mr. Dufresne explaining
his reasoning for rejecting the mediated consensus.
omhp2 . wp
April 2, 1992
Al13 re Dufresne Complaint
Page 16
7 -)~S
CHULA VISTA PARK OWNERS ASSOCIATION
April 19, 1993
Chula vista Mayor Tim Nader/Honorable City council
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Within twenty-four hours of being informed of the
situation concerning turnover rent increases to new
purchasers of mobile homes in a particular mobilehome
park, we held an emergency meeting of our association.
We quickly arrived at a consensus on several issues of
concern to all of us. In view of the fact that the past
five rears have been relatively free of turmoil and
confl~ct in our industry and before your council, we
believe that any exception to the prevailing calm and
harmony must be addressed.
In light of our good working relationship with the
council and city staff we have jumped on the situation and
have attempted to bring about a positive solution by
speaking with the park owner in question and offering our
best suggestions and ideas to him. .
In addition we respectfully submit the following
recommendations and ideas for you~ consideration:
1) In accordance with Mayor Nader's suggestion,
stronger enforcement provisions for non-compliance
with your ordinance, which has worked well.
2) A speedier method of alerting the Chula vista Park
Owners Association of existing or looming problems
on any industry problem including matters such as
turnover rental increases. This would allow for
better implementing effective peer pressure.
3) As you know, the vast majority of Chula vista park
owners have owned their businesses for many years.
In a show of understanding and good faith our
industry would again like to offer to work with
you to form a rental assistance program which would
help residents in financial need.
As a group we stand ready to work with you to resolve
problems or create greater affordable housing opportuni-
ties.
6-1610
As a demonstration of industry resolve and responsi-
bility we have made a special effort to have this proposal
endorsed by the park owners who have signed our letter to
you.
As long term Chula vista business owners we ask that
you take us up on the offer to help resolve this matter in
the best interest of all parties involved.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
CHULA VISTA PARK OWNERS ASSOCIATION
I-~~~CL: ~
Betty Beck
CABRILLO MOBILE LODGE
I---
Roy Muraoka
PALACE GARDEN MOBILE HOME PARK
7~~~
Joe Blake
EL MIRADOR
~~
Esequiel Campos
FLAMINGO TRAILER PARK
7- JD7
L
Steven Luecht
FARM HOUSE TRAILER PARK
7t;~ f()y;~
Marie Kae Mero
CHULA VISTA MOBILEHOME PARK
?!~ /~
Luis Cacho
DON-LUIS MOBILE ESTATES
~/L.4
Ralph Fogerty
FOGERTY BROTHERS TRAILER PARK
Bert Epsten
LYNWOOD SOUTH MOBILE ESTATES
(J?~~ /~
Richard Birdsell
TERRY'S MOBILE HOME
CONTINENTAL COUNTRY
5 & 10 MOBILE RANCH
PARK
CLUB
Jerry Fick
CARAVAN TRAILER PARK
ROSE ARBOR MOBILE HOME PARK
... n
Cd d~~
(- I D't
<~p
Lois Hines
THUNDERBIRD MOBILE HOME PARK
K~,rJ-v,'~"~~
Robert Vessel
RANCHO BONITA MOBILE HOME PARK
~
----........---- .
=---~
_...__.._......- ,:z...---"
c--- stacy argo
GEORGEANNA MOBILE
PARK
<
-'.,'
',.~;..,.~
l-t~
TO
FROM
PHONE NO.
4765310
APR. 6.1993 8:57AM P 2
TCi I'V\ c; ( C1
SocArJ,
~ 1
(.:p...l/ ,;
rc,f
WIII\IIBRS lOR 1993 Fa POB'l'BP. CON'l'Bs".
~ >Gi p
.... i. a.f .....r.
5-6 GJlADB DIVrBI01II
Karina Oero0h1er
Daniel Gou1arte
Jeffrey xamansky
Valley ViR"
Valley Viota
valley Viota
6th gr..de
6th grade
5th c;p:ade
Min Weole)'
Hiaa Weol"1'
MO IricSge.
3-4 GRADI DIVIII01II
JellJlifer Il1is
Vivi..n !Coreno
Yoohiea K""koea
Or..de 4
Grade ..
Grade 4
Boye & oirla Club
Valley Viet..
V..ney V18t..
Hr Tom Normand
M".. Corder
Hr. Cautie1d
K-2 ORADE DIVISION I
A.hley M.....1)'
D..vid Hanso
Sylvi.. Sprackin
KLndagu1:an
Gr..de 2
Grade 2
_ Hilltop
YIIC!A Hilltop
YMCA Roaeb..nk
A opaoial recovnition will b. given in plaCe of a GRAND PRIZI
Speoial Recognitionl
Hueller SohoOl
Bara cavasos Grade Ii
HONOP.l\.BLII KaIl'l'IONS
1. I....a .:rone. Grade S Hr. Roccoforte Valley ViRa
a. Apryl ...ith Grade Ii Kr. Borlland BOyS " CUrl. C1""b
3. Cynthia QI<'OVBII Or..de S Kr. Roaaoforte V..lley Vieta
4. Ruban Hendez Gr..de 5 XB. Iridge. vaney Viata
Ii. Phillip Hurray Crade S Ha. Iddg.. v..ney Vieta
6. Jr. lI_ht Grade S Hs. Wesley Vdley Vista
7. Kyle B..nano Grade 4 Hr. Iannaaon. Valley Vieta
8. J_. chandler Gr..de 2 I'_oter nlCA
9. ~indoey Cardenao Grade a ROBebank YMCA
10. ..~a ca...~ Grade Ii Ka. "'"ieukiwl.tz M""eUer Bahool
(Also receivtKl. speoial ReoOgnition)
7-1/(>
,1-'15),
I '.) ;
l, ,)
v
EXHI BIT G
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
April 13, 1993
FROM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
John D. Goss, City Manager~
( S.
Chris Salomone, Community evelopment Directorl/-
TO:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
Mayor's Comments - Enforcement of the Mobile Home
Ordinance
For the Council Meeting of April 13, 1993, the Mayor placed under
his comments the enforcement of the mobile home ordinance. It is
staff's understanding that the Mayor is concerned that Chapter
9.50 of the Chula vista Municipal Code, which is entitled
Mobilehome Park Space Rent Review, does not contain any express
provisions for enforcement.
As the Chapter is currently structured, the best remedy to any
violation is a civil action filed by a park tenant instead of a
criminal prosecution undertaken by the City Attorney. It is
staff's understanding that the Mayor has received complaints from
tenants, in a particular park, who have expressed discontent with
this structure. The Chapter could be modified to address this
situation, if the Council chooses. Staff has prepared changes
which could be brought back to the Council in the form an
ordinance amending Chapter 9.50 within two ~eeks. These proposed
changes are attached as Exhibit A. If Chapter 9.50 is modified
to reflect the changes described in Exhibit A, any past .
violations of the Chapter would not be prosecutable. Instead, a
new violation would have to be committed, after the amending
ordinance is effective, before the City Attorney could prosecute.
Staff does not believe any changes to Chapter 9.50 are
appropriate at this time since staff is currently evaluating the
Chapter and expects to recommend considerable changes to the
Mobile Home Rent Review Commission and the Council within the
next two months. until these changes can be presented to the
Council, the Chapter does provide a legal method, in the form of
a civil action, for tenants to address any threats to their
tenancy. Also, any prosecutions undertaken as a result of the
changes described in Exhibit A would require, at a minimum,
approximately 16 hours of staff time.
7-~
EXHIBIT A
Add the following to section 9.50.070 (C)
Park owner's failure to timely deposit funds, sufficient
funds, or to sign an appropriate document submitting the
dispute to arbitration shall constitute a violation of this
section and shall constitute a waiver of the proposed
increase above the applicable CPl.
Add section 9.50.120 Remedies.
A. Any person who demands, accepts, or retains any
payment of rent in violation of the provisions of
this Chapter shall be liable in a civil action to
the person from whom such payment is demanded,
accepted, or retained for damages in the sum of
three (3) times the amount by which the payment or
payments demanded, accepted, or retained exceed the
maximum rent which could be lawfully demanded,
accepted, or retained together with reasonable
attorney's fees and costs as determined by the
Court.
B. Any person violating any of the provisions of this
Chapter shall be guilty of a criminal offense and
shall be punishable in the manner provided by
Chapter 1.20 of the Chula vista Municipal Code.
~~
.
.
{}
~l
.
From the Office of the city Attorney
city of Chula vista j), ,
Memorandum 1\ -e v I "), c..>'>\
G'Y) cl ~ C<. s
\In ed.\ "")
f{C<.e.f!..~
a..-+
Date:
April 20, 1993
From:
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney
Mayor and Councilmembers
Summary of Proposed changes to Mobilehome Rent
Regulation Ordinance
To:
Re:
The proposed changes to the Mobilehome Rent Regulation Chapter
contain the features herein summarized. The numbers correspond
to the circled numbers handwritten on the April 19, 1993 version
of the changes.
1. The Council establishes, for the first time, a purpose to
have rent regulation as follows:
a. Preserve affordable housing supply.
. b. Prevent rent gouging and economic eviction of immobile
tenant population.
c. Prevent loss of value on sale caused by rent
regulation.
2. Exempts from rent regulation those parks required to regulate
rents at "affordable levels" through use of Redevelopment Agency
tax increment, 20% set aside, funds.
3. Removes reference to "Greene Bill" leases, which has proved
confusing.
4. Defines what a Mobilehome Park is, in accordance with state
law.
5. Separates vacancy control provisions from normal rent control
provisions. Normal rent control provisions are contained in
section 9.50.065.
6. Vacancy decontrol provisions are contained in section
9.50.067. It was necessary to segregate out vacancy control
provisons, because it was previously ambiguous if both the
incoming and outgoing Resident had separate rights to arbitrate
the same rental increase, a problem not existant in normal rent
control provisions (there is no new tenant).
7. The opportunity for an outgoing tenant and the park owner to
7--75
.
.
agree to a rental increase applicable to the incoming tenant is
removed.
8. Now, the incoming tenant has a right to arbitrate only if the
outgoing resident fails to arbitrate the rental increase in good
faith. But if he does, the incoming tenant won't get a "second
bite at the apple."
9. The "Group Concept" is eliminated. Under the "Group
Concept", a group of tenants affected by a rental increase could
bind the minority members to an increase amount. This could lead
to manipulation by the Park Owner in obtaining greater than CPI
increases against otherwise objecting tenants.
9A. with the consent of both parties, the Owner and the Tenant,
the two stage arbitration procedure can be circumvented.
10. This change makes the decision
not appealable to the City Council.
having the Council agenda cluttered
arbitrations.
of the Commission final and
The purpose is to avoid
with a substantial number of
11. This deletion shows where the vacancy control provisions
used to be contained. They have now been moved to a new section
9.50.067.
12. See the addendum of factors to consider in fixing the rent.
There are two that may be controversial:
A. The first one allows the Commission to set the rent at a
figure which takes into account the need to generate a reasonable
rate of return on the Owner's investment.
B. The second one allows the Commission to consider the
impact of the proposed rent on the resale value of the
Mobilehome.
13. The section establishes how a rental increase is "fixed" and
quantified:
(A) by consent if possible
(B) by arbitration in consent does not work
(C) by default if either party fails to pursue arbitration
(D) by waiver if the Owner refuses to accept a validly
tendered rent payment.
(E) by waiver if the Owner fails to pursue litigation in
three months.
14. This section will help the Council achieve the"purpose of
providing affordable housing by controlling escalation "of coach
resale prices above the level that might exist in the absence of
rent regulation. The proposal is to determine that this is not a
substantial problem, and that a permissive mediation process is
set up to regulate the problem.
7-7'
.
15. This section makes it a criminal violation to knowingly
demand a higher rent than that which is due, or to knowing
institute or threaten to institute eviction proceedings. We did
not want to make knowing refusal to participate in arbitration a
criminal act because it would stimulate more arbitrations when
waiver of rights to rent increases would be an adequate remedy.
16. In addition to criminal penalties, this section grants a
person who is victimized by excessive rent demands the right to
civilly remedies in the amount of overcharge damages and treble
damages, attorney's fees and costs.
17. This addition gives the Commission the right to hear non-
rent disputes such as if a "waiver" has occured, or if future
rents should be reduced by Overcharge or Treble Damages.
17.
7"77
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
ItemL
Meeting Date 4/20/93
Ordinance ~.n. of the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista imposing as an interim and urgency measure, a requirement that for
a period of 90 days any proposal to expand or modify alcohol sales in
the C-N zone is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in
accordance with the provisions of CVMC Section 19.14.030(6)
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning &C
REVIEWED BY: City Managerff
(4/5ths Vote: Yes X No_)
At the meeting of April 13, 1993, Council expressed concern with the fact that the City's
recently adopted ordinance requiring a conditional use permit for alcohol sales facilities in the
C-N zone does not distinguish between the extent or amount of alcohol sales or between the
sale of beer/wine and hard liquor. Thus a previously approved or "grandfathered" facility in
the C-N zone could expand or modify their operations without local review and approval.
Staff was directed to return in one week with a draft amendment which would provide for local
review and approval in such cases.
The Mayor further asked for a status report on an application to ABC by Bobar Market at 72
East "J" Street to add hard liquor to their existing beer and wine license. According to the
Police Department, the application was officially withdrawn on April 6.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the interim urgency ordinance.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
It is believed the expansion or modification of alcohol sales in the C-N zone may have an
adverse impact on the public health, safety, and welfare as it relates to an over-concentration
of alcohol sales and the resulting impact on crime in the surrounding area. Adoption of the
interim urgency ordinance would provide for local review and approval of such proposals for
a period of 90 days pending the processing and consideration by the Planning Commission and
City Council of a permanent amendment to the Code to provide for local review and approval
in such cases.
The adoption of this ordinance requires a four-fifths (4/5ths) vote.
FISCAL IMP ACT: Not applicable.
WPC F:\home\planning\820.93
8'-/
ORDINANCE NO.
~r~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA IMPOSING, AS AN INTERIM AND URGENCY
MEASURE, A REQUIREMENT THAT FOR A PERIOD OF
NINETY (90) DAYS ANY PROPOSAL TO EXPAND OR MODIFY
ALCOHOL SALES IN THE CN ZONE IS SUBJECT TO THE
ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CVMC SECTION
19.14.030(6)
WHEREAS, on April 3, 1993, the City Council expressed concern with the fact that the City's
recently adopted ordinance requiring a conditional use permit for alcohol sales facilities in the C-N zone
(ordinance no. 2526) does not distinguish between the extent or amount of alcohol sales or between the
sale of beer/wine and hard liquor, and
WHEREAS, a previously approved or "grandfathered" alcohol sales facility in the C-N zone can
therefore expand or modify their operations without local review and approval, and
WHEREAS, the expansion or modification of alcohol sales in the C-N zone may have an adverse
impact on the public health, safety, and welfare as it relates to an over-concentration of alcohol sales and
the resulting impact on crime in the surrounding area, and
WHEREAS, it will require ninety (90) days to process and consider a permanent amendment to
the ordinance to provide for local review and approval of such facilities, and
WHEREAS, an interim urgency ordinance is necessary to maintain the public safety, health and
welfare because of the potential that the expansion or modification of alcohol sales in the C-N wne could
occur without the opportunity for local review to determine if such expansion or modification would
result in an over-concentration of alcohol sales and an adverse impact on crime in the surrounding area.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.34.030 is amended to read as follows:
CHAPTER 19.34
C-N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE
19.34.030
Conditional uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in the C-N zone, provided a conditional use permit is issued
in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.14.060:
A. Automobile service stations, in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.58.280;
B. Sale of beer or other alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises only where the sale
is incidental with the sale of food;
C. Electrical substations and gas regulator stations, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.140;
D. Unclassified uses, see Chapter 19.54;
B",)"
E. Roof-mounted satellite dishes subject to the standards set forth in Section 19.30.040;
F. Recycling collection centers, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.340;
G. Automated, drive-through car washes in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.58.060;
H. Establishments contained in the list of permitted uses above, but which include the sale of
alcoholic beverages for off-site use or consumption, includinl! any new facilities and any facilities
which orooose to exoand the area devoted to alcohol sales or chanl!e the tyoe of alcoholic
beveral!e sold. in accordance with the procedures in Section 19.14.030;
1. Liquor store (package, off sale only), in accordance with the procedures in Section 19.14.090.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be in effect for a period of ninety (90) days after its
adoption unless otherwise shortened or extended by ordinance.
SECTION 3. The City staff and City Planning Commission are hereby directed to prepare and
consider an amendment to the Municipal Code which would require a Conditional Use Permit for the
expansion or modification of alcohol sales in the C-N zone, and to forward said amendment to the City
Council for consideration prior to the expiration date of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. A current and immediate threat exists to the public health, safety and welfare
because without a local review and approval process, alcohol sales facilities in the C-N zone may be
allowed to expand or modify their operations in a manner which has an adverse impact on the
surrounding area.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this ordinance by a vote
of at least four-fifths of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal
Code 19.12.130; shall cause the same to be entered in the book of original ordinances of the City; shall
make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council
at which time the same is passed and adopted; and shall, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and
adoption thereof, cause the same to be published in the Chula Vista Star News, a newspaper of general
circulation, published and circulated in the City and which is here designated for that purpose.
ruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
~CP
Submitted by:
Robert Leiter
Planning Director
WPC F:\home\p1annin&\822.93
y;,J
m
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C~\\e:~\~ 1='~ f7\.COt\O~ ~A~
!~~~~~~\t~ t;~~~as !~ted :t~~ cha~~. 12~~~;
prior code 133.1302(A).
19.14.030 7-n,g......n,;-.tar-Adiom autborir.ecI wiIhout public bearing.
The Zoning Administrator is au~orized to conlider and to approve, disapprove or modify applications
on ~e foUowing subjects, anellor issue the foUo~ required permits ~~out letting the matter for a public
bearing:
A. Conditional use permit: The Zoning Administrator shall be empowered to issue conditional use
permits, as defined herein, in the fono~g circumstances: ..
1. Where the use to be permitted does not involve the COnltruction of a new building or other
substantialstructura1 improvements on the property in question.
2. Where the use requiring the permit would make use of an existing building and does not involve
substantial remodeling ~ereof.
3. For signs, as defined herein, and tempol'alY tract houses, as limited berein.
4. The Zoning Administrator is authorized to consider and to approve, deny, or modify applications
for conditional use permits for camivals and circuses. The Zoning Mmini.trator shall set ~e
matter for public hearing in the manner provided herein.
S. Churches.
6. Establishments that include ~e sale of alcoholic beverages for off.site use or consumption,
located in the C.N zone. The Zoning Administrator sha1l hold a public hearing in accordance
~th Sections 19.14.06Q.19.14.090 upon living notice thereof in accordance ~th Sections
19.12.070.19.12.080. A conditional use permit shall not be granted unless the Zoning
Administrator 'or other issuing authori~ finds' in his or ber sole discretion, and based on
substantial evidence in view of the entire record, that all of the facts required by Section
19.14.080 exist, and that approval of the permit ~ not result in an overconcentration of such
facilities. Overconcentration may be found to exist based on (1) the number and location of
existing facilities; (2) compliance ~th State Alcohol Beverage Control overconcentration
standards in effect at the time of project cOnlideration; (3) ~e impact of the proposed facili~ on
crime; and (4) the impact of the proposed facili~ on traffic volume and traffic flow. The Police
Department or other appropriate Ci~ departments may provide evidence at the hearing. A permit
to operate may be restricted by any reasonable conditions including but not limited to limitations
on hours of operation.
The Ci~ Council shall be informed of the decision on each such permit by the Ci~ Clerk when
the decision is filed in accordance ~th Section 19.14.090. The decision of the Zoning
Administrator may be appealed.
Such appeal shall be directed to the Ci~ Council, rather ~ ~e Planning Commission, and must
be filed ~thin ten (10) days after the decision is filed ~~ ~e Ci~ Clerk, as provided in Section
19.14.100. U appealed ~thin the time limit, said appeal shall be considered in a public hearing
conducted by the Ci~ Council, in the same manner as other appeals pursuant to Sections
19.14.120 and 19.14.130, acept that the Council must make the same written findings required
of the Zoning Administrator herein, in order to p-ant ~e permit.
1113 8" r
(R 9/92)
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item e;
Meeting Date 4/20/93
ITEM TITLE:
Ordinance .15~:1 Amending Schedule X, Section 10.48.050 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code - Decreasing State Law Maximum Speed Limits in
Certain Areas - Paseo Ranchero and Buena Vista Way
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manage\)i ~ ~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X)
Paseo Ranchero and Buena Vista Way north of East H Street are both new collector streets constructed
by the McMillin Development Company in 1990 in conjunction with the Rancho Del Rey Phase II
construction. Since these streets do not have any fronting businesses or residences, the unposted prima
facia speed limit is 55 MPH. Recent traffic surveys revealed the 85th percentile speed is 36 MPH on
Paseo Ranchero and 43 MPH on Buena Vista Way. In the interest of public safety, the City Engineer
is recommending that Paseo Ranchero and Buena Vista Way north of East H Street be posted for 35
MPH.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council place the ordinance on first reading.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
In the interest of minimizing traffic hazards and congestion and for the purpose of the promotion of
public safety, the City Engineer is recommending that the subject locations be posted at 35 MPH as
shown on the following table.
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 10.48.050
SCHEDULE X - DECREASED SPEED LIMITS IN CERTAIN AREAS
Proposed Speed
Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Limit
Paseo Ranchero East H Street Rancho del Roy Parlcway 3S MPH
Buena Vista Way East H Street Rancho del Rey Parlcway 3S MPH
Paseo Ranchero
A traffic and engineering study, as required by State law, was conducted by staff and it was determined that the
85th percentile speeds on Paseo Ranchero is 36 MPH between East H Street and Rancho del Rey Parkway.
9"1
Page 2, ltemL
Meeting Date 4/20/92
Paseo Ranchero is a collector street and does not have a posted speed limit. Based on the above mentioned traffic
studies, the design speed of less than 40 MPH, the proximity of a secondary education school, the future addition
of YMCA athletic facilities, and the horizontal curvilinear alignment of the roadway, it has been determined that
the speed limit shall be posted at 35 MPH.
Buena Vista Way
A traffic and engineering study, as required by State law, was conducted by staff and it was determined that the
85th percentile speeds on Buena Vista Way is 43 MPH between East H Street and Rancho del Rey Parkway.
Buena Vista Way is a collector street and does not have a posted speed limit. Based on the above mentioned
traffic studies, the design speed of 35 M'PH, the immediately adjacent Discovery Park, and the horizontal
curvilinear alignment of the roadway, it has been determined that the speed limit shall be posted at 35 MPH, and
the one curve in the segment be posted with curve warning signs with 25 MPH advisory speed plates as per the
ball-bank indicator tests.
The speed surveys for this section were taken on a tangent portion of the roadway where both approaches are
down hill into a swale..thus the speeds are higher than is truly representative of the entire segment. Farther north
in this segment is a horizontal curve with a 300' radius and a design speed of 30 MPH. The vertical curve design
speed for the entire segment has been calculated at 35 MPH. The other collector standard roadways in this area
being Paseo Ranchero and Rancho del Rey Parkway are also posted at 35 MPH under the same type of design
criteria.
FISCAL IMPACT: $100 for speed limit signs.
Attachments: Area Plats
EngineeringlTraffic Survey
WPC F:\home\enginccr\agenda\paaranch.bvw
File: CY..(f27
9" ,,2.
ORDINANCE NO. ~~~
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SCHEDULE X, SECTION
10.48.050 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE -
DECREASING STATE LAW MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS IN
CERTAIN AREAS - PASEO RANCHERO AND BUENA VISTA
WAY
WHEREAS, the Traffic Engineer performed Traffic and
Engineering surveys on Paseo Ranchero and Buena vista as required
by state law; and
WHEREAS, in the interest of minimizing traffic hazards
and congestion and for the purpose of the promotion of public
safety, the City Engineer is recommending that the subject
locations be posted at 35 MPH.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the city of Chula
vista does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Schedule X of section 10.48.050 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code, Decreasing State Law Maximum Speed
Limits in certain Areas, is hereby amended to include the following
changes on Paseo Ranchero and Buena vista Way:
SCHEDULE X -
DECREASING STATE LAW MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS IN
CERTAIN AREAS
Name of Beainnina Endina At
Street At
Paseo East H Rancho del
Ranchero Street Rey Parkway
Buena vista East H Rancho del
Way Street Rey Parkway
Speed
Limit
35 MPH
35 MPH
SECTION II: This ordinance sha
full force on the thirtieth day from an
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Bruce M.
Attorney
Presented by
F:\home\attomey\pasranch
~~:J Iq..~
./
'"
l>
'"'
n
l>
DR olIWH BY
s.v.
TIT L E
D~TE'I 22
- -13
-----
9"..1"
AREA
PLAT
.
SPEED LIMIT--ENGINEERING/TRAFFIC SURVEY:
STREET:
LIMITS:
Pas eo Ranchero
East "H" Street - Rancho Dp-l Rey ParkwRv
Existing Posted Speed Limit
l1npn~rPOn
MPH
S1lMMttB.Y OF SPEED SURVEYS
Segment:
Date Taken:
No Vehicles on Sample:
85th Percentile Speed:
Range of Speeds Recorded:
East "H'" Street - Rancho Del Rev Parkwav
3/15/93
100
36 MPH
20-42 MPH
ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Width
64
feet No. of Lanes for Both Directions
4
Horhontal Alignment 500' = Rmin.
Vertical Alignment 2% maximum grade
TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
Averagepaily Traffic 6,980
On-Street Parking not allowed
Special Conditions Bike lane on both sides of the street.
Accident History No reported accidents within this segment.
~Y RESULTS
Study was Prepared by
John Montes de Oca
Date
3 -- 19 -- 93
Recommendation
Establish 35 mph speed limit
3--15--
98 ,--t,
Date Recommendation Approved: 03 --2.3 --"f3
By 73i.~ X. /Z;..;.vu-
Approved Speed Limit 35
Per evc 40803, Survey Expires
[C:\ WP51\TRAFFIC.FRM]
MPH
,
,
}..
-
~
..
~
,..4
.."
.
~~
)
'+~
I!Rl\WN BY
/
/
,
----------
s.v.
o An' 8-22-13
--- ------
.......
o
~
/\i;
\\
\~
'\;;;?'
TIT L E
9.. 7 AREA
PLAT
,
SPEED LIMIT--ENGINEERlNGjTRAFFIC SURVEY:
STREET: Buena Vista Way
LIMITS: East "H" Street - Rancho Del Rey Pkwy.
Existing Posted Speed Limit unposted MPH
SllMMARY OF SPEED SURVEYS
Segment: East "H" Street - Rancho Del Rey Pkwy
Date Taken: 3/15/93
No Vehicles on Sample: 100
85th Percentile S-Peed: 43 mph'
Range of Speeds Recorded: 24-49 moh
BQd.lL.WAY CHARACTERISTICS
Width
40-52
feet No. of Lanes for Both Directions
2
Horizontal Alignment 300' = Rmin.
Vertical Alignment +8.52% to +2% over 250' V.C. (design speed 35 mph)
TRAFF.IC CHARACTER/STICS
.
Average Dally Traffic 1,420
On-Street Parking Not allowed
Special Conditions Park on the north side of the street. There is a bike lane on
both sides of the roadway.
Accident History
The accident rate at this segment (1.74 accidents per million
vehicle miles) is lower than the average rate (2.48) for similar roadways in the
State of California.
S1l.lll!BY RESULTS
Study was Prepared by
John Montes De Oca
Date
3 -- 19.. 93
Recommendation
Establish 35 mph speed limit
3.. 15..
98 Co""
"'1"6
Date Recommendation Approved: D 3 ..2.3 u '13
By 7,.,.~ X. ~
Approved Speed Limit 35
Per evc 40803, Survey Expires
[C:\WP51\TRAFFlC.FRM]
MPH
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
ItJ
Meeting Date 4/20/93
ITEM TITLE:
. "tJ7'l .
ResolutIOn to authonze the Mayor to execute on behalf of the
City a Memorandum of Understanding with the San Diego County
Water Authority for the CW A Public Institutions Retrofit Program.
SUBMITTED BY:
Environmental Resource M~,~
Director of Public Works 'frt/
City Manager J~ ~'~I (4/5th's Vote: Yes_No--.J
REVIEWED BY:
In July 1992, the City responded to a request from the County Water Authority (CW A) to
apply for grant funding under the Public Institutions Retrofit Program funded by CW A. In
response, the County Water Authority, in cooperation with its member water agencies, has
chosen the City of Chula Vista as a program participant. The retrofit program is designed to
provide financial support to those public agencies who require funding assistance in
purchasing 1.6 gallon per flush, ultra-low flow toilets for use in its public facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize approval of a Memorandum of Understanding for participation in the Public
Institutions Retrofit Program between the City and the San Diego County Water Authority, as
attached for the purchase and installation of 42 ultra-low flow toilets, to be reimbursed by the
CWA.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: not applicable
DISCUSSION:
The City of Chula Vista, under the Public Institutions Retrofit Program of the County Water
Authority, will retrofit forty two 3.5 - 5 gallon toilets in city facilities with ultra-low flow 1.6
gallon toilets (ULFTs), including 16 that are designed for the physically-challenged. The
Public Institutions Retrofit Program is designed to offer select public agencies direct funding
assistance to purchase 1.6 gallon ultra-low flow toilets for use in their public facilities. Under
this program, the City will replace existing high volume flush toilets for CW A - approved
ULFTs in order to achieve substantial water savings. It will be the responsibility of the City
to procure the toilets. Upon submittal of an invoice the CW A will reimburse the City for the
1
/P'I
cost of the toilets and the hardware materials needed to complete the retrofit. Other public
agency participants include the Cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Santee, and San Diego, which
received 25, 9, 10-15, and 787, respectively.
Recently staff conducted an informal survey of the City's public facilities, and as a result,
staff plans to retrofit facilities with the highest level of consistent use. Therefore, the
following buildings will be retrofitted under this program:
Buildin~
Number of toilets to be retrofitted
City Hall
Police Department
Library
Public Services
5
8
19
10
As a condition to participate in this program, the City must enter into an agreement with the
CW A. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will be provided by the CW A and is to be
signed by both parties. The CW A's role is that of financial supporter. The CW A is not
expected to contribute in-kind staff, such as installation assistance. City staff will be
conducting the installation for the City. CW A staff will provide program implementation and
advisory support during the program. City staff will provide historical and post-installation
water consumption data and survey information to the CW A after installation of the ultra-low
flow toilets.
In order to comply with the County Water Authority's program, the City must submit an
invoice no later than May 1 st, 1993 to be considered for reimbursement. Staff went into an
informal bidding process, requested bids from three local supply companies, and accepted the
lowest bid, from lA. Sexauer, which met specifications for the total cost of $7,738. Staff
also received a higher bid from Standard Plumbing at a cost of $8,151. Valley Industrial
Supply responded with a lower bid than Sexauer, but it was turned in after deadline, and did
not meet staff's specifications requested in the bid. The City plans to purchase commercial
flush valve wall mount toilets, and the inital cost per toilet is $184.22; after CW A
reimbursement there will be no City expenditures needed for the retrofit Upon Council
approval, and subsequent acceptance of our invoice by the CW A, staff will install the toilets
immediately after delivery.
EXISTING ULlRA-LOW FLOW TOILETS IN CllY BUILDINGS
The City of Chula Vista currently utilizes 22 residential tank ultra low flow toilets 1.6 gallon
toilets and 5 flush valve commercial ULFTs. The Public Works Department, in charge of
maintenance of the bathrooms, has reported no problems or abnormal stoppages due to any
of these retrofits. Staff has reported a slight improvement in the Eldorado Building after the
1.6 gallon toilet retrofit took place. Because the County Water Authority plans to continue
this program for the next five years, the City plans to continue submitting proposals over the
2
I p... ;L
coming years to eventually retrofit all public buildings operated by the City of Chula Vista.
Two years ago, the City installed six residential 1.6 gallon ultra-low flow toilets in Fire
Station 1 and two residential 1.6 gallon toilets in the Community Development offices.
Additionally, low flow toilets have been installed in other buildings throughout the City.
These, as shown on attached map, include:
LOCA nON Ii. TOILET TYPE
1. Fire Station 1 6 residential - tank
2. Fire Station 2 2 residential - tank
3. Fire Station 5 3 residential - tank
4. Norman Park Ctr 5 flush valve - commercial
5. Rohr Manor 3 residential - tank
6. Rohr Maintenance 2 residential - tank
7. Lorna Verde Pool 2 residential - tank
8. Eldorado Building 2 residential - tank
9. Community Dev 2 residential - tank
FISCAL IMPACT: The total cost, excluding labor, for retrofitting the four buildings will
initially be $7,738.00. Until reimbursement is received from County Water Authority funds,
funds are available in the Construction and Repair Minor CIP account. Reimbursement of the
$7,738.00 according to the CW A, should be completed one month after City staff submits a
final invoice to the County Water Authority.
3
10- J / 10-1f
RESOLUTION NO.
17t;??
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING WITH THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
AUTHORITY FOR THE CWA PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS
RETROFIT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, in July 1992, the city responded to a request
from the county Water Authority (CWA) to apply for grant funding
under the Public Institutions Retrofit Program funded by CWA; and
WHEREAS, in response, the county Water Authority, in
cooperation with its member water agencies, has chosen the city of
Chula vista as a program participant; and
WHEREAS, the retrofit program is designed to provide
financial support to those public agencies who require funding
assistance in purchasing 1.6 gallon per flush, ultra-low flow
toilets for use in its public facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby authorize the Mayor to execute
on behalf of the city a Memorandum of Understanding with the San
Diego county Water Authority for the CWA Public Institutions
Retrofit Program, a copy of which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in f 1.
Barbara Bamberger, Environmental
Resource Manager
asr'
Presented by
F:\home\aUomey\MOU.CW A
j/),f'
~ Son Diego CO~~!.r,,~oter Authority
3211 Fifth Avenue. San Diego, California 92103-5718
(619) 297-3218 FAX (619) 297-0511
April 6, 1.993
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA'S
ROLE AS COOPERATOR IN THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY'S PUBLIC
INSTITUTIONS CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The intent of this Memorandum of Understanding between the San
Diego County Water Authority (hereinafter referred to as AUTHORITY)
and the City of Chula Vista .(hereinafter referred to as CITY) is to
set forth the respective roles of the AUTHORITY and the CITY in
regards to the AUTHORITY'S Public Institutions Conservation
Assistance Program (hereinafter referred to as PROGRAM).
The PROGRAM (which for purposes of this agreement will mean
that portion of the program solely under the jurisdiction and
authority of the CITY) involves the installation of 1.6 gallon per
flush ultra-low flush toilets (ULFTs). It is expected that
approximately 42 ULF toilets will be made available to the CITY for
installation in various public facilities.
It is also expected that the actual cost of the ULF toilets
and incidental installation materials will be provided by the
AUTHORITY. Device installation will be the sole responsibility of
the CITY and will take place in a timely manner. Only ULF toilets
listed as approved on the current San Diego County Water Authority-
Approved ULF Toilet List (attached) will be funded for retrofit.
If existing sewer fixtures/lines cannot accommodate any of the
approved, listed toilets, written notice explaining why a
particular, unapproved 1.6 gallon per flush toilet model was
selected must be presented to the AUTHORITY for approval Drior to
toilet purchase.
The AUTHORITY will develop and execute all agreements
necessary for the operation of the PROGRAM.
1. The AUTHORITY'S role is that of financial supporter. The
AUTHORITY is not expected to contribute "in-kind"
services, such as installation assistance. AUTHORITY
staff will provide program implementation and
advisory support during the PROGRAM.
2. The AUTHORITY will pay the CITY an amount not to
exceed $7,737.58 (which includes the cost of associated
installation materials) .
MEMBER .AGENClES
ClTffS
. D~I I,',or . hcood:",-, . Not,o~,,1 (;'1
. Oc.o",.Oe . Pc.....ay . Son D,~~Q
IRRIGATION DISTRICTS
. Sania F. . Sou!~ Boy
COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
.Volleci'o.
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICTS
. Bueno'Colorodo . ~o;noow
. Ccrhbod . Ramono
.OI.V<'nhoic. . Rincon del D,,,blo
. P"d'e Dom . Volley C""'er
. Yu;mo
COUNTY
o Son Diego
(e. officio)
PUBLIC UTIlITY DISTRICT
A " o FollbfOO'
WATER_DISTRICTS ."
. He!.. . Oloy FEDERAL AGENCY
.SanD'..g~do ~ . Pendleton Military Re.ervotion
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
3. The AUTHORITY shall provide the CITY with all
promotional or informational pamphlets or publications
prepared in conjunction with the PROGRAM.
4. The CITY agrees to indemnify and hold harmless
the AUTHORITY, its Board of Directors, officers, and
employees, from any and all claims, damages and losses,
including attorney fees, arising out of the conduct or
operation of the PROGRAM, provided however, that the
CITY'S duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not
include any claims or liability arising from the sole
negligence or willful misconduct of the AUTHORITY, its
Board of Directors, officers, and employees.
5. The CITY shall receive recognition and credit for its
participation in the PROGRAM which is equal to that
received by other participating agencies.
6. The CITY shall provide the AUTHORITY with monthly
reports which document the number of ULF toilet
installations completed in CITY facilities.
7. The CITY shall provide the AUTHORITY or its
authorized representative with water use data as required
to evaluate this PROGRAM which includes, but is not
limited to, toilet installation records, historical and
post-installation water use records, and any other
reasonable and necessary data required to evaluate the
water savings of the PROGRAM (see attached form).
8. The AUTHORITY and the CITY may desire to renew this
Memorandum of Understanding for additional one year
periods under the terms and conditions herein stated
contingent upon the mutual agreement of the AUTHORITY and
the CITY, to be confirmed sixty days prior to
termination of the initial contract period or any renewal
periods exercised.
If the above terms and conditions are acceptable to you, sign
in the space provided below and return both original, signed
documents to:
San Diego County Water Authority
3211 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92103
Attention: Maria G. Mariscal
THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY
WATER AUTHORITY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By
By
Lester A. Snow
General Manager
/I)..?
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY
WATER AUTHORITY
By
Deputy General Counsel
Enclosures
MGM\publcmou
IIJ"'~
u
If
.!:!
:is
:=
a..
~
ell
"if
l!!
~
lS
'~
"l
~
~
"
~
:E: ~
~ i
'C
J: '"
..;z z z
5: ?:-
li; ~ -
'13
Cii ~
::
~ ~
cS
Cl
~ ~
~ i5
c
'" r?l
c
i= ~
is
i5
c ~
r?l
'0 ~
?:- 'll5
<:5 '5
cO ..;;;- ~ !
d. !
~ I ~
.;,; a; !
8 ~ = ill
Z z t= l-
I "'5 j U U 13 U
l\1 ~ .!lI .!lI .!lI
'" ~ ~ ~
z
o
c
~
1Il
.,>-
8
.91
Io!
Q.
....
~
~
'"
j
c
'c
lit
't:l
c
~
0>
,5
c
'"
!l!
.:g
5:
'i'j
.!lI
ell
,EO
~
.,;
o 0
Z Z
.,
8 1Il
ell >-
'E
&
~
~
=
"
1
"
'"
c
'"
ell
.2
~ -
~
'"
:;;
:s2
c
'C
0-
'"
~
~
o'
'"
=
ci
-
cO
'"
"
.!./
:s
~
?:- ~
'a
't:l
~ ell e
Cii
E ~
'i'j 'x
.!lI e ~
., lS:
:s 'u
'" .!!!
OJ '" ~
~ ...
<.:l
,!!!
~ ~ ""
~ 'u ~
>- .!lI :;;
= '"
c. ~ 0-
~ '"
'0 >-
i3 '"
'" 't:l
e 0> >-
'" :li ~.
'" "
~ " ~
:is
8- "
:S 0- ",'
~ ~ 0>
e '" ,!!! I!!
0. E ~
?:-~ ~ '"
=~ 8
"
~ ...: N M
....
l!
.s
'"
~
8.
~
~
~
""
$
~
8-
!:!.
{l
>-
c
~
~
""
~
~
]
.,
;S
.Iii
!!l
'" !l!
~l
'0 ~
~I
~if
~
>-
]j
~
~
~
.!!!
2
::
N
-
-
-
8
~
'E
'"
'" >-
~ 5:
;;;
0 =>
'E
'"
" ~
~ '"
,5
:::J 0
:;;
5i
u lS
g '5
c:: 0.
'"
8
=
.!!l
'"
~ ~
.S!
I!! l!! 8
.0
:::J u::: U
....
~
'"
~
'"
~
'i'j
.!lI
.,
~
'"
.2l
'C
!l!
~
u;
.2l
~
o
0>
.!!l
'"
"
~
It)- ?
...
~
....1-
~
..c:
?:-
=
'lJ
~
~
8
't:l
i ~>
.s
iii S
.ii! ell
;!! E
""~
,gif
'5
>-
c
~
~
:J:
M
-
....
"5l
~
i
E'
'i5
=
"
.0
'"
:s
'"
'"
~
c
ell
~
.,;
-:-
:B
~
..
~
8 {2
:!.
....
j
OJ
~
'"
Ql
=
.S!
~
'"'
~ ~
,gu.
'5
~
l!!
~
~
...
-
o
Z
~
I
ell
'E
8-
~
~
E
cE
" ~
~ c
~~
'lJ
.!lI
~l
is '"
~
'u
.!lI
:;;
,5
o
~
<0
....
j
?:-
==
~
~
!
j
"
f
~
:J:
.,;
-
o
Z
'"
~
I
ell
'E
Q.
~
.!!l
(IJ
E
~ N
"ct1 -- ex)
,~~ is
,- 1Il =
.sa :I m
I!! C" a-
t ~ s
.."'?&
j g!. g.
~
'u
.!lI
'"
;S
~
...:
~
j
.!!l
=
.Iii
I
....
ell
>
'"
~
5:
'i'j
.!lI
~
"'5
.!
E
E
.!!l
.S!.
~
'"
ell
.g
'"
't:l
'"
ell
-E
j
on
~
.!
~
~
~
:J:
...:
,!!l
~
<0
-
!:::
~
e
~
II
,50
,,:.
c
'"
!i
'"
""
.3
ell
,5
'0
ell
N
.u;
'"
,5
,!!l
~
cD
.,.
~
--~..,.
---.
'A.
.:
.
~
~ W'f.
.
M. L.
AV.
~
~
MCMLXX'( I by NC
San Franci~
c.,~""
~
~
Ii
I{)-! (l t. IIlu,OI \
5
c
~
m
.
,
.
OI'V
1/.11.,,.
M 75
M
I r.
~ San Diego CO~~!r,,~oter Authority
3211 Filth Avenue. San Diego, California 92103-5718
(619) 297-3218 FAX (619) 297-0511
April 6, H93
Rick Matkin
City of Chula Vista
Public Works Dept.
707 F. Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Rick:
This is to inform you that your price quote for 42, 1.6 gallon
per flush ultra-low flush toilets and associated installation
materials has been approved for payment by the San Diego County
Water Authority ("Authority").
Please submit an invoice for payment no later than May 1,
1993. The invoice should be mailed to:
San Diego County Water Authority
3211 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92103
Attention: Maria G. Mariscal
The submitted invoice, at a minimum, should include the toilet
manufacturer and model number, price per toilet unit, and unit
price for all associated installation materials.
Enclosed are two copies of the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) for your execution. Please return both copies of the MOU to
the Authority, attention Maria G. Mariscal. Please note that
invoice payment will not occur until the signed MOU is received by
the Authority.
I applaud your agency's efforts to conserve water and. look
forward to working with you again on related .water conservation
programs. If you have any questions regarding this program, please
do not hesitate to call me at (619) 297-3218.
Sincerely,
4~ p ~~
Maria G. Mariscal
Program Manager
Enclosure
MEMBER AGENCIES
oVallecite,
MUNICIPAL WATfR DISTRICTS
. Sueno ("Iorodo . Ro.nbow
. Corl,bod . Romonc
.Ol'vennoin . RincondelDlob1o
. Padre Dom . Volley Center
. Yenm"
CITIES
. Del Mor' h,ond,do' Nohan,,1 Ci'y
. Oceomlde' Powor' Son Diego
IRRIGATION DIST'UCTS
. xmto fe' Sav,n Boy
COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
COUNTY
. 50nD'ego
(..,,,H,,,,,)
A'IJ II PUBUC ~::\,~;:o~lSTRICT
WATER DISTRICTS .",
. HeL, . 01,01 fEDERAL AGENCY
. Son D,egulto . Pendle'on M,I.lory Re.er~ot'on
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Item II
Meeting Date 4/20/93
Resolution I'll' 7!horiZing temporary street closures to
conduct the 1993 Cultural Arts Festival - A Celebration of
Community Pride n
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Parks an}~eCreatio~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager..J8 ~~1 (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No-Ll
The Park sand Recrea t i on Department is reques t i ng permi s s i on to temporar i 1 y close
Park Way between Third and Fourth Avenue, and Garrett Avenue between "G" Street
and Park Way, to conduct the Cultural Arts Festival on May 8, 1993.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council approve the Resolution authorizing the
temporary closure of streets.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
DISCUSSION:
Not applicable
The Parks and Recreation Department, in conjunction with the Chula Vista Cultural
Arts Commi ss ion, is p 1 ann i ng to conduct a major spec i a 1 event in and around
Memorial Park on Saturday, May 8, 1993. The "Cultural Arts Festival - A
Celebration of Community Pride", will take place from approximately 9:00 AM to
5:00 PM.
The event will revolve around a central theme of community-wide involvement in
a multi-faceted event. Events and activities will include musical entertainment,
professional performers, children's activities, ethnic food sales, arts and
crafts vendors, artists at work, static art displays, a "coffee house" setting,
variety programs featuring local dance groups, a logo design contest, a music
competition, recreational class demonstrations, and roving performers. The event
has taken on a distinct multi-cultural theme, and is involving a wide variety of
ethnic groups and organizations. Dance demonstrations will include jazz, tap,
ba llet, Mex i can fo 1 k, Country and Western, Po lynes i an, Norteno, and Aztec. Other
groups will be demonstrating a variety of international folk dances.
Musical entertainment will include Big Band, Folk, Latin Jazz, and classical, and
many of the musicians will be local artists. Chula Vista High's "Main
Attraction" will also be performing, as will the new concert band from EastLake
High School. Local businesses wi 11 be represented through the cooperative
efforts of the Chu la Vista Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Bus iness
Association. A large number of community groups have also been invited to
participate, including local service clubs and groups, youth service providers
(YMCA, Boys & Girls Club, Boy and Girl Scouts, etc.), the schools within the
Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District, local
drama groups, individual artists and art organizations, and others.
wp\festa113
1/-1
This is the second year that an event of this kind has been conducted. Last
Spring, the Cultural Arts Commission coordinated a Cultural Arts Festival. The
Commission was not interested in conducting the event again this year, although
they are working closely with City staff in providing several key facets of this
year's event.
In order to ensure the safety of participants and event spectators, and to
facilitate the set-up and removal of equipment, the Department is requesting
permission to temporarily close several streets on the day of the event.
Specifically, Park Way will be closed between Third and Fourth Avenue, and
Garrett would be closed in the half-block area between "G" Street and Park Way,
from 7:DO AM to 7:00 PM. A diagram of the area is attached as attachment "A".
The south side (east-bound lane) of Park Way will remain unobstructed at all
times to allow Park Way residents limited access to their homes, and to permit
emergency vehicles into the area. Residents will be issued dash board passes
that will allow them to cross street barricades during the event.
Notices were distributed to all residents on Park Way and Garrett who would be
directly affected by the closures, inviting them to attend the City Council
meeting and comment on the Department's request if they so desire. Copies of the
notices are included as Attachment "8" and "Co.
FISCAL IMPACT:
$4,000 has been allocated in the current budget for support of
the Festival. No additional fiscal impact is anticipated.
A - Diagram of Area
B - Not~ce to ResidentsNOTSCANNED
C - Notlce and Pass Nor SCANNED
Attachments:
wp\festa1l3
/1-.)..
RESOLUTION NO.
J 71778'
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET
CLOSURES TO CONDUCT THE CULTURAL ARTS FESTIVAL
ON MAY 8, 1993
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation
conjunction with the Chula vista Cultural Arts
planning to conduct a major special event in and
Park on Saturday, May 8, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the "Cultural Arts Festival - A Celebration of
Community Pride", will take place from approximately 9: 00 am to
5:00 p.m.; and
Department, in
Commission, is
around Memorial
WHEREAS, in order to ensure the safety of participants
and event spectators, and to facilitate the set-up and removal of
equipment, the Department is requesting permission to temporarily
close several streets n the day of the event; and
,
WHEREAS, specifically, Park Way will be closed between
Third and Fourth Avenue, and Garrett would be closed in the half-
block area between "G" Street and Park Way from 7:00 a.m to 7:00
pm.; and
WHEREAS, notices were distributed to all residents on
Park Way and Garrett who would be directly affected by the
closures.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby authorize the temporary street
closures set forth hereinabove on May 8, 1993 for the Cultural
Arts Festival".
., 7tr
Presented by
Jess Valenzuela, Director of
Parks and Recreation
Bruce M.
Attorney
F:\home\attomey\cultarts
1/--3
.
.
~
A
..~
,
Third Avenu.
~a'_ ".
.
,
10
.
.
I-
..
.. <Jl
.. III
..
en to:
OJ
. \A
It 0
. J
U
f-
'"
uJ
"
...
, <fl
I
enu.",,'f' ~lJno"
11-1f
~J~
=-... ::-:
.-...,.;~~~
..............~~
----
B
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
NOTICE
March 24, 1993
Dear Neighbor:
The City of Chula Vista is interested in conducting a major special event in the Memorial
Park area on Saturday, May 8, 1993, from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. In order to enhance the
event, and to insure the safety of event participants, we are proposing complete street
closures of Park Way between Third Avenue and Fourth Avenue and Garrett Avenue
between Park Way and "G" Street on May 8, 1993, from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
The event is the Cultural Arts Festival - A Celebration of Community Pride, and will feature
live musical entertainment, dance demonstrations, children's activities, art displays, artists
at work, and food, beverage, and art sales booths.
The Chula Vista City Council will be considering the request for permission to close the
streets at their regularly scheduled meeting on April 20, 1993. Council meets at 6:00 PM
in the City Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue. You are welcome to attend the
meeting and address Council regarding this request if you so desire.
Please contact Senior Recreation Supervisor John Gates at 691-5071 if you have any
questions regarding this notification.
stc/ose
II.../.,
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691.5071
c.
T
Fie PERMIT
1
CULTURAL ARTS FESTIVAL
a celebration of community pride
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Drive Slowly and use Caution!
Watch for Pedestrians! 1/.. '}
Please display this permit clearly on the dash board of your vehicle. This will
allow you to enter ParkWay on May 8, 1993 during the Cultural Arts Festival.
Entrance permitted from Fourth Avenue only.Thank you for your cooperation.
~(f?
:- $-~
~...............~
~"""-""""~
---
ON OF
CHULA VISTA
PARKS AND RECREAt.ION DEPARTMENT
April 14, 1993
NOTICE
Dear Neighbor:
istributed a notice concemi 9 a special event that is being proposed
for the Memorial Park a a on May 8, 1993. In th notice, we failed to mention that you will
have vehicular access to our home throughout e event; the east-bound lane of Park Way
will be open to Park Way sidents only, wh isplay the permit printed on the back of this
notice on the dash board 0 heir automobiles
The flow of traffic will continue be one w ,east-bound, on Park Way, which will necessitate
entry from Fourth Avenue only. olice offi rs monitoring the barricades at Fourth Avenue and
Park Way will allow you to enter rk W if you display the permit clearly on your dash board.
Please keep in mind that there w be large number of event participants (including small
children) in the area. Your reduce eed and cautious driving will be most appreciated.
isor John Gates at 691-5071 if you have any
As indicated on the earlier notice, }l u re welcome to attend the City Council meeting on April
20, 1993, at 6:00 PM, and to ad ess ouncil regarding this request if you so desire.
Please contact Senior Recre
questions regarding this notifi
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 69)-5071
~y~
~ .....~ ~
......~~-..;
.....~..--.....""
---
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
PARKS AND RECREAT.ON DEPARTMENT
NOTICE
,
April 14, 1993
Dear Neighbor:
Several weeks ago, we distributed a notice concerning a special event that is being proposed
for the Memorial Park area on May 8, 1993. In that notice, we failed to mention that you will
have vehicular access to your home throughout the event; the east-bound lane of Park Way
will be open to Park Way residents only, who display the permit printed on the back of this
nolice on the dash board of their automobiles.
The flow of traffic will continue to be one way, east-bound, on Park Way, which will necessitate
entry from Fourth Avenue only. Police officers monitoring the barricades at Fourth Avenue and
Park Way will allow you to enter Park Way if you display the permit clearly on your dash board.
Please keep in mind that there will be a large number of event participants (including small
children) in the area. Your reduced speed and cautious driving will be most appreciated.
As indicated on the earlier notice, you are welcome to attend the City Council meeting on April
20, 1993, a16:00 PM, and to address Council regarding this request if you so desire.
Please contact Senior Recreation Supervisor John Gates at 691-5071 if you have any
questions regarding this notification.
11--'('
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-50"
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item I)..
ITEM TITLE:
Meeting Date 4/20/93
Resolution I?P 7' Ordering the summary vacation of a drainage
easement at the northwest comer of Paseo Del Rey and Telegraph Canyon
Road
(4/Sths Vote: Yes_NoX)
SUBMlTfED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Real Estate Investment Trust, owner of the property at the northwest comer of Paseo Del Rey
and Telegraph Canyon Road, has requested vacation of a portion of the drainage easement which
was obtained by condemnation for Telegraph Canyon Channel across their property.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The existing drainage easement covers a portion of Telegraph Canyon Channel fronting the
owner's property on Telegraph Canyon Road (see Exhibit "A"). The easement was acquired
by condemnation, recorded by document number 77-336477 on August 17, 1977. A portion of
that easement is requested to be vacated because one of the apartment buildings encroaches
within the easement. The portion of the easement being encroached upon is not needed for
maintenance of the drainage facilities.
The easement proposed to be vacated was obtained by the City through condemnation
proceedings (along with a portion of Paseo del Rey right-of-way) as part of the development of
El Rancho del Rey, Unit No.5. The drainage easement was made large enough to encompass
a portion of the box culvert built under Paseo del Rey, plus enough space for City crews to
access the culvert.
Two years later, the owner of the subject property began processing development plans for an
apartment complex. The intent at the time was to grade the property, improve the portion of
Telegraph Canyon channel traversing the property and dedicate the easement for the channel.
It is evident that the owner intended to request a vacation of the existing easement, since a
building pad was encroaching. It appears that the dedication and vacation processes were
overlooked at the time of completion of the channel improvements.
In order to clearly delineate where the drainage easement will be, it is proposed that the entire
existing drainage easement be vacated and a new drainage easement be granted. Only that small
portion, where the onsite building encroaches, will actually be vacated (.043 AC see Exhibit
},)..../
Page 2, Item 1.1.
Meeting Date 4/20/93
B). After vacation of the existing easement and dedication of a 35 foot wide drainage easement
along Telegraph Canyon Road (see exhibit "C"), there will be a net gain of 0.457 acres. Since
the exchange results in the City receiving more area, staff recommends that no compensation
be required for the vacated portion.
Section 8333(c) of the California Streets and Highways Code states that Council may summarily
vacate an easement which has been superseded by relocation if no other public facilities are
present within the easement. All utility companies that might be affected were contacted and
have no objections to the vacation. No public facilities are located within the easement, other
than the drainage channel for which the easement was reserved, therefore, no utility easement
reservations are necessary. The re-dedication of the drainage easement is a condition of the
vacation and will result in the existing easement being superseded.
Upon execution by the owner, granting the new drainage easement, the City shall retain the
easement documents until the resolution ordering the summary vacation is recorded. The new
drainage easement will be recorded after the resolution is recorded. This will prevent the
inadvertent vacation of a portion of the new easement, which would occur if the resolution
ordering the vacation was recorded after the new drainage easement.
In accordance with Subsection 8335 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the resolution
ordering the summary vacation must state all of the following:
1. That the vacation is made under Chapter 4 of the Streets and Highways
Code.
2. The name or other designation of the easement and a precise description
of the portion vacated (see Exhibit "A", attached).
3. The facts under which the summary vacation is made.
4. That from and after the date the resolution is recorded, the easement
vacated no longer constitutes an easement.
Since the City Clerk is authorized to accept easements on behalf of the City and the resolution
vacating the old easement is conditioned on receipt of the new easement, no further action is
needed by Council.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
WPC F:\HOME\ENOINEER\AGENDA\vacation.tcr
(}l0993
I~.')'"
It)
It)
Zit)
o It)
_T"
1-.
Uo
}}JZ
-.:to.. r.s
....< ~'" ~
T"~ ~~~
~ffi ~; ~
f ~~~..
~~~
I
/#
\
I ~.:;' ,...l\~~~,;.."i.
.".~;. r.:III: ')''':.l~,~
.1.(~lit~i"'';'''"':o'-':'
? 'j.!;i~s:t:';:~;,;
~>'Jt~~~;;":~)-
IMSlS OF BEARINGS
THE BAS1S OF BCARlNGS FOR
THIS PLA T IS THE EASlERL Y
LINE OF p.AI. 11014
I.E. N 1751'21. W
NOTES
III PORTION OF MAINA(iE EASEMENT
UPIJN WHICH ON,SITE 8U1ltJINGS
ENCKIJACH. AREA tJ.043 AC.
/ I
N LINE r.c.R. PER
DIKA 77-4lXJ
P. as.
Sf:. ca?NER 1/4 SECTlON OF
SECTlCW 88 RANCHO DE LA
NAClCW PER MAP NtJ. 166
EXISTING
DRAINAGE EASEMEN
AREA 0.144 Ac.
I).'
. T/AlO D. RAMS{Y
PLS 5962 .~
EXPIRES 12/.11/96
~'I~~;
'(!ATE
IX)
IX)
z:CO
QCO
_T"'
r.
tlQ
gsz:
~o.. "S
,~ ~'" ~
T"'~ ~~~
~ffi ~; ~
f J.~~
~~9 ....
I
$
~.
I ~ ~ BASIS OF BEARINGS
V~ THE BASS tT IJEARINGS FOR
N liNE T.c.R. PER THIS PI..A T /S THE EASTERL Y
Dt+C. 7l~ lINE tT p.1I. 11014
I I.E. N 17"51'21- W
DHAlNAGE EASEMENTTO'/"""-; NOTES
BE DlDICATED BY SCPERATF ES3 NET DlWNAGE EASEMENT ro
DOCiJMENT N ~.Jtt;I. _ BE VAC4TED. AReA a043Ac.
.
7P. ~ DHAlNAGE EASEMENT ro
LC.rI BE DlDICATED BY SCPERATF
/XJCtIMENT. AReA O. SOO AC.
~ DRAINAGE EASEMENT ro
BE VAC4TED AND U-PED/CATED.
AI?EA a101 AC.
- -~- -.
- 5cAJ.! ,-..50
N 26"29'08- E (R.)
T.P. as.
.11 J\I ~.~"
6'. ~':t<. "'f:T~B. c
M,)~
POR71ON OF TELEGRAPH CANYON RD.
(1'0 PASEO DEL HEY PER fiNAL ~
ORDER OF CONDEMNA 7lON REe.
8/11/71 AS F,/P Na 11-.J.J6411 aR. p~
. l)
~
p.as.
SE. CORNER 1/4 SECTlON tT
SEC710N 88 RANCHO DE J.A
HAC/ON PER MAP Ha 166
~ Proiect Design Consultants
~ PUNNlN(; AND ntCINBR1N(;
701 . BN Stn.t. Suit. 800. S.... DYgo CII. 92101
819 235 8n1 FAX 234 0349
1.2..1{
.~
-
.
\
/LJ2"29'58" E CR. )
1 -:..:.:.L.......
1i...J)Q~2.
(R.) \
N 83'54'
11-#. 1-#
to
~ 1J.OO'
d 50 50'
::z:
~ ~
PORTION OF TFLECRAPH CANYON
RO. TO BE OEVICA TFO PER
SEPERA TF OOCIJMENT
ffi I
0.. PARCEL MAP NO. 110~
BOIJNOARY
t.O
i ~
1- N 7-r28'-f.8" W
g , 40.25'
CD WO Tli VARIES
CENTFRUNE PER R.O.'S--..... II
1086 ANO P.),/. T101~ I~
~ I ~~
N UNE T.C.R. PER
owe. 77-~O ~
; ~
tL25~3"
~R.) /
/UJwr
({?)
CREST DRIVE
BASIS OF BEARINGS
TliE BASIS OF BEARIN6S FOR
THIS PLA T IS THE EASTERL Y
liNE OF P.)'/' 11014
lE. N 17'51'21. W
NOTES
~ INOICA TFS DRAINAGE EASEJlENT TO
BE GRANTEO AREA a601 AC
(f) INOICA TE'S PORTION OF CREST DRIVE
OEOICA TFO TO THE CITY OF CHIJLA
~STA PER FINAL OROER OF CON-
OEMNA TlON REC. 3/10/71 AS
FILE Na 015736, BOOK 1971 aR.
DELTA
26'2~ ~
89'09'J5
DISTANCE
29.00
29.81
11014
1101-1 <(-<:-'\ ~1 ",'0
\)~'v ~1>-1
yP 6
~v ~o.
/
RESOLUTION NO.
17tJ7'
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ORDERING THE SUMMARY VACATION OF A
DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
PASEO DEL REY AND TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
WHEREAS, Real Estate Investment Trust, owner of the
property at the northwest corner of Paseo Del Rey and Telegraph
canyon Road, has requested vacation of a portion of the drainage
easement which was obtained by condemnation for Telegraph Canyon
Channel across their property; and
WHEREAS, said easement is requested to be vacated because
onsite buildings encroach within the easement and that portion of
the easement is not needed for maintenance of the drainage
facilities; and
WHEREAS, in order to clearly delineate where the drainage
easement will be, it is proposed that the entire existing drainage
easement be vacated and a new drainage easement be granted; and
WHEREAS, only that small portion, where the onsite
building encroaches, will actually be vacated (.043 Acres) and
after vacation of the existing easement and dedication of a 35 foot
wide drainage easement along Telegraph Canyon Road, there will be
a net gain of 0.457 acres; and
WHEREAS, since the exchange results in the City receiving
more area, staff recommends that no compensation be required for
the vacated portion; and
WHEREAS, section 8333(c) of the California Streets and
Highways Code states that Council may summarily vacate an easement
which has been superseded by relocation if no other public
facilities are present within the easement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby order the summary vacation of
a drainage easement at the northwest corner of Paseo Del Rey and
Telegraph Canyon Road, more particularly described in Exhibit "A",
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set
forth in full.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby
directed to record said resolution in the office of the County
Recorder and from and after the date the resolution is recorded,
the easement vacated no longer constitute n ease nt.
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
ruce M. Boogaa
City Attorney
I.}." '? /,).-8
Presented by
F:\home\attomey\vacation.tcr
. (J
./YJ-.
U957-PCL3.LfG (E02] (41. 2/23/93 (CHI. AW
EXHIBIT 'A'
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
FOR
DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE VACATED
BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PARCEL "I" AS DESCRIBED IN FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED AUGUST 17,
1977 AS FILE/PAGE NO. 77-336477 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO
BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 11014 ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY
OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING MORE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF QUARTER SECTION 88 OF RANCHO DE LA
NACION ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 166 ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY
RECORDER, BEING ALSO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 11014;
THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID QUARTER SECTION, SAID EASTERLY LINE
BEING ALSO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL MAP
1. NORTH 17051'21" WEST
2. SOUTH 26038'28" WEST
3. SOUTH 26038'28" WEST
4. WESTERLY
255.31 FEET MORE OR LESS ~O A POINT OF INTER-
SECTION WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF
SAID FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION
PER SAID' DOCUMENT RECORDED
AUGUST 17, 1977, SAID WESTERLY LINE
BEING ALSO THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-
WAY OF PAS EO DEL REY AS SHOWN ON
SAID PARCEL MAP; THENCE LEAVING THE
EASTERLY LINE OF SAID QUARTER SEC-
TION AND BOUNDARY AND ALONG SAID
WESTERLY LINE
148.72 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING
42.18 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 20.00
FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHER-
LY; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE
31.12 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
89009'35" TO .THE BEGINNING OF A
REVERSE 1,663.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE
CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, SAID . BEGINNING
BEING ON THE'NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID
FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION, SAID
NORTHERLY LINE BEING ALSO THE
NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF TELEGRAPH
CANYON ROAD AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL
PAGE 1 OF 2
I.}.- ,
U957-PCL3.LfG (E02] (41. 2123193 (CHI. AW
MAP; THENCE LEAVING THE ARC OF SAID
20.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE AND WESTER-
LY LINE AND ALONG THE ARC OF SAID
REVERSE 1,663.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE
AND SAID NORTHERLY LINE
5. WESTERLY
81.29 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
02048'03" (81.51 FEET 02048'30" PER
SAID PARCEL MAP); THENCE LEAVING
THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND NORTHERLY
LINE IN A RADIAL DIRECTION FROM
LAST-DESCRIBED CURVE
6. NORTH 23000'00" EAST
62.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT
1,725.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE
SOUTHERLY, A RADIAL FROM SAID POINT
BEARS SOUTH 23000'00" WEST; THENCE
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE
7. EASTERLY
104.94 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
03029'08" TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
CONTAINS 0.145 ACRE MORE OR LESS.
~-\ -~.,
DATE
12/31/96
PAGE 2 OF 2
I,J.-I()
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY:
Item JJ
Meeting Date 4/20/93
Resolution J 7 d 1r P Accepting drainage easements originally granted as
Irrevocable Offer of Dedication and previously rejected by Council on Map No.
3104 and Map No. 3163 .." /
Director of Public works; (f(V
City Manager j~ tzJ ~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes_NoX)
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
On February 16, 1993, by Resolution 16992, the City Council accepted bids and awarded a contract
for the construction of the Naples Street drainage channel improvements project (DR-112). These
improvements lie within a 40 foot wide drainage easement originally tendered in 1954 on Maps No.
3104 and 3163. Council, however, rejected the easements on said maps but kept the option to accept
them at a future date.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution accepting grant of drainage easements.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The drainage easements to be accepted are shown on Maps No. 3104 (Country Club Park Unit No.3)
and 3163 (Country Club Park Unit No.6). These maps were recorded on June 15, 1954 and December
17, 1954, respectively. In 1954, when the maps were recorded, Council rejected the dedication of the
drainage easements, but kept the option to accept the easements at a future date. At that time, the City
did not require drainage easements, nor improvements to channels such as this which would be
maintained by the City. Standard practice was to obtain an offer of easement, reject it, and allow the
construction of natural channels to be maintained by the property owner. Now, in order to solve a
drainage and health and safety problem, the improvement of the channel is required. In order to
complete the construction, acceptance of the easement is necessary.
The Naples Street drainage channel improvement project awarded by Council on February 16, 1993 will
be constructed within these drainage easements. It is, therefore, recommended that Council now accept
the drainage easements listed below:
Map 3104 - Country Club Park Unit No.3
a) Drainage Easement E (lying within lots 197 and 198)
b) 20 foot drainage easement (lying within lots 183 through 195, inclusive)
13-/
Page 2, Item Jj
Meeting Date 4/20/93
Map 3163 (Country Club Park Unit No.6
a) 20 foot drainage easement (lying within lots 565 through 577, inclusive)
Plats showing the location of the easements are available for Council viewing.
FISCAL IMPACT: After construction, only routine City maintenance amounting to normal dirt and
debris removal will be required.
SA:AR-028
WPC F:\HOME\ENOINEER\AOENDA\773.93
1111493
J:J"')..
RESOLUTION NO.
J?IJIrIJ
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING DRAINAGE EASEMENTS
ORIGINALLY GRANTED AS IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF
DEDICATION AND PREVIOUSLY REJECTED BY COUNCIL
ON MAP NO. 3104 AND MAP NO. 3163
WHEREAS, on February 16, 1993, by Resolution 16992, the
city council accepted bids and awarded a contract for the
construction of the Naples Street drainage channel improvements
project, which improvements lie within a 40 foot wide drainage
easement originally tendered in 1954 on Maps No. 3104 and 3163; and
WHEREAS, Council, however, rej ected the easements on said
maps but kept the option to accept them at a future date; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that council now accept the
drainage easements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby accept Drainage Easement E
(lying within lots 197 and 198) and 20 foot drainage easement
(lying within lots 183 through 195, inclusive) of Map 3104 - county
Club Park Unit No. 3 and 20 foot drainage easement (lying within
lots 565 through 577, inclusive) of Map 3163 - county Club Park
Unit No.6.
Bruce M. Boogaard
Attorney
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
F: \home\attomey\773. 93
13-;]
. ...
-
. lit
. \II
..... ' ..1
'. . I Q.
.c
%
"
11.1
" ~",~
C>>'i"~~ ~.
.
~
~
~
~
....'...
,.. ~~
,~
~,'
':",,!
-
! IC--'
,~
,
"
I'
~
.
"
--
,'\.
~ O~
.... ~,
, .
,I'
. .{
4 .~..
~'t:ir
~ '
J.'"
~
....;"....
[) ,
~ ~('
,.
Q Q
,i"
l :,
,'~.
..
'=
';:'
,-
- .
, J
,
..
......: " ~ '~.:
-"", ...
, f"'
.~
, ":J
....
,
.',
.'
-,
-', ~.'!-'
"
. ..
..1'1'\_
. ~.-
~' '~S .
.
.. kllf:~"
,....
.. 1
..
"
. ~<>
. ~,
..
.
~
. '7
,"
~
co' It)
<
. . . w
. .;f;:'
..
.
. .,
.. at
~OIC"'
'..., ..,:
,.
lit
- .
,.
...
>.
~
!
"
~
~
<C'
:~. ,
.,,,-s-'.
II
..
...
..
-: ,.~
, ':..'73
!
N I~-o.-.
L lei
.-
...
..
..
, -
\.-...',
I
., _C'
,
.
..
..
s,"!..
,.'
~.r,.,,,
.~.~
..'
- ..
....
\:'
lit
\II
.J
Q.
.:.~ , .c
%
.-
i
H."
;;!i'. ;
--~.........._._.
~
~
"
":.0:;1 ,
'..
'"
fJ
. ,
<" r-
rf, ..\)
<> ,;)
.'
*
9 .--
DR.
(ij
,
I
,
II>
"
."
r.
.\
o
'1"
(/)
I-
Z
UJ
~
~ . ]N" L.Lfn 3H
>
o
~
:E
-
~
Z
-
<(
,],a: "I-:J"IV'4"1!-
o
..J
UJ
Z
Z
<(
J:
()
(/)
UJ
..J
a..
<(
z
a:
o
u.
8
09
~
W
..l
L tJ/)
<
Z./
iii
I
~
.
.
~
):J~'I
t
z
UJ
:E
UJ'
(/)
:.(
,..
......
~
i":
':~. ';,,: ::'.'
UJ -, .~,-.,
. ,~:/ "-'.:' ....:.
0.., ,-"'~'
~-'~,;.:~:<'.~ :~:'''~~'
,~;'.' f" ~ _ ,,;
. -,
"':':L'"
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ltem--.1.!'l
ITEM TITLE:
Meeting Date 4/20/93
Resolution 17 (J iY I Approving Subdivision Agreement for Parcel
Map 92-15, Chula Vista Auto Park and authorizing the Mayor to execute
same
SUBMITTED BY:
Resolution I?()tr~ Approving Supplemental Subdivision
Agreement regarding Condition 8 and authorizing the Mayor to execute
same .. /
Director of Public wor~. (}Y
City ManagerJ~ ~~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes_NoX)
REVIEWED BY:
On March 11, 1993, the Directors of the Departments of Public Works and Planning
conditionally approved Tentative Parcel Map 92-15, Chula Vista Auto Park. A copy of the
Letter of Conditional Approval is attached. The Final Parcel Map for said tentative parcel map
is now ready for approval. Generally, final parcel maps are administratively approved.
However, the conditions of approval of the tentative map for this development require a
Subdivision Agreement to satisfy conditions of approval numbered 9, 14, 15, and 16. Condition
8 requires a Supplemental Subdivision Agreement between the City and the developer, Chula
Vista Auto Park, Incorporated ("C.V. Auto Park, Inc."). The agreements are now before
Council for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolutions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The project is generally located on the south side of Otay Valley Road east of I-80S at 1470
Otay Valley Road. The proposed final parcel map will create 4 lots for development as an auto
park and a remainder lot not currently proposed for development.
The public improvements have been guaranteed by formation of Assessment District 90-2, Otay
Valley Road or by an improvement certificate on the Final Parcel Map. Neither the Subdivision
Map Act or the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Section 18, require Council approval of [mal
parcel maps. However, approval of the tentative parcel map included several conditions that
require an agreement between the City and C.V. Auto Park, Inc. To satisfy these conditions,
both a Subdivision Agreement and a Supplemental Subdivision Agreement are required.
The developer has executed a Subdivision Agreement in compliance with Conditions of Approval
numbered 9, 14, 15, 16. In addition, the developer has agreed to satisfy the City's requirement
1'1"/
Page 2, Item I t/
Meeting Date 4/~
regarding participation in the cost to prepare the Main Street Sewer Basin Plan. Condition 9
required the developer to enter into an agreement to deposit $10,000, prior to issuance of
building permits, to cover maintenance costs for the first year of operation of the sewer pump
station required for this development. Condition 14 required that the developer agree to pay the
appropriate fees associated with the proposed fee recovery district associated with the Otay
Valley Road widening project. Conditions 15 and 16 required that the developer agree to
indemnify the City for liability resulting from the approval of this subdivision or from erosion,
siltation or increased flows resulting from this project. The Subdivision Agreement satisfies all
of the above conditions and requirements.
The developer has also executed a Supplemental Subdivision Agreement in compliance with
Condition of Approval number 8 which requires C.V. Auto Park, Inc. to provide for the
perpetual maintenance of the sewage pump station serving said development. The agreement
requires the developer to establish a special sewer service rate area and to pay all costs
associated with said establishment. The special sewer service rate area will be established
through an ordinance to be presented for Council approval at a later date. Through the special
sewer service rate area the property owners will be assessed for maintenance and operation costs
associated with the sewer pump station. The agreement also requires that the CC&R's for this
development include provisions which grant the City the right to impose a lien against each
individual lot if such lot owner fails to pay the assessment for the maintenance and operation of
the above sewage facilities. Approval of this agreement will constitute compliance with
Condition of Approval number 8.
C. V. Auto Park, Inc. has complied with all other conditions of approval of the Tentative Parcel
Map and the Pinal Parcel Map will be approved once the Subdivision Agreement and
Supplemental Subdivision Agreement are approved by Council and executed by the Mayor.
A plat is available for Council viewing.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. All City staff processing and administrative costs will be
reimbursed by the developer.
WPC F:\HOME\EN"GINEER\AGPNDA\autopark.pm
041493
1'1';1
/JAIN STRffT.
\
..
I
,.
.....
---
Of "V
~
-
..-----
,..
--
-
--- .
PALJJ
~----
It:
--
--.-
--
REMAIND R PARCEL
A.P.N. 644-040-13
Rf~
,,--
-/.
~.
-.
-
-
-- ----." - -
NOT TO SCALE
Jtf-J
THE C/11' OF CHUU nSTA PAR7Y DISCLOSURE STA7'EMENT
. .
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council. Plannina Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following Information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having II financial interest in the contract, I.e., contractor,
subcontractor, material supplier.
~::~ac~~l ~~ ~Hh(!\
4./Atp -
. 2, If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the eorporation or owning any pllrtnenhip
interest in the partnership, .
t;~I,d-~~d~~~
lJl) I ) ~ &11 p (""
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit oraanization or a trust, list the names
of any person serving as director of the non.profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or
trustor of the trust.
4. Hove you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City stllff,
Boards, Commissions. Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_
No..L If yes, please indicate person(s):
~. Please identify ellch and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who )Iou have assigned to represent you before the City in this mauer.
~~~ t'*~~"t0 ->>i~i~~/r~Jtktt
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate. contributed more than $1,000 to II
Councilmember in the current or precedina election period? Yes _ No ~ If yes, stOle which
Councilmember(s):
~ is deflncd as: 'AllY illdMdl/a!,fi/'nI, co-partnership, joillll'ellll/l't, IIssocialioll, socia! club, ,,'mtrna! 0/'8alli:miol1, corpo/'n/iOIl.
.1'!J'/tIIt', "'ust, 1Y!c~i~,tt't l)"ldicntc. rltis and flU)' ollrer '011111)', cl')' alld 'ount7J~ efr)', nu.",icipnlil)', dis',;,' e>r other po/itlenl slIbdb'iJitJIl,
01' all>, 0111" gr"IIP 0' tomb""a/"oll (ltllllg as (11/1111,'
(~OTE: Amch additional poges as nCCQssory)
Dal~: tJl\~'1 I 9 I l1Q<;,
~ '
I. \.: ". \:DISCLOS!:'TXT]
1,'5(' :StrC\n~C1 reA
Print or type nrune of conH, r/opplicnnt
1~"1 . 111"'j,,,".II:.''''''')
,
RESOLUTION NO.--.b D8l
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
FOR PARCEL MAP 92-15, CHULA VISTA AUTO PARK
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
WHEREAS, on March 11, 1993, the Directors of the
Departments of Public Works and Planning conditionally approved
Tentative Parcel Map 92-15, Chula vista Auto Park; and
WHEREAS, the Final Parcel Map for said tentative parcel
map is now ready for approval; and
WHEREAS, generally, final parcel maps are
administratively approved, however, the conditions of approval of
the tentative map for this development require a Subdivision
Agreement to satisfy conditions of approval numbered 9, 14, 15, and
16.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve Subdivision Agreement
for Parcel Map 92-15, Chula vista Auto Park, a copy of which is on
file on the office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the city of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Attorney
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
F:\home\attomey\autopark.pm
N A -1/1,/14'2-
Recording Requested by:
CITY CLERK
When Recorded, Mail to:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth A venue
Chula Vista, CA. 91910
No transfer tax is due as this
is a conveyance to a public
agency of less than a fee
interest for which no cash
consideration has been paid or
received.
Declarant
SUBDIVISION PARCEL MAP IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
CHULA VISTA AUTO PARK, T.P.M. 92-15
Regarding Condition Nos. 9,14,15,16 and
Main Street Sewer Basin Plan
This Agreement is made this , hy and between THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, California ("Chula Vista" or "Grantee" for recording purposes only) and CHULA
VISTA AUTO PARK INC.. A California Corporation ("Developer" or "Grantor"), and is
made with reference to the following facts:
RECITALS
A. This Agreement concerns and affects the property legally described as
PORTION OF LOT 2 OF SECTION 19. TOWNSHIP i8 SOUi'H, RANGE I WEST. SAN
BERNARDTNO MERID:A;:. 1:'< THE CITY 0" CHllLA VISTA. COUNTY OF SAN DTEGO, STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
("Property") and is commonly known as the real property which is the subject matter
of the Chula Vista Auto Park Parcel Map, No. 92-15
B. Developer is the owner of the Property; and,
Parcel Map Agreement--Chula Vista Auto Park
Page 1
~~~-.3
,
C. Developer has applied for and been granted a tentative parcel map, Parcel
Map No. 92-15, ("Tentative Parcel Map") for the subdivision of the Property;
and,
D. City has issued tentative, conditional approval of the parcel map by the Letter of
Conditional Approval from the City of Chula Vista, Engineering Department,
dated March i;, ; 993, ("Appr~val T.~!ter"t a condition ("Condition No.9") of
which was: . .,
Enter into an agreement to deposit $10,000 prior to issuance of any building
permits to cover sewer pump station maintenance costs for tirst year of operation.
E. Another condition ("Condition No. 14") of the Approval Letter was:
Agree to not protest the formation of and to pay the appropriate fees associated
with the proposed Fee Recovery District associated with the Otay Valley Road
widening project.
; and,
F. Another condition ("Condition No. 15") of the Approval Letter was:
,
Enter into an agreement with the City wherein the City is held harmless for any
liahility for erosion, siltation or increas~d flow of drainage resulting from this
project.
G.
Another condition \ e'lIl(;,' .:,
. f ') Df ,;'e Ar I,ro"al Letter was:
On the condition that the City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim,
action or proceeding and on the further condition that tbe City fully cooperates
in the defense, tbe owner shall enter into an agreement to defend, indemnify and
hold harmless the City, or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside,
void or annul any approval by the City, including approval hy its agents, officers,
or employees with regard to this suhdivision.
;and,
H. City is willing, on the promises, security, terms and conditions herein contained,
to approve the Final Parcel Map;
;and,
Parc,d Map Agreement--Chula Vista Auto Park
Page 2
\L\A-~
[
~_. - ~J;
.'
I. Developer shall contribute a fair share of the full cost, including administration
and overhead, of the preparation of a sc.wer basin plan for the Main Street Sewer
Basin per City of Chula Vista letter dated September 1, 1992;
NOW THEREFORE, in exchange for the mutual covenants, terms and conditions herein
contained, the parties agree as follows:
I. Agreement Ap)2.\iQ;1bk to Subsequent Owners.
1.1 AgrecmcnU~in.ding Upon Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and
insure to the benetit of the successors, assigns and interests of the Parties as to
any or all of the Property until released by the mutual consent of the parties.
1.2 Agreement Runs with the Lan<:L. The burden of the covenants contained in this
Agreement ("Burden") i~' '')1' 'l'.f'tit':Jetit of the City. The Burden touches and
concerns the Property. ;c;. :r.:..:r""", of the partie,;, and the parties agree, that
this covenant shall be binding upon, and run with, the ownership of the land
which it burdens.
2. Condition No. 9--Costs
In satisfaction of condition No.9 of the Approval Letter Developer agrees to deposit
$ 10,000 with the City prior to issuance of any building permits to cover sewer pump
station maintenance costs for the first year of operation.
3. Condition No. 15--Not to Protest Formation of the fee recove,-y district for the Otay
Valley Road Widcning Project
3. I It is anticipated that a fec rccovery district will be established to ensure that
properties pay their fair share of the costs for improving Otay Valley Road by
paying fees i I' they are developed to a greater extent than outlined in the
Engineer's report for Assessment District 90-2.
3.2 Developer, ~nc, their heirs aso',;~~, '.ransf,:rees, and other successors in interest,
agree to not protest 0.1' ';'f'J /', " . ".' i.:atlC'n c.f sue:', Ji.trict as the City proposes
for the widening of Otay Valley Road, and to not protest or oppose the inclusion
of the Property within said district.
3.3 This agreement to not protest or oppose the inclusion of the Property in the
district shall not be deemed a waiver of any constitutional rights, and shall not
interfere with the right of any person to vote in a secret ballot election.
Parcel Map Agreement--Chula Vista Auto Park
Page 3
14A- 5
,"I;. !l
~-
-,
'""",."...
~
"
,(
4.
Condition No. 16--Hold Harmless for Erosion. Siltation. or Increased Flows
In satisfaction of Condition No. 16 of the Approval Letter, the developer agrees to hold
harmless the City, or its agents, officers, or "ll1ployees of any liability for erosion,
siltation, or increased flow of drainage resulring from .the project.
5.
Condition No. 17..Parcel Ma~,)lh'
In satisfaction of Condition No. 17 of the Approval Letter, the Developer agrees that,
on the condition that City shall promptly notify the Developcr of any claim, action or
proceeding and on thc furthcr condition that the City fully cooperatcs in the defense, the
Developer shall defend, indemnify. and hold harmless the City, and its agents, officers
and employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents,
officers or employees. to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City,
including approvals by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision.
6. Main Street Sewer Basin Plan
Developer agrees to contribute a fair share of the funds n('.cessary for the preparation of
the Main Street Sewer Basin Plan. Said fair share shall be determined based on the ratio
of the ealculatcd sewage flow generated by this development or portion thereof to the
calculated total sewage flow for the Main Street Sewer Basin. Developer agrees to
deposit the funds with the City at such time a~ a consultant is retained to prepare the
basin plan.
7. Recordin~
This Agrcemcnt, or an abstract hercof prepared by either or both partics, may be
recorded at the option of either party.
8. Miscellaneous
8.1. Notices Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement or by law, any and all
notices required or permitted by this Agreement or by law to be served on or
deliver,cd to either party shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served,
delivered. ane! received when personally delivered to the party to whom it is
directed, or in lieu thereof, when three (3) business days have elapsed following
deposit in the U.S. mail, certified or registered mail, return receipt requested,
first-class postage prepaid, addressed to the address indicated in this Agreement.
A party may change such address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving
written notice of such change to the other party. Facsimile transmission shall
constitute personal delivery.
Parcel M~p Agrccmcnt--Chula Vista Auto Park
Page 4
)41\- 10
.'
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910.
Attn: Director of Public Works
Developer:
Chula Vista Auto Park Inc.
760 Broadway
Chula Vista, CA. 91910
A party may change such address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving
written notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided in this
paragraph. Facsimile transmission shall constitute personal delivery.
8.2 Captions, Captions in this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference
and do not d~f;,le, describe or ;;l11it th':: scupe or intent of this Agreement or any
of its terms.
8.3 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the
parties regarding the subject matter hereof. Any prior oral or written
representations. agreements, understanc'ings, and/or statements shall be of no
force and effect. This Agreement is not intended to supersede or amend any
other agreement between the parties unless expressly noted, This includes but is
not limited to the "Disposition and Development Agreement" by and between
Chula Vista Auto Park, Inc., Developer, and the City of Chula Vista, City.
8.4 Pr~an\tion of Agreement. No inference, assumption or presumption shall be
drawn from the fact that a party or his attorney prepared and/or drafted this
Agreement. It shall be conclusiwly presumed that both parties participated
equally in the preparation and/or drafting of this Agreement.
8,5 Recitals: Exhibits, Any recitals set fortb above are incorporated by reference into
this Agreement.
8.6 Attorneys' f'ee:, In the evcl1t .')f anv dispute arising out of this Agreement, tbe
prevailing party in ar," <1,.;- ,; , ,:' '): <oi'ti"r'd to "".,",Jilable attorneys' fees in
addition to any other costs, damages, or remedies.
Parcel Map Agreel11entuChula Vista Auto Park
Page 5
\~~~1
H
.....-...
:(
;.',
.~
.~
[
>>
>.\.
\\
',v",".~'., ,~>
7110122
.
By: City of Chula Vista
Attest:
Beverly Authelet, Cilj Clerk
By: Chula Vista Auto Park, Inc.
Approved as to Form
Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney
STATt OF CALIFORNIA
COUIHY OF ,c::..,o '^-
D' ~-
'~~._-
(I 0 C SEAL
:'. '. CAROlYN J. MOEllER
i.: ,c ~ NOTARY pvI)lJC. CAl.lfCflNiIi
SJ/olDlEGOCQl.tllY
,. It!tCoTllm.Ex~lrtsS#~I.~,l'HJ
"'.";)
ACKNOWLEOGMHn-G~neral-Wolcolts Form ,33CA-~ev 5~?
'01982 ',IOLCQTTS, INC IprlCHlass8,21
1 \\~~y My C;~;'E~~n,;;''',;JN' 23, 1995 t
~J' _ ~ ~ ~ _ _' ~ . ~ ~ - ~ . .. .. ~ ~
=,"-,"','
}s
By:
Tim Nader, Mayor
..... .....~\ . \
C-ay:r:-- ) 0 '.
BY: -1.
I
On Ihls
belore me,
\ ;;""t-Y'- day of ~R-t : \ , In the year 19~,
the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared
, personally known to me
ior proved 10 me on the basis of sallsfactory evidence) to be the person_ whose name_
" ~ subscribed to Ihe within inslrument, and acknowiedged 10 me that _he_
executed it
\~~ 11t";."O..s.
Q
I
C"_
;::...J..\.\..eof'"'
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
within instrument. and acknowI8"ged,tf1at
WITNESS my haneJ J."1d olf~ciaI3eal.
-~ '~,
;~_'S"~"\
Nolar.- '-,', ,.-, ....l-.II-,':\.-
;, ).,.. ',' r".",
C -c~j f\r\n.r C (} /
Notary Public i and 10 Said Stale.
.,,/
- -- '''''<'-''-'''''/
\
;)i
.~
>>.
---- I
.'~;~~;";';';:"';~'~;,:,.<:."'--..-r~&'~--J,
:::;uu~crJoea to me
_.executed it.
~ATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION. 230'? V('nHI'fI t):vi . P,Q Bo~ 4625 . Woodland Hills, CA 91365-4625
I LtP. - ~
IllWJ
..,',~-
RESOLUTION NO. /1 D~ L
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION
AGREEMENT REGARDING CONDITION 8 AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
WHEREAS, on March 11, 1993, the Directors of the
Departments of Public Works and Planning conditionally approved
Tentative Parcel Map 92-15, Chula vista Auto Park; and
WHEREAS, the Final Parcel Map for said tentative parcel
map is now ready for approval; and
WHEREAS, Condition 8 requires a Supplemental Subdivision
Agreement between the City and the developer, Chula vista Auto
Park, Incorporated ("C.V. Auto Park, Inc.").
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve Supplemental
Subdivision Agreement regarding Condition 8, a copy of which is on
file in the office of the city Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Attorney
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
F: \home\attomey\autopark. pm
1'-1 f3 - / / ''IS' J.
,
'\ .
.,....."
SUPPLEME~lT.l'.L "U"'DL\'l,'3;;;O~l>.GREEI1J~!IT
This Agreement is made this day of April 1993, by
and between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, California ("CHULA VISTA") and
CHULA VISTA AUTO PARK, INCORPORATED, a California corporation (C.V.
AUTO PARK, INC.).
Recitals
A. WHEREAS, C. V . AUTO PARK, INC. is the owner of
property located in Chula vista, California, which is
particularly described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto
incorporated herein by reference ("Property");
B. WHEREAS, C.V. AUTO PARK, INC. is about to present to the
city Council of CHULA VISTA for approval, a final parcel map of a
proposed subdivision to be known as CHULA VISTA AUTO PARK, Chula
Vista Tract No. 92-15 pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision
Map Act of the State Of California and in compliance with the
provisions of Title 18 of Chula Vista Municipal Code relating to
the filing, approval and recordation' of 'the parcel map;
real
more
and
C. WHEREAS, a ten-catl i'c i-,...0<;\' ,.iap of ,"",id subdivision has
been approved, clubject to certain r~quirements and conditions, as
contained in the Letter of Conditional Approval of the revised
tentative parcel map for said subdivision dated March 11, 1993;
D. WHEREAS, Condition 8 of said Letter required C.V. AUTO
PARK, INC. to provide for the perpetual maintenance of the sewage
pump station serving said subdivision as determined by the City
Engineer;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual terms and
conditions contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Sewaqe Pump station. C. V. AUTO PARK, INC. shall
establish a special sewer service rate area and pay all costs
associated with said establishment. C.V. AUTO PARK, INC. shall
include in the CC&RS for the Property those certain provisions,
attached hereto as Exhibit "B" incorporated herein by this
reference, which provide the city of Chula vista with a right to
impose a lien against each individual lot if such lot owner fails
to pay its assessment for the maintenance and operation of the
above sewage facilities. C.V. l\UTO PARK, INC. also shall insert
into the Grant Deed for :h'2 '.:";-~"",;;enC'e 'f ary !,ndividual lot the
following:
This property is subject to ,assessments for the
maintenance and operation of a sewage pump stations
and appurtenant holding facilities as more fully
disclosed in that certain Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions for Chula vista Auto
Park dated, , 1993.
111 IS ~3
.
.
_ ~ n':- ~_r__ _,___~ . /,~"T',--3
I'
2. C.V. Auto Park, Inc. shall be responsible for the
payment of all maintenance and operation cost of the subject Sewage
Pump station and appurtenant Holding Facility for the period of one
full year following acceptance of the subject facilities by the
City and their placement into service.:To Th~_end, C. V. Auto Park
shall deposit the cost of such maintenance and operation work as
estimated by the Chula vista Director of pubrlcWorks with the City
prior to the acceptance of said facilities by the City. This
deposit shall be subject to adjustment at the end of said first
full year to cover the actual cost of ~uch work.
3. Upon completion of the above one full year, C. V.
Auto Park Inc. shall ;.;" _-",~ ::-,'::'~,:)?'re H":>r ':'.rr. payment of all
maintenance anc operation <':OS~b',,:~.i!'r' the sUbJect facilities not
covered by the per iodic payments by subsequent owners. This
responsibility shall continue until all parcels of the subdivision
have been occupied and connected to the subject facilities.
4. Notices. Unless otherwise provided in this
Agreement or by law, any and all notices required or permitted by
this Agreement or by law to be served on or delivered to either
party shall be deemed delivered when personally delivered to the
party to whom it is directed, or in lieu thereof, when three (3)
business day have elapsed following deposit in the U. S. mail,
certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, first-class
postage prepaid, addressed to the address indicated in this
Agreement.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 FOURTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910
CHULA VISTA AUTO PARK, INC,
760 BROADWAY
CHULA VI8'1'A, C.~'i,;':lG
A party may change such address for the purpose of this paragraph
by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the
manner provided in this paragraph. Facsimile transmission shall
constitute personal delivery.
5. captions. captions in this Agreement are inserted
for convenience of reference and do not define, describe or limit
the scope or intent of this Agreement or any of its terms.
6. Entire Aqreement. This Agreement contains the
entire agreement between the parties regarding ttJe subject matter
hereof. Any prior oral or written representations, agreements,
understanding, and/or statements shall be of no force and effect.
7. Recitals: Exhibits. Any recitals set forth above
are incorporated by reference into this Agreement.
'Lt& .. ~
~- ..,.,--...,......:'.....
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
Agreement to be executed .the
forth.
the partieE!hereto have caused this
ci~;( and year first hereinabove set
By: City of Chula Vista
Attest:
".' ,~~ "',' ". i
./'
Tim Nader, Mayor
Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
.." . .-..
..,......~..'""._...
Bruce M. Boogaard, city Attorney
STATE Dr CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
So '^ 0~<""6C.
OFFICIAL SEAL
(A~OtYN I, MOHlER
NOl.lJrl PVQl.lC .c.-tfOOtM
S/litJIE'Occ<J<!"
My ColMl. (;l.p..t' Sfpt. ,'(I, 1993
f 233Ct.-Rev q7
ACKNOV.lEOGME~T _Gelleral-WOlcolts or~
(0)\982 '~OlCOTTS l"lG lpr'ceclai~ 8 2,
... v'l. 'Ai I,.;OUN'T"V r.
~~:fV My Gomrn >:X;:lIr/ffi JUN:n !!!0;" ;:'
.. ~ .-'.-- . ~ . ~ ~ ... .- ~ ~ ~ ~:.........,...(
',\
\
.~
~
,
.~
~\
',_<;":";;"';;';'.~,<~" '.,*'.~.v w'~' '.
7110122
.
<""~""
}s
I
!
I
\
At- JI,\-'>----' in the year 193.3
On Ihis \ :;J.'\-"-:- day 01 -Pbl~ i~ and lor said Slale. personally appeared
bel ore me. Ihe underSigned. a Notary u I
'" <:, -~ f:. I \.l..ft"'
_ L) 0-' f r-rr\ ~ , personally known to me
. . r evidence 110 be the person_ whose name_
(or p.roved 10 me on Ihe b8SlS' 01 satlslaclo Y I nl and acknowledged 10 me Ihat _he_
__i.S.--- subscribed 10 lhe wllhln Ins rume ,
executed it
l
Ii
iI
I
'I
____J:
WITNESS my hand and olncial seal
r--OlAnf~f-~ ~jQ-,
Notary Pubiic In and r said Slale
./
-'
~
~
~
--- I
_....-:.;.:<""",.;..;-<~....:~;-.-';~"";;:.?:e..~y~
_. ,,~, IV III~ un tne basis Ofs(1!~sf,;"ctcry evidence
to be tile personis) whose name(s) ~
within instrument. .1lld ack~owl(;cJgod tt1iJt \..... '~.--
\WITN E58 my hpwd (lnd official seal
(',--\"'\"iIo.-- ~j) "\,
N-otary'S -Slgnatl;~ - - ,
subscribed 10 Ihe
executed it.
< -:,~
NAT'ONAl NOTAF~'~A:05 23012 'J"""". 81"
. PO, Bo~ 4625 . Woodland Hilla CA 91365-4625
A
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANGE I WEST, SAN
BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON Tei::: ""c"'~;>,~i,f'''EC:' SAI':", lOT 2, SAID POINT BEARS
" :,'. <~j,
SOUTH 00"25'58" WEST 567 97 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE
LEA YING SAID WESTERLY LINE SOCTH 88"57'04" EAST 25470 FEET: THENCE SOUTH
01'02'56" WEST 226.85 FEET: THENCE NORTH 77'0627" EAST 147.24 FEET; THENCE NORTH
81"21 '50" EAST 304.94 FEET, THENCE NORTH 77'40 47" EAST 190.19 FEET; THENCE NORTH
72"26'57" EAST 174.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 66"07'54" EAST 334.07 FEET TO THE
WESTERLY LINE OF THE EASTERLY 175.00 FEET OF SAID LOT 2: THENCE ALONG SAID
WESTERLY LINE OF THE EASTERLY 175.00 FEET NORTH 00' 18'44" EAST 467.66 FEET TO
THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2: THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID
LOT 2 NORTH 88'57'04" WEST 1351.69 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT
2; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2 SOUTH 00''25'58'' EAST 56797 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
(EN821403.BOI)
)~~,,~
~-
~_;.a,._:..<~!.'!ot'':H.:,U!.l~:
-
EXHIBIT B
COVENANT FOR SEWER OPERATION ANQ MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT
1. Obliaatiop of )l.ss~;:J',:"i?'::" , '::he l:'~cla"al"t,for each of Lots
1 through 4, incl usi ve I a.1C: t:~',;',",'E<:,la':naer Parcel (the "Covered
Area") I hereby covenants, and each Owner of any lot wi thin the
Covered Area, by acceptance of a Deed therefor, whether or not it
shall be so expressed in such Deed, is deemed to covenant and agree
to pay to the City of Chula vista (the "City"), regular sewer
operation and maintenance assessments ("Sewer Assessments"), which
shall include an adequate reserve fund for long-term or periodic
maintenance, repair and replacement of the sewer pump station
serving the Project. The City is hereby expressly made a third
party beneficiary of these CC&R's, with all powers of an "enforcing
person" pursuant to section 5 herein.
2. Continuina Lien All Sewer Assessments I together with
interest, costs, late charges and reasonable attorneys' fees, shall
be a charge on the Lot and shall be a continuing lien upon the Lot
against which each such Sewer Assessment is made, the lien to
become effective upon recordation of a Notice of Delinquent Sewer
Assessment, as provided in section 4 herein. Each such Sewer
Assessment, together with interest, costs, late charges and
reasonable attorneys' fees, also shall be the personal obligation
of the person who was the Owner of such Lot at the time when the
Sewer Assessment \-,''-IE' levied. The personal obl igation for
delinquent Sewer Asse,..G'in..:'p.', ':'" j '1 r..::>t -;~,~,<;; to an Owner's
successors in ~itle as the~r ~~~c~~al Qbligaeion unless expressly
assumed by them.
3. Rate of Assessments Regular Sewer Assessments (other
than late penalties and monetary penalties imposed by reason of
noncompliance with this Declaration), shall be levied in equal
amounts for all Lots within the Covered Area and may be collected
by the City on a monthly basis to be included in each Owner's water
and sewer bill, or otherwise, as determined by the City. If, for
any reason, one or more Lots wi thin the Covered Area is not
required to pay Sewer Assessments, each of the remaining Lots
wi thin the Covered Area shall bear Sewer Assessments in the
proportion which each Lot wi thin the Covered Area bears to the
total number of Residential Lots wi thin the Covered Area being
assessed.
4. Effect of NonpaYment of Assessments Any Sewer Assessment
made in accordance with this Declaration shall be a debt of the
Owner of a Lot from the time the Sewer Assessment is levied. At
any time after any Sewer Assessmentz levied by the City affecting
any Lot have become delinquent, the city may file for record in the
Office of the San DlegrJ Cc",~ntv Ps',(.rc'7T, a Notice of Delinquent
Sewer Assessment as to ~'J';. .'" I,:n::h no" ~;:;'- shall state all
amounts which have becomedeli~quent with respect to such Lot and
the costs (including attorneys' fees), late penalties and interest
which have accrued thereon, and the amount of any Sewer Assessments
1
\lI;~..1
-.-
. ,
.,',;'
relating to such Lot which is due and payable although not
delinquent. The notice also shall contain a description of the Lot
with the name of the record or reputed record Owner of such Lot,
and the name and address of the trustee authorized by the City to
enforce the lien, if by nonjudicial foreclosure as provided in
Section 5 below. Immediately upon recording of any notice of
delinquency pursuant to the foregoing provisions of this Section,
the amounts delinquent, as set forth in such notice, together with
the costs (inClUding attorneys' fees), late penalties and interest
accruing thereon, shall be and become a I ien upon the Lot described
therein, which lien also shall secure all costs (including
attorneys' fees), late penalties on interest accruing thereon. In
the event the del inquent Sewer Assessments and all other Sewer
Assessments which have become due and payable with respect to the
same Lot, together with all costs (. incl uding attorneys I fees),
late charges and interest which have accrued on such amounts, are
paid fully or otherwise satisfied prior to the completion of any
sale held to forec~cs6 the lier providRd for in this Article, the
city shall record a fur...hat .~.' ;," "~;'ll:arl, l.;.gned, stating the
satisfaction a~d release ot sucnlian.
5. Foreclosure Proceedings Each Sewer Assessment lien may
be foreclosed as and in the same manner as the foreclosure of a
mortgage upon real property under the laws of the State of
California, or may be enforced by sale pursuant to Sections 2924,
2924 (b), 2924 (C) and 1367 of the California Civil Code, or any
successor statute or law, and to that end, the right to enforce the
lien by sale is hereby conferred upon the City and its trustee
designated in the Notice of Delinquent Sewer Assessment, or a
trustee substituted pursuant to Cal ifornia Oi vil Code Section
2934a. The City shall have the power to bid for the Lot at a
foreclosure sale, and to acquire and hold, lease, mortgage and
convey the same. suit to recover a money judgment for unpaid Sewer
Assessments, costs, late penal ties and attorneys' fees shall be
maintainable without foreclosing or waiving the lien securing the
same. In any action by the City to collect delinquent Sewer
Assessments, accompanying late charges or interest, the prevailing
party shall be entitled to recovery of its costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees.
6. Pr~ori ty of tl'uLJ,5"W W~"'.;\ a Notice of Delinquent Sewer
Assessment has peen recor?",: :;;l~llc..lnst :.::...t'e a lien on that
respective Lot and shall be prior and superior to all other liens
except (i) all taxes, bonds, assessments and other levies which, by
law, would be superior thereto. Sale or transfer of any Lot shall
not affect the assessment lien.
LMC:rb
(LMC1\SUBAOR.LOL)
2
l4 B ~g'
.
U<~!.~L,.
~d'"
~
"-
.~.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item if
Meeting Date 4/20/93
ITEM TITLE: Report on Proposed CEQA Workshop with Planning Commission and
Resource Conservation Commission
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning~.t
'.tel; Council Referral No. 2726
REVIEWED BY: City ManagerJ':% ~~l (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.lO
In October, 1992, the City Council requested input from the Planning Commission regarding
scheduling of joint workshops between the City Council and Planning Commission on issues of
mutual concern. The Planning Commission subsequently reviewed this matter and indicated
interest in having quarterly workshop meetings with the City Council. Subsequently, on
February 2, 1993, the City Council directed staffto schedule a joint workshop on the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with Council, Planning Commission, and the Resource
Conservation Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the attached outline for the proposed joint
workshop on CEQA, and direct staff to coordinate scheduling of this workshop with the
Planning Commission and Resource Conservation Commission at the earliest possible date.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On October 28, 1992, the Planning
Commission voted to recommend strong consideration of meeting with Council on a quarterly
basis at a regular Planning Commission workshop meeting.
DISCUSSION: As noted above, the Planning Commission has indicated a strong interest in
having regular workshop meetings with the City Council on issues of mutual concern, and
Council has indicated a specific interest in having a joint workshop with the Planning
Commission and Resource Conservation Commission regarding CEQA. Attached is an outline
of a proposed joint workshop on CEQA, which would include discussion of the current CEQA
process utilized by the City of Chula Vista; legal issues pertaining to CEQA; and existing and
proposed programs which are designed to address environmental mitigation on a regional or
subregional basis rather than a project-by-project basis. This workshop would last approximately
2 to 3 hours, and would include presentations by Doug Reid, Environmental Review
Coordinator; Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney; and Barbara Bamberger, Environmental Resources
Manager.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
(ceqa.al1)
1.>-1
WORKSHOP ON CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
I. CEQA Process for Projects in the City of Chula Vista
A. Initial studies
B. Negative Declarations
1. Staff review
2 . RCC review
3. Planning commission and City Council review
C. Environmental Impact Reports
1. Scoping
2. Preparation of Draft EIR
3. Planning Commission public hearing on Draft EIR
4. RCC review of Draft EIR
5. Review and certification of Final EIR
6. Mitigation Monitoring Programs
7. CEQA Findings
8. Statements of Overriding Considerations
II. Legal tssues
A. Program EIR vs. Project EIR
1. Level of specificity
2. Deferral of issues to later stage of review
B. Alternatives Analysis
1. Types of project alternatives which must be
considered
2. Types of locational alternatives which must be
considered
C. Legal standards for determining whether an environmental
impact has been fully mitigated
D.
Legal standards
consideration
for
statements
of
overriding
III. Environmental Mitigation Programs
A. Enhanced CEQA Analysis of Major Projects under Countywide
Congestion Management Program
B. Water Offset Program
C. Air Quality Mitigation Programs
D. Energy Impact Mitigation Program
E. Regional and Subregional Habitat Management Programs
(ceqa.out)
J~';'
~
Minutes
February 2, 1993
Page 9
and he would not participate in that type of activity. He a1so had concerns about going independent that
had not been answered.
I
Mayor Nader hoped his comments would not be miscOllltrUed. He did not want staff to tell him whether .
or not to stay in the Special Act District as that wu a decision for the Council to make. Council could make
a more informed decision if staff developed options under each scenario.
City Manager Goss felt the City should move quicldy, it wu his thought that Council should be supplied
D""lim;nary information in February and have a wolbhop at the end of February or the tint week of March.
Dunci1man Moore stated he preferred to nceivea report that both the Manager and City Attorney had
'Drked on rather than two separate reports.
L Mayor Nader stated he had received a letter from the Ambassador of Mexico to the US. confirming
Dmments made regarding TwinPorts at his meeting in Washington D.C. He then read the letter and stated
1&t TwinPorts was dead. It wu time for the City of San Diego to lift the moratorium on Otay Mesa and
1I0w the Sweetwater School District to move forward with construction of their high school, move forward
rith promoting industrial development and job growth, and to look seriously at the Mexican proposal for
hared use of the Tijuana airport.
I. Local Coastal Permit Revision Ordinance: review of local coastal ordinance to give the City the
naximum level of possible coastal permitting authority so as to limit the number and scope of items to be
pven secondary review by the State. Continued from the meeting of 1/UI93. Staff recommended that the
:ouncil direct staff to work with the City Attorney and the Coastal Commission staff to mn.;m;7~ the level
)f coastal permitting authority by the City.
MSUC (NlId
the staff
1\
c. CEQA training for members of the Council, staff, Planning Commission, Resource Conservation
Commission, and the public. Continued from the meeting of 1/12193. Staff recommended that
consideration be given to expanding the annual Planning Commission workshop to include the City Council
and the Resource Conservation Commission, as well as other interested members of Boards and
Commissions. It is further recommended that the City Council provide any direction appropriate regarding
any Councilmembers who may wish to attend a Statewide CEQA Conference to be held in San Diego this
s ring.
d. Resolution Procedure for Interdepartmental Conflicts on Projects. A policy to require that any time
representatives of two or more City departments are not able to immediately determine which department
has jurisdiction over an application or project, the difference of opinion would be immediatelv submitted
to the City Manager or his designee who would be responsible for resolving it promptly. r.-rin..... from
the meeting of 1112193. Staff recommended: 1) Council adopt a policy that requires that if two or more
City departments cannot determine which department has jurisdiction over an application or project. and
the jurisdictional issue has not been resolved by the heads of those departments, the difference be
immediately submitted to the City Manager or his designee, who would be responsible for resolving it
promptly. 2) The project manager system be optimized. 3) Interdepartmental training wolbhops be held
to enhance coordination by clarifying policies and procedures among development services departments.
e. Direction to staff to .provide crou training of staff so that a lingle penon can coordinate the
nanclIing of an entire project application. C-.;"..~ from the meeting of 1/UI93. Staff recommends that
staff be directed, in cooperation with the EDC, to take necessary steps to simplify the proc-inJ of project
applications, including the use of a project manager where appropriate.
l5='J
PC Minutes
-10-
October 28, 1992
ITEM 3.
CONSIDERATION OF LETTER FROM COUNCILMAN MALCOLM
REGARDING JOINT MEETINGS WITH COUNCIL PRIOR TO PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETINGS.
The Commissioners had received a letter from Councilman Malcolm suggesting that the
Commission meet with the Council quarterly before Commission meetings. The Commissioners
discussed whether there would be an appropriate time to meet. They felt it was important to
keep an open line of communication between the City Council and the Planning Commission,
but would find it difficult to meet immediately prior to a Planning Commission meeting. If there
were to be meetings, they should be at a scheduled Planning Commission workshop night with
Council attending if they wished. The Commissioners felt it was the responsibility of the
Council to advise staff, boards and commissions of their feelings and wishes, either personally
or through the City Manager. The Commission did not want other meetings added to their
already heavy workload. They agreed that a line of communication should be developed.
The Commissioners concurred that they would be open to meeting with members of the Council.
They suggested the Council be invited Quarterlv to attend a regular Planninf C.ommissilln
rworkshop session with a topic that would be of importance to both, and that they have an
opportunity to interchanj1;e on that subiect and any other suhject they wanted to at that time,
~~t!Jout being _tied into any agenda or any time. ---
MSUC (Carson/Ray) S-O to recommend strong consideration of meeting with the Council on a
quarterly basis at a regular Planning Commission workshop meeting. The Commissioners asked
that the Council be polled to get their reaction to this suggestion.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that there would be a special meeting on November 18
including dinner.
1>''/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item It,
Meeting Date 4/20/93
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Update of the Public Facilities Development
Impact Fee
Ordinance ~f" adding Chapter 3.50 to the Chula Vista
Municipal Code relating to a Development Impact Fee to pay for
various public facilities within the City of Chula Vista's General
Plan area boundary and superseding Ordinance No. 2432 and
Ordinance No. 2320
Resolution I')Qr::/ approving the 1993 Update of the Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee
SUBMITTED BY: Special Projects Manager ~V
REVIEWED BY: City Manager r
,4.
Jj
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.1O
In August 1989, the City Council adopted the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF),
which was later amended by ordinance in January 1991.
The PFDIF was established to fund those public facilities and equipment required to support
future development within the City's general planning area.! These public facility components
are the following:
.
.
.
.
.
Civic Center Expansion
Police Department Expansion
Corporation Yard Relocation
Libraries Expansion
Fire Suppression System Expansion
.
.
.
.
.
Geographic Information System Installation
Mainframe Computer Upgrade
Telephone System Upgrade
Records Management System Installation
PFDIF Administration
Staff is presenting the latest update of the PFDIF, after completing a comprehensive review of
the costs of the public facilities and PFDIF ordinance provisions. Included with the Council
packet is a copy of the 1993 Update Report.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Adopt the ordinance adding Chapter 3.50 to the Municipal Code for the PFDIF thereby
superseding Ordinance Nos. 2432 and 2320;
2. Adopt the resolution approving the 1993 Update of the PFDIF, thereby a) maintaining the
current PFDIF of $2,150 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit for residential land uses and b)
The Otay Ranch is not included in the current PFDIF. An impact fee for the facilities needed to serve the Otay
Ranch will be developed should the area annex to the City.
I~"/
Page 2, Item~
Meeting Date 4/20/93
decreasing the PFDIF for Commercial/Office and Industrial land uses by $1,290, from
$12,040/gross acre to $10,750/gross acre and c) decreasing the PFDIF for the Olympic
Training Center by $322, from $3,01O/gross acre to $2,688/gross acre and d) setting the
PFDIF for Special Land Use projects, such as utilities, at $1O,750/gross acre and e)
setting the PFDIF for Special Purpose Projects at $6,450/gross acre; and
3. Direct staff to conduct updates of the Library Master Plan, Fire Station Master Plan and
Civic Center Master Plan when the development plans for Otay Ranch are more clearly
defined and to prepare a PFDIF Capital Improvement Project (CIP) program through the
year 2010.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Staff attended the December 1992
meeting of the Library Board of Trustees and the February and March 1993 meetings of the
Economic Development Commission to discuss the proposed update. The Commissions'
concerns and recommendations are discussed in the staff report. Attached to this report are the
minutes of these meetings.
DISCUSSION:
A. A FEE DECREASE IS RECOMMENDED
1. The Capital Needs Identified in the PFDIF are Generallv Based on Citvwide
Service Standards and Master Plans.
To establish the fee for residential land uses, cost estimates are derived for all
projects included in the PFDIF. Once new development's share of these costs is
determined, that total cost is divided by the remaining number of equivalent
dwelling units (EDUs) to be built, as determined by the City's General Plan or
specific project plans approved by Council. This procedure establishes the fee to
be charged per EDU. The fee for commercial/industrial land uses is set at 5 times
the fee for a residential dwelling unit, based upon the methodology established
within the report.
The cost estimates used in the Update Report reflect needs which, in many
instances, have been defined in Council adopted service standards (e.g. .6 square
feet of library space per capita) and/or in master plans such as those developed for
the Civic Center, Corporation Yard and Fire Station network. Staff believes that
the Report's cost figures are accurate for the projects as thev are currentlv
envisioned in these standards and master plans.
Using cost figures based on these currently envisioned plans would result in an
increase in the fee for residential land uses of $96, from $2,150 per EDU to
IJt or';
Page 3, Item / "
Meeting Date 4/20/93
$2,246. The rate for commercial/industrial uses would, however, decrease by
$810, from $12,040 to $11,230. This decrease reflects changes in the value of
underlying variables used to translate commercialfrndustrial acreage into equivalent
dwelling units. Based on updated data contained in the 1993 update, the
commercial/industrial fee is set at 5 times the fee for residential land uses, as
compared to the current factor of 5.6. Based upon the currently envisioned master
plans and corresponding cost estimates, the fee for the Olympic Training Center
would decrease by $202 for similar reasons.
While the cost estimates based on existing master plans would require a $96 fee
increase for residential land uses, staff is recommending that the fee for residential
land uses be maintained at the present level of $2,150. As discussed below, staff
believes that a further cost review of the civic center/parking expansion project is
warranted. Staff is also recommending that the fees associated with
commercial/industrial land uses and for the Olympic Training Center (OTC) be
further decreased beyond the amounts noted above. For commercial/industrial
land uses, a decrease of $1,290/acre is recommended; for the OTC a decrease of
$322/acre is recommended.
2. The Civic CenterlParkinl! Expansion Proiect Mav Chanl!e Because of Events
Anticipated in the Near Future.
In 1989, Council adopted the Civic Center Master Plan. This Plan details the
expansion in working and parking areas required to house the additional City staff
needed to serve new development. The cost calculations for the expansion are
based on the Council-adopted Plan. Of the various projects included in the
PFDIF, the Civic Center Expansion Project is the most susceptible to change due
to external events:
a) the possible annexation of the Otay Ranch may require significant
modifications to the Plan depending on how the demand for
additional employee space is to be met. One possible outcome
could entail expansion at the current site in conjunction with
construction of a more centrally located annex building.
Conversely, all of the additional employees generated by the Otay
Ranch could possibly be accommodated at the current Civic Center
site under a reconfigured plan. Such alternatives could generate
economies of scale and thereby reduce the cost per equivalent
dwelling unit.
b) trip reduction plans, presently being developed to reduce
automobile emissions, could impact the ratio of parking spaces per
employee that is currently envisioned in the Plan.
Given these contingencies, staff is recommending that the fee for the Civic Center
Expansion Project be retained at its current level to reflect possible cost reductions
//, '3
Page 4, Item J"
Meeting Date 4/20/93
stemming from such near term events. As shown in the table below , the
recommended fee adjustment will allow for appropriate adjustments to be made
to the other facility components and will keep the fee for residential units at the
present level:
BREAKDOWN OF RESIDENTIAL FEE BY COMPONENT
Component Amount
Civic Center Expansion $527/EDU
Police Department Expansion and Improvements $235/EDU
Corporation Yard Relocation $515/EDU
Library System Expansion $544/EDU
Fire Suppression System Expansion $141/EDU
Geographic Information System Developroent $49/EDU
Mainframe Computer System Expansion $23/EDU
Telephone System Upgrade $32/EDU
Records Management System Developroent $5/EDU
DIP Administration (4.05%) $79/EDU
TOTAL $2,150
It is further recommended that the fee for commercial/office and industrial acreage
be decreased correspondingly by $1,290/acre and the fee for the Olympic Training
Center be decreased by $322/acre:
Land Use Fee
Residential $2,150/dwelling unit
Commercial/Office $IO,750/acre
Industrial $IO,750/acre
Olympic Training Center $2,688/acre
Special Land Use $IO,750/acre
Special Purpose Project $6,450/acre
Public Purpose Exempt
Non-profit Community Exempt
Purpose Facility
I" "'I
Page 5, Item I/,
Meeting Date 4/20/93
A discussion of the proposed fees for Special Land Use and Special Purpose projects is
found in Section D of this report.
The next update of the Public Facilities Impact Fee is scheduled for 1995, which should
provide sufficient time for staff to review the Civic Center Master Plan. If, at that time,
it is determined that any adjustments to the current Master Plan will not significantly
affect unit costs, the corresponding fee will need to be adjusted upwards. Based upon
current cost calculations and estimates of the remaining EDUs as derived from the
Planning Department's development forecasts, such an adjustment would result in a 1995
fee increase for the Civic Center component of $107, based on 1993 dollars.
It is important to briefly note that the needs for other capital projects currently included
within the PFDIF are not as likely to be impacted by events such as the possible
annexation of the Otay Ranch area. For example, while the annexation would increase
the number of fire stations needed, it would not impact the number of fire stations needed
to serve the non-Otay Ranch area. (The location of these stations could, however, be
impacted and will be reviewed during the Fire Station Master Plan Update.)
It is important to emphasize that staff does have concerns about adjusting the Civic
Center Expansion component of the fee on the basis of Dotential impacts rather than hard
facts. Staff's meetings with developers and the Construction Industry Federation have
yielded general agreement that the costs for the projects as currently envisioned are
accurate and reasonable. Moreover, there is no assurance that the unit costs for the Civic
Center Expansion Project, as envisioned in the current Master Plan, will be reduced by
these coming events. As such, there is a reasonable possibility that at the next scheduled
fee update (1995), staff could be proposing a $107 fee increase for the Civic Center
Expansion component alone, in addition to possible increases for other components
necessary to maintain pace with construction costs (ERC Index) or general inflation.
There is, of course, no way of knowing how the construction industry will be faring two
years hence. Staff is concerned that if smaller increases are delayed now, the cumulative
cost increases spread over a decreasing number of dwelling units could become too large
to enact in future years. Failure to enact the appropriate impact fee could, in turn, create
significant fund shortages, prohibiting the construction of needed facilities unless City
subsidies are provided.s
Given these concerns, staff is still recommending that the fee component for the Civic
Center Expansion Project be adjusted downward, until project needs can be reassessed.
Once that reassessment occurs, however, it is imperative that fees be enacted which will
cover the actual costs of the project.
It'>"
Page 6, Item I"
Meeting Date 4/20/93
B. THE CITY SHARE OF COSTS
1. Preexisting deficiencies are the orincioal reason for a City share in the cost of
facilities and eauioment.
There are three general factors which result in a City share of facility or
equipment costs. These are:
. A oreexisting City deficiency which must be corrected. Generally, the size
and/or number of facilities needed is based on a citywide service standard.
For example, the need for libraries is based on a citywide standard of .6
square feet per capita. If the standard is higher than what the City attained
prior to development, then the City is obligated under the Government
Code to correct the "deficiency" in its preexisting level of service. Since
the City was below the .6 square feet per-capita standard in the baseline
year, the City must construct sufficient new library square footage to bring
its preexisting level up to the current standard. For libraries, the
preexisting deficiency will be corrected when the new Montgomery-Otay
library is built.
Preexisting deficiencies account for more than half of the City's share of
costs.
. A new tvoe of facility or eauioment which will iointly benefit both the
oreexisting City and new develooment. An example of a joint benefit
project is the mobile digital terminals planned for use in police patrul cars.
This equipment will enhance patrol services in both the new and old areas
of the City. As such, costs for this project are shared on the basis of
proportionate benefit rates in the proportion of new to old EDU s served.
Another example of a joint benefit project is the geographic information
system (GIS). On one level, the increasing volume of data generated by
growth demands that the City develop more efficient planning and
engineering processes. Conversely, even if growth did not occur, cities are
availing themselves of the new technology provided by GIS. As such, the
GIS project has a joint City/DIF share, as detailed in the Council adopted
Capital Improvement Project budget.
. Expansion of a oreexisting oiece of eQuioment. An example of this type
of project is the replacement of the City's mainframe computer. This new
system was needed due to technological obsolescence of the old
equipment. New development's share of the replacement cost is limited
to the cost of the additional memory, storage space and associated items
needed to serve the growing City.
It, ..~
Page 7, ltem..&
Meeting Date 4/20/93
2. Most of the City share of costs will be funded bv non-General Fund sources.
New development's share of project costs included in the PFDIF totals
$50,751,700. The City cost share for these projects totals $21,281,317. The Table
below shows the fund sources for the City share. Important points to note about
the table are:
. Only a small portion of the funds identified are from the City's General
Fund. The $1,386,800 in General Fund Capital Outlay was principally
used to fmance the City share for the police building remodel.
. The City share of funding for the Montgomery-Otay library totals
$9,863,742. A significant portion of the City share ($6,748,000) will be
financed by a State grant.
. Approximately 46% of the total City share is for the Montgomery/Otay
Library ($9,864,000). An additional 8% percent or $1,772,000 represents
Transit's share of the new corporation yard.
. Several projects with significant City shares have already been
appropriated and expended. They include approximately $1,207,000 for
the replacement of the City's mainframe computer and installation of the
new Library automation system, and $1,053,000 for the City's share of the
Police station remodel.
. The City's share of the GIS project will come solely from non-General
Fund sources. The City's share of the Corporation Yard, to correct
preexisting deficiencies, will be funded from the proceeds of the sale of
the existing site.
. Lastly, preexisting deficiencies in Civic Center working and parking space
add $2,400,000 to the City share. The proposed review of the Civic
Center Master Plan could reduce the size of the City share in conjunction
with producing a lower DIF share per EDU.
/~ .. ')
Page 8, Item-.1.lL
Meeting Date 4/20/93
1. Stale Grant (MontgomeryJQtay $ 6,748,000
Library)
2. CDBG 2,731,200
3. SCOOT Capital Outlay Fund 1,771,500
4. General Fund Capital Outlay 1,386,800
5. RCT 1,257,000
6. Special Sewer Fund' 699,600
7. Revenue Sharing 112,900
8. California Stale Library Act 94,200
Capital Project Fund
9. Special Capital Outlay Fund 42,900
10. Gas Tax 40,500
11. Redevelopment Agency 30,000
SUBTOTAL $ 14,914,600
12. City PFDlF reimbursement/credits 2,190,700'
13. Sale of existing City land assets 1,327,700
SUBTOTAL $ 18,433,000
14. Currently Unidentified 2,848,317
TOTAL $ 21,281,317
1 Contains funds from sale of excess sewer capacity,
purchased by City in 1962, to other cities.
, These funds are currently allocated in City's ClF
budget.
, May include reimbursement for City advances of
PFDlF costs (e.g. for the police building remodel) and
credits for in-kind City contributions.
C. PFDIF REPORT.HIGHLIGHTS
.,.
1. The Joint Citv-School District Library at Eastlake Reduced the PFDIF bv $127.
As part of the originally planned library system, a separate facility was to be
constructed in Eastlake. This facility has been replaced by a joint City-School
District library which will serve the community on an experimental basis. In
addition to providing operating cost savings, the joint use facility has eliminated
the capital costs of constructing a separate library. Without this collaborative
effort, fees per EDU would have been $127 higher.
2. The Police Building RemodelJExDansion Has Been ComDleted.
The remodel of the police building was completed in 1992, at a cost $3,510,769.
70% of the project cost ($2,457,538) was the PFDIF share. The limited
availability of funds in the police component of the PFDIF required that the
I~...r
Page 9, Itern~
Meeting Date 4/20/93
project be fmanced by interest bearing loans from other City funds.
Recommended changes to the structure of the PFDIF will help ameliorate
cashflow problems for some PFDIF projects. These changes are discussed in
more detail in Section D of the report
3. A Sixth Citv Fire Station is being Ooened and a New Fire Training Tower has
been Constructed.
Eastlake Development Company is advancing approximately $227,000 in impact
fees to provide a temporary, modular fire station building and truckport to serve
the Eastlake I and surrounding areas. When plans for the Otay Ranch are more
clearly defined, staff will determine an optimum site for the station within the
context of an overall network. The developer is also advancing approximately
$312,000 in fees to purchase a fire pumper and related equipment for the station.
This equipment will be transferred to the permanent station site.
McMillin Communities has completed construction of a new frre training facility
in the Rancho del Rey development. This facility is state-of-the-art in both
function and design. A frre training classroom is planned as an adjunct to the
future fire station to be built in the Rancho del Rey development.
A new radio relay station is planned for construction in the next year which will
improve police and frre communications tlrroughout the eastern area of the City.
D. PFDIF ORDINANCE REVISIONS
1. Recommended Changes and Additions
It is recommended that the two existing ordinances covering the PFDIF be
superseded by a new ordinance which adds a new chapter to the City Code
thereby incorporating the PFDIF. This change was recommended by the City
Attorney.
A major ordinance change concerns the proposed merging of the various fee
components into a single fund, similar in concept to the current Transportation
Development Impact Fee.
Under the current ordinance, separate fee components are collected for the
different facilities and placed in separate accounts. Funds from one component
cannot be used to fmance projects in another component, regardless of the need
for or timing of the various projects. As such, the PFDIF share of the police
bnilding remodel could only be financed by interest bearing loans from other City
funds, irrespective of the overall availability of PFDIF funds.
Under the proposed new ordinance, fees collected after the effective date of the
new ordinance would be consolidated in a single fund rather than separate facility
1~'9
Page 10, Item I"
Meeting Date 4/20/93
accounts, which would help to accommodate the fmancing of PFDIF projects
without the necessity of seeking loans from other City funds. Moreover,
consolidation, by enabling the City to accelerate developer credits, would improve
the City's ability to negotiate with developers for up-front fmancing or
construction of projects. Fees collected prior to the effective date of the ordinance
would remain in separate facility accounts, per the recommendation of the City
Attorney.
Lastly, it is important to emphasize that the additional flexibility obtained by
consolidating the fee components into a single fund will principally help the
fmancing of smaller projects. Very large scale projects, such as the corporation
yard relocation or the civic center expansion, will continue to require non-PFDIF
financing mechanisms, such as developers advances, loans from other City funds,
or developer coalitions, if they are to be built in a timely manner.
The benefits of providing access to all PFDIF funds as project needs dictate were
discussed with developers and the CIF at the public meeting. No objections were
raised to such an approach.
Other significant amendments to the ordinance are outlined below:
. Changing the calculation of fees from the building permit application stage
to the building permit issuance stage, since there can be a long lag time
from application to issuance.
. Allowing developers who construct or fund a portion of or all of one of
the PFDIF facilities to be paid interest from the PFDIF on any portion of
the cost that exceeds the Developer's fair share (amount owed).
. Changing the developer credit calculation from an EDU or gross acre basis
to an aggregate dollar basis so that a developer will receive a dollar-for-
dollar credit against the dollar amount of the deferred fee, to account for
future revisions to the dollar amount of the fee. (Deferrals may be allowed
if the developer constructs all or a portion of a public facility).
. Better defining who is subject to payment of the PFDIF (see below for
further explanation) and adding additional land use categories.
. Memorializing the current practice of allowing for occasional loans of City
funds to pay for PFDIF projects and the repaying of these loans with
interest
. Modifying the defmition of community purpose facilities.
A section was added to the ordinance to specify which types of development
projects would be subject to the PFDIF. The current ordinance states that
I~ -If)
Page 11, Item / "
Meeting Date 4/20/93
development projects, as dermed by the State Goveroment Code, are subject to the
PFDIF. However, as defined by the State Code, a development project could be
something as small as a room addition on a house or any kind of alteration to a
building. While these types of projects have not been charged a PFDIF by the
City, it was felt that the ordinance should reflect this practice and list other types
of projects that would be exempt and clearly state which would be eligible.
Additional land use categories have been added for those projects that do not fall
into the current categories of "Residential", "Commercial/Office", and "Industrial".
The category of "Special Land Use" has been added to account for any non-
residential, non-commercial/office/industrial project, such as the Olympic Training
Center, hospitals and utilities. The category of "Special Purpose" has been added
to define any for-profit community purpose facility, such as a for-profit day care
center.
As detailed in the ordinance, commercial, industrial or residential projects on
currently developed sites are subject to the fee ONLY if the project results in a
net increase in EOUs. For example, a project converting an existing single family
dwelling unit into a multi-family complex would increase the number of EOUs
and be subject to the fee; conversely, an expansion of a commercial business
which occurred on its current site or on a neighboring, developed commercial site
would not result in an increase in EOUs and hence would NOT be subject to the
fee.
The appropriate fee for Special Land Use projects shall be that of
commercial/office/industrial projects, or $1O,750/acre. However, the fee for
Special Purpose projects, such as for-profit day care centers, shall be $6,450/acre.
At present, for-profit day care centers are assessed a PFDIF based on a certain
number of auto trips/child, which results in a factor of $179.17/child (non-profit
centers are exempt from the fee). Using the methodology established within the
PFDIF report, the fee of $6,450/acre is recommended for this type of project and
all other Special Purpose projects. The proposed fee should result in a significant
fee reduction for the centers.
This ordinance will take effect 60 days from its second reading.
2. Current Exemptions to the PFDIF have been retained
Under the current ordinance, Public Purpose Projects, such as those undertaken by
public agencies, and non-profit community purpose facilities, such as churches,
non-profit day care centers, non-profit private schools, various social service
agencies and all public schools are exempt. These exemptions have been retained
in the proposed ordinance, given the unlikelihood of a challenge.
This retention of the exemptions on churches, however, is not an endorsement of
this policy by the City Attorney, but is merely a reflection of current ordinance
lIP-II
Page 12, Item I"
Meeting Date 4/20/93
language and current practice. (A separate letter from the City Attorney dealing
with this issue will be forthcoming.)
E. PFDIF UPDATE PROCESS
Shortly after the PFDIF was established in 1989, the flnn of Willdan Associates, Inc. was
retained to refine the in-house study which had been used to establish the initial fee. The
firm was retained to verify population data, review City standards for public facilities,
refine facility cost estimates and review and refme the methodology used to apportion
facility costs. Willdan's analysis formed the basis for the 1991 fee update. Willdan was
used for this latest update to compile the data prepared by staff, and provide consultation.
Future updates of the PFDIF will be prepared by staff, with minimal, if any, support of
a consultant.
1. Input from Maior Developers/Constmction Industrv Federal (CIF) Input
Staff invited the major developers in Chula Vista and the CIF to a meeting on
January 27, 1993 to obtain preliminary feedback on a draft PFDIF report. A
follow-up meeting was held with a developer representative to address various
issues in more detail, resulting in cost adjustments for several projects.
While the developers and CIF representative were in general concurrence with the
underlying analyses and the justification for the proposed fee changes, most
expressed concern about the timing of any fee increase during an economic
downturn. The CIF representative stated that holding off on any fee increase for
one year was supportable. Concern was also expressed about the impact of the
aggregate increase in fees on the development community. They requested that:
. Council consider any increases in the PFDIF within the context of other
fee changes being contemplated by the City (particularly, the new impact
fee which will be proposed for constmction of SR-125); and
. Council consider the alternatives of deferring or phasing-in any proposed
fee increase.
As recommended by staff, the PFDIF for residential land uses will remain at the
present level; the fee for commercial/industrial land uses and for the Olympic
Training Center will be decreased.
2. Input from Citv Commissions
Staff attended the February and March meetings of the Economic Development
Commission (EDC) to receive input on the preliminary draft report. The EDC
echoed the sentiments of the development community in also expressing concern
regarding the timing of any fee increase during a recession. Another area of
concern was the general impact of fees on the affordability of housing. Minutes
JJ, "/..2.
Page 13, ltemA
Meeting Date 4/20/93
from these meetings as well as staff's follow-up memo addressing the issues
raised are attached.
Staff also made an informational presentation on the Library component of the
PFDIF to the Library Board of Trustees at its December 1992 meeting. The
Board and staff agreed that an update of the Library Master Plan was needed once
plans for the Otay Ranch project area were more clearly defined. The Board also
understood that the Library component of the DIF took into account the reduced
cost for the joint Eastlake High SchooVCity library pilot program and that the cost
would increase should a decision be made to have a separate City library in
Eastlake in the future.
In addition to holding meetings with the major developers and making
presentations to the EDC and Library Board of Trustees, notices were mailed to
all affected businesses and individuals with building plans or parcel maps in
process or building permit applications on file.
F. UPDATING MASTER PLANS
Should the Otay Ranch annex to the City, the optimum location of both Otay Ranch and
non-Otay Ranch facilities need to be considered as a whole. For example, until
development plans for the Otay Ranch are clarified, the most optimal fire station network
cannot be determined. Pending such data, the new, sixth City fire station is being
operated from a temporary facility. Once plans for the Otay Ranch are determined, a
permanent site for the new fire station will be decided.
Similarly, the Library Master Plan needs to be reassessed from a joint Otay Ranch/non-
Otay Ranch perspective. An updated Library Master Plan should (1) refine the planned
library network to best serve the entire City; (2) establish target dates for the construction
and operation of new facilities; and (3) identify intermediate funding needs and sources
in order to mitigate possible cash flow shortfalls in the PFDIF fund.
Additionally, it is recommended that staff prepare a CIP budget tbrough the year 2010 for
all PFDIF projects.
FISCAL IMP ACT: There will be no net increase in the PFDIF if Council accepts the staff
recommendation. The fee for residential land uses will remain at $2,150/EDU; the fee for
commercialloffice/industrialland uses will decrease from $12,040/acre to $1O,750/acre; the fee
for the OTC will decrease from 3,01O/acre to $2,688/acre. A fee for Special Land Use projects
shall be set at $10,750/acre. A fee for Special Purpose projects, such as for-nrofit day care
centers, would be set at $6,450/acre. As previously discussed in Section D, the proposed fee for
for-profit day care centers should result in a significant fee reduction for these centers.
WPC': F:\home\wpc\787.93
/J'l:J
February 18, 1993
TO:
Economic Development Commission
FROM:
Marty Chase, Special Projects Manager
RE:
Public Facility Development Impact Fees: 1993 Update
Staff has completed a review of the City's Public Facilities Development Impact Fee
(PFDIF). On February 3rd staff provided a summary of the proposed PFDIF changes to the
Economic Development Commission. This follow-up memo responds in more detail to
questions posed by Commission members at the earlier meeting. Two copies of the draft
report have been provided for the Commission's review.
WHY CHANGE FEES NOW?
It has been two years since the costs of facilities included in the PFDIF were reviewed and
new development's appropriate share of these costs was determined. During that
intervening period, sufficient changes have occurred to necessitate a full review of these
fees. First, Eastlake Development Company agreed to construct an interim fire station to
serve the Eastlake-I and surrounding areas. In order for Eastlake to receive a credit for
these expenditures against future fees, this project had to be formally incorporated into the
PFDIF. Secondly, a variety of other changes, often quite major, had occurred in all other
areas of the PFDIF. It's important to understand that the PFDIF analysis is very complex.
Given the array of changes, staff did not know whether the impact fee would go up or go
down when the review began in January, 1992. Indeed, as discussed below, the analysis
indicated that one portion of the fee needs to be raised while two other charges need to
be decreased.
Once the analysis is completed, it is staffs function to report the findings to the City
Council. The decision as to whether the fees should be changed at this time is a policy
decision which rests with the Council.
FEE REVIEW: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The findings, as outlined in the draft report are the following:
1:. Fees on residential units should be increased bv $115.
Based on the recent analysis, the fee on residential units needs to be increased from
$2,150 per dwelling unit to $2,265, representing an increase of $115 or 5.3% The
Page 1
I" 'It(
increase covers a span of nearly 4 years (March, 1991 when the fees were last
updated through December, 1994 when it's anticipated that the fees will be updated
again). The increase represents an annualized, average increase of slightly less than
1.5%.
2. Fees on commercial and industrial property should be decreased by $715.
As detailed in the report, the accepted method for spreading fees to non-residential
development involves the relationship of residential populations to employee/visitor
populations. Based on these relationships, the updated analysis indicates that the
fee charged for commerciaVindustrial acreage needs to be reduced. In the proposed
fee revision, the current fee of $12,040 per commerciaVindustrial acre would
decrease by $715 (to $11,325/acre), a decline of 5.9%.
Also, the fee imposed on the Olympic Training Center would be reduced from
$3,010/acre to $2,831/acre, a decrease of $169 per acre or 5.6%.
MEETING WITH MAJOR DEVELOPERS
In early February, staff met with major developers and a representative from the
Construction Industry Federation to obtain preliminary feedback on the draft report. Based
on that initial meeting and follow-up discussions, staff will be modifying the proposed fee
changes as follows:
the proposed fee increase on residential units will be $89 rather than the
$115 figure cited in the current draft.
the proposed decrease for commerciaVindustrial acreage will be $845/acre
rather than the $715/acre figure cited in the draft report.
the proposed decrease for the Olympic Training Center will be $211/acre
rather than the $169/ acre figure cited in the draft report.
Other developer comments on the draft report are cited in a subsequent section of this
report.
BACKGROUND OF TIlE PFDIF
L General Fund revenues support operatinS!: costs not capital costs.
In evaluating a proposed development, two separate financial studies are conducted.
First, a fiscal impact analysis examines the impact of the development on the City's
Page 2
I~'I'
general operating budget. The analysis forecasts the general fund operating
expenses needed to serve the proposed development and compares these costs to the
general fund revenues (property taxes, sales taxes, etc) which will be generated by
the project. Since the fiscal impact analysis focuses on operating expenses, it does
NOT take into account any of the capital costs associated with a development.
A project's start-up capital costs are assessed in a second financial study called the
public facilities financing plan. This plan details the capital impacts of the proposed
development and identifies the non-S!:eneral fund methods for financing these capital
projects. Some of the capital projects, such as residential streets, traffic signals, and
sewer lines, cover projects internal to the development. These are generally
financed directly by the developer. In some cases, these internal projects are
financed through assessment districts. Development also creates the need for capital
projects external to the development. A fire station, for example, is the result of the
cumulative impacts of various developments. Similarly, the need to expand the civic
center to serve a growing population is cumulatively impacted by all new
development. Development impact fees are the primary source of funds for external
capital projects which are impacted by development on a citywide basis.
2. The PFDIF covers 9 maior facility comoonents.
Section 66000 of the Government Code enables cities to institute impact fees to
provide for the new or expanded public facilities necessitated by development. In
1989 City staff met with developers and representatives of the Construction Industry
Federation to determine the citywide capital projects or facilities which will be
needed to serve new development through the year 2010. Nine major facilities and
projects were identified and agreed upon by developers and the Council and are
included as components of the PFDIF. These nine components are:
Expansion of the civic center
Expansion and relocation of the corporation yard
Expansion of the police facility
Expansion of the library system
Expansion of the fire station network
Development of a geographic information system
Expansion of the mainframe computer system
Expansion of the telephone system
Development of a records management system
..k The costs of uogradinS!: these facilities and equipment are shared bv the City and
new develooment.
Once these nine facilities/projects were approved, the capital needs were determined
and project costs were estimated. These needs and costs are evaluated each time
Page 3
I~"/~
the PFDIF is reviewed by staff and developers. For the major project components,
such as the expansion of the civic center, the relocation of the corporation yard, the
expansion of the library system, or the expansion of the fire station network, the
capital needs and cost estimates are based on master plans which have been adopted
by Council. The capital needs and costs associated with the minor components,
such as development of a records management system, are generally based on data
contained in the City's capital improvement project budget, which is developed by
staff and approved annually by the Council.
Once project costs are estimated, City staff and developers determine the
appropriate share to be borne by new development. Of the nine project components
currently contained in the PFDIF, each include a City share of the costs.
The City's cost share generally reflects (a) a pre-existing City deficiency which the
City must correct in accordance with the terms of the Government Code or (b) a
project which provides joint benefits to new development and the pre-existing City.
For example, the City had a pre-existing deficiency in library square footage since
it was below the citywide standard established by Council (.6 square feet of library
space per-capita). This pre-existing deficiency will be corrected when the planned
Montgomery/Otay library becomes operational. Examples of projects with joint
benefits include the geographic information system. On one level, the increasing
volume of data generated by growth demands that the City develop more efficient
planning and engineering processes. Conversely, even if growth did not occur, cities
do avail themselves of new technology as provided by geographic information
systems (GIS). As such, GIS development was viewed as a joint benefit project.
Based on the accepted methodology for determining financing shares for these types
of joint benefit projects, 64.5% of the cost is being funded by the City. The
remaining 34.5% of the project cost is the share being funded by the PFDIF.
THE RELOCATION OF THE CORPORATION YARD
This project is discussed in more detail since numerous questions were asked about it
during the information session provided to the Commission on February 3, 1993.
1,. The need for an expanded. more centrallv located vard is 2:enerated bv new
development.
The need to expand and relocate the corporation yard is a direct function of the
demands generated by development. First, there is the need to expand the facility
to accommodate the new equipment and staff which are needed to provide service
to new areas. (Once again, it is important to emphasize that funds collected
through impact fees are only used for such things as public facilities and start-up
equipment and are NOT used to support operating costs.) Secondly, there is the
Page 4
/"17
need to relocate the yard to a more central location, in order to minimize on-going
operating costs (e.g. travel times) as the City expands to the east, due to new
development.
2. City and Transit fundinl!" for the new vard totals over $3.000.000.
The corporation yard project has both a PFDIF and City cost share. The City's share
reflects the need to correct pre-existing deficiencies and is estimated at $1,328,000.
An additional $1,771,000 of the project's cost will be financed by the City's transit
system.
3. The resale of the current site will be used to help finance both the PFDIF and City
shares.
Upon the sale of the existing site, a portion of the resale value will be used to
reduce the PFDIF share. Based on a formula discussed with developers and adopted
by the Council in the last update, $656,000 from the resale (in 1992 dollars) will
be added to offset PFDIF costs. The remaining funds from the sale of the site will
be used to pay for the City's share of costs on PFDIF projects. It's important to note
that prior to resale the City must invest additional funds to clean up hazardous
wastes on-site. To date, the City has spent approximately $463,000 on clean-up
activities which are still not completed.
4. The City attempted to build a ioint use facility with the school district.
Beginning in 1988, the City attempted to negotiate an agreement with the
Sweetwater Union High School District to build and operate a joint-use corporation
yard. Those discussions ended when the district was unable to commit funds to the
project. The City, needing to pursue its own needs, is currently negotiating for an
approximate 30 acre site east of Interstate-80S. A 30 acre site would meet the
City's build-out requirements and also provide some reserve acreage which could be
used by another public entity. The cost of this reserve acreage is a City expense, in
addition to the $1,300,000 City share mentioned earlier.
Although the concept of a joint-use corporation yard has not materialized, it's
important to emphasize that staff is continuously looking for ways to improve city
operations and to keep impact fees as low as possible. For example, the City and
the School District have recently agreed to operate a joint library facility in Eastlake
on an experimental basis. Based on this agreement, staff were able to reduce the
impact fee for the library component of the PFDIF by $146. This reduction is
reflected in the proposed fee revision.
Page 5
/,.../8"
IMPACf OF PUBUC FACILrIY IMPACf FEES ON HOUSING COSTS
At the February meeting, a Commission member inquired about the impact of fees on
housing costs, particularly "affordable" housing. As mentioned at the meeting, there is no
definitive information on this point. General theories hold that the impact of fees on home
prices depends largely on the competitiveness of the housing market and on who pays the
fee. Some fees, such as assessments for open space maintenance or Mello Roos charges for
schools, are levied directly on the homeowner. As a general guideline, the City Council's
policy is that the sum of these direct taxes/assessments should not exceed 2% of the
market value of the home. The 2% cap includes the basic 1% ad-valorem property tax.
To the extent that these homeowner taxes/assessments affect housing prices, they tend to
exert downward pressure. Depending on the competitiveness of the surrounding housing
market, builders are sometimes forced to discount housing prices to offset some of the
taxes/assessments above the standard 1% level.
A second type of cost is paid directly by the builder at the time of construction.
Development impact fees are an example of this type of charge. To the extent that housing
prices are established by a competitive market, general theories hold that builders will not
(cannot) increase the selling price to offset these added costs. As such, these fees tend to
reduce profit margins. The theory indicates that builders will continue to build until their
return on investment drops below their threshold level.
It's important to also mention a couple of the ways in which the City provides direct or
indirect financial assistance to developers. First, the City will often grant density bonuses
to developers as offsets for meeting affordable housing goals, thereby improving the overall
profitability of a project. Second, and possibly most significant, the City provides
developers with access to low interest, municipal market financing to build various project
infrastructure, thereby keeping construction costs down.
SCHEDULE FOR FEE UPDATE
Staff has had a preliminary meeting with the City's major developers and a representative
from the Construction Industry Federation (CIF). While the developers and CIF
representative were in general concurrence with the underlying analyses and the
justification for the proposed fee changes, they requested that:
Council review the PFDIF within the context of other fee changes being
contemplated by the City (particularly, the new impact fee which will be
proposed for construction of SR 125); and
Council consider the alternatives of deferring or phasing-in the proposed fee
increase. As explained at the last meeting, it is staffs role to keep the
Council abreast of the fees required to fully fund the capital improvements.
Page 6
//,-/'
Council does, however, have the discretion of deferring or phasing-in a fee
increase and staff will present Council members with alternative fee
proposals should they want to avail themselves of this option. As discussed
at the February meeting, fee deferrals or phase-ins do have some negative
consequences which Council must consider. These consequences range from
the higher fees which would be passed on to future builders in order to make
up for the funding deficiency created by a deferral or the possibility that the
City might itself be obligated to fund the shortfall created by a fee waiver or
phase-in.
It is staffs current plan to announce a public hearing on the changes to the PFDIF on
March 10th and conduct the public hearing on March 23rd. Staff will be available at the
Commission's March meeting to answer any questions. Staff will relay to Council in the
Council report any concerns expressed by the Commission or individual Commission
members. Should the Commission desire to forward a separate report to Council, this
report will be referenced and attached along with staff's report.
As previously noted, staff will be available at the Commission's March meeting to respond
to questions. Also, Commission members should feel free to contact myself or Shauna
Stokes at 691-5296 prior to, or after that meeting, should you have any questions or
comments.
Page 7
II," ~()
MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
CITY OF CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA
DRAFT
.
Wednesday, March 3, 1993
12:00 Noon
Conference Rooms 2&3
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Chair Allen; Members Compton. Davis, Lopez, Peter, laMson, Tuchscher, LoBue; ex-officio
Patrick, Sellgren, Clark, Moore
ABSENT:
Member Maslak, ex-officio Sutherland, Fuller
STAFF:
Deputy City Manager Krempl, Finance Director Christopher, Assistant Director of Building &
Housing Remp, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Swanson, Senior Civil Engineer
Thomas, Special Projects Manager Chase, Administrative Analyst II Young, Principal
Management Assistant Stokes, Revenue Manager Fruchter, Public Information Coordinator
Gulbransen, Budget Manager Herring, Principal Management Assistant Cole, Economic
Development Manager Dye, Recording Secretary Bosworth
1. OLD BUSINESS
A. Staff Presentations on DIF Update
1. Public Facilities DIF
2. Transportation DIF
3. Interim State Route 125 Facility
After staff introductions, Mr. Chase recapped his presentation from last month's meeting and updated the EDC on
where they were at now. He noted they are constantly meeting with major City developers. The proposed fee
increase is between $89 and $94 for residential units. They are also proposing an increase in fees (around $800)
that is charged through commercial and industrial acreage. Council does not seem to be concerned with the public
facilities increase as much as in the increases as a whole, some of which are very extensive. Staff will be going
before Council with the Master Fee increases, impact fees and State Route 125 fees at the same time. Council will
be provided with two alternatives the Olympic Council could consider: a phase-in, or a deferral to the fee increases.
Some legal questions need to be resolved in terms of the City's liability. Mr. Chase asked if the Commission had
any questions.
Chair Allen asked when it was anticipated that the Public Facility DIF and Transportation DIF would go to Council.
Mr. Chase responded that it would most likely be sometime in April.
In response to Member Compton's question regarding placing a moratorium on certain things that have to be done,
Councilman Moore responded that certain things are required by thresholds that are also in the Charter. His
concern was that they are looking at price increases other than fees such as building material increases and other
factors. This affects the economy in that we cannot house people, they cannot afford to buy; this affects the
businesses in the area.
Mr. Chase responded that the items that the City currently has fees on have been the subject of agreements over
the years between major developers and the City Council. There is a potential in one area where Council would
like to consider new City directions in terms of air pollution requirements which might reduce the necessity to
increase fees in a particular area. Staff has been meeting with developers on these increases.
Member LoBue asked if there was an established system (timeframe) by which these fees are reevaluated; or is it
just on an ad hoc basis - when conditions change. Mr. Chase responded that if there are changes that may have
impacts, they want to go ahead and do that. In this case, one of the developers is spending money on improvements
that were not considered in the first Public Facilities DIF that was put together. When Otay Ranch came in and
staff needed to step back and look at what was happening regardless of whether or not this was in the County. Fire
facilities were too expensive to operate to not take into account where someone else was planning to build a station.
The City's objective was to look at what the most cost effective way was of delivering fire services regardless of
I~ '-J-/
jurisdiction. The plan for Otay Ranch is not factored into these fees. At this point, Otay Ranch is suggesting to
annex a portion of their property to the City and that a separate Otay Ranch be established.
Mr. Thomas noted that the goal of the Transportation Phasing Plan is to plan for short, medium and long-range
goals. The TDIF is designed to spread the costs of the facilities. They are recommending that a community
facilities district be placed over the undeveloped land and property here and that community facilities district would
not have any taxes imposed unless there was a short-fall in funding from fee revenues. For this to happen,
development would have to drop off by about 1/3 of what is projected now. Financing options are based on a
straight fee based on the trips generated. The formula is the same as used in the TDIF.
C
:::a
)>
."
-f
Mr. Thomas presented his report on the Transportation DIF and SR-125 (see Attachment lA 3., herein incorporated
as part of these minutes) and responded to questions from Commission members.
In answer to questions regarding Orange/I-805/Palomar and Broadway, Mr. Swanson stated that they are addressing
those areas as separate issues, and they are working on western area DIFs specifically for things like this. It is
complicated because most of the property is already built out and they can't project what may come in.
If this interim facility is built and approval for a toll road comes forward, then this potential will probably be
destroyed. The portions that would have to be destroyed are those that are physically located within the rights-of-
way of SR-125.
Member Tuchscher expressed his concern with the exorbitant fees. He noted that a study done through his company
found that in 1988, the average fees in the County were $5,000 per unit. Now they average upwards of $25,000
per unit. He felt the allocation should be structured differently.
Member LoBue noted his concern with the amount of lanes proposed. He asked if the installation of this would
become a "permanent interim solution" and have the state lose the incentive to put in a ten lane freeway. He asked
if this interim solution goes in and a state and toll road never come about, when you reach capacity is there a cap
on development. Mr. Thomas responded that this process will carry the City to the year 2007. This gives the City
ample time to apply to CalTrans and have them see the need for this facility. CalTrans has recognized already that
this is a needed facility but they have not been able to get through the environmental process and have no funding
for it. If capacity is reached, development is stopped until CalTrans comes in with a freeway, or developers who
don't have entitlements would have to come up with the money to upgrade the facility to a freeway.
In response to Member Davis' question regarding what happens to money that has been collected if the toll road
comes about, Mr. Thomas responded that the fee collection is proposed to go over the entire expansion to 2007.
The City should know by 1995 or 1996 which route will be selected. At this point, the City will not have collected
a great deal of funds. Many of the facilities that the City is constructing with these funds are facilities that are in
the General Plan; surface roads. The funds would be applied to those roads; the fees would be reduced unless other
facilities were identified that would cause those fees to remain at that level.
Because of time constraints, Member Tuchscher asked that staff go on to the next report on the Transportation DIF.
As to the transportation DIF, Mr. Thomas explained that the biggest change would be the addition of Villages 1
and 5 of the Otay Ranch. The Otay Ranch process is nearly completed and the City seems to have a good
knowledge of what is occurring in the western portion of Otay Ranch and staff has made assumptions based on that,
which have been included in the proposed DIF update. Kaiser, the Rancho del Rey Power Center, trips per day
and the "EastLake-Baldwin Land Swap" have been included. Proposed is a 2% DIF support, a program designed
to compensate the City for the studies staff does to identify what updates need to occur on the DIF. These deal with
transportation, traffic monitoring, and growth management programs. They feel the DIF needs to be more at 4%.
Mr. Thomas concluded his presentation noting that future updates include the Otay Ranch process and carving that
out as a separate DIF. Developers have requested they include components of funding in the Transportation DIF
from the state and local agency transportation partnership programs. This could potentially reduce the fees by 10
or 15%. The current DIF fee is $3,060 per equivalent dwelling unit. They are proposing to raise it slightly to
$3,075. Again, separate DIF fees are being proposed for the interim SR-125.
Chair Allen stated that the Commission has received a lot of information on this and may want to place this on the
next agenda for discussion. At that point they can discuss any concerns and make recommendations to Council prior
to their action. She thanked staff for their time and information.
IJ,--V-
B.
Report - Master Fee Schedule - Gerald Young
DRAFT
Chair Allen asked if there were any questions regarding the information sent to Members in their packets. Mr.
Young gave a brief presentation noting that the first phase of this update was processed last year which primarily
involved administrative changes to the Code. The changes listed in this update have been adjusted where staff felt
it was appropriate. He explained the various changes that had been made to the fees and the justification for those
changes. For example, some fees have been set at a graduated level, that is, five or six different fees, depending
on the size of the project. Delinquency fees have been implemented in problem collection areas and creation of
incentive to pay fees. Mr. Young passed out a summary to questions asked by the public prior to the March 16
presentation to Council.
Member Davis asked if the foundation permit (25 % of the fee payable up front for laying foundations) meant that
the balance of 75% is then due when the permit is pulled. Mr. Young responded no, that it would not be the
balance of the fee payable at that point, it would be the full building permit fee. Member Davis then asked if they
City would be charging 25% extra to pull a foundation fee. Mr. Young responded that if someone comes in ahead
of time and asks for a separate plan review on just the foundation, that is starting a separate process that they would
not have gotten into otherwise. The 25 % is the amount that is being proposed for that type of inspection; if a
developer has a problem with that in that this particular foundation is not so significant for review purposes, then
it could be reviewed by the building official in that case.
Mr. Remp added that these are rare cases, they only get around two Of three in one year. Most times it is because
of some funding issue when they have to get a permit by a certain date and the project and plans are not sufficiently
developed. In some cases it may only be 15%. Staff did not feel it was appropriate to encourage people to pull
multiple permits for each phase.
Member Davis asked if the sewer construction permit applies in an area such as north Chula Vista where people
want to connect to the sewer. Do these people have their own option to hire their own people to run the line or
are they bound by the City to have the City do it. Mr. Young responded that the fee is for the actual construction
work to be done, he was not sure whether it could be done by an outside contractor or not. He noted he would get
back to her with more information.
Chair Allen noted further any specific questions could be brought to Mr. Young's attention. He can be reached in
the Management Services department.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None submitted
3. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Retention of Business
B. Permit Process Streamlining
C. International Airport
D. Joint Marketing Efforts
E. North American Free Trade Agreement
F. Community Reinvestment Act
G. Special Events
H. Biotech/High Tech
1. Job Training
4. LIAISON REPORTS
A. Bayfront Task Force - William Tuchscher
B. Chamber Economic Development Committee - Mike Maslak
C. So. Co. Economic Development Council - Penny Allen
D. Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee - Patty Davis
5. NEW BUSINESS
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
7. MEMBERS' COMMENTS
IJ,',;,)
o..,jr'(' A'~ !!f"'~J'"
'ro b_
, ~ . *
8.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT to the regularly scheduled meeting of Wednesday, April 7, 1993 at 12:00 noon in the Public
Service Building, Conference Rooms 2&3.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require
special accommodation to access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service to request such
accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities.
Please contact Alice Kemp, Administrative Secretary for information or your request at (619) 691-5047. California
Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired.
A:\MAR93.AGE
1'''.2'{
MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
DRAFT
Wednesday, February 3, 1993
12:00 Noon
Conference Rooms 2&3
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 12: 11 p.m. by Vice Chair Compton.
PRESENT:
Members Compton, LoBue (arrived at 12: 15 p.m.), Lopez, Johnson, Davis, Maslak and
ex-officio members Fuller (arrived at 12:45 p.m.) and Councilman Moore (arrived at
1:45 p.m.)
ABSENT:
Chair Allen, Members Tuchscher, Peter and ex-officio members Clark, Sellgren, Patrick
Sutherland
STAFF:
Special Projects Manager Marty Chase, Public Information Coordinator Jeri Gulbransen,
Principal Management Assistant Shauna Stokes, Administrative Analyst II Gerald
Young, Principal Community Development Specialist Lyle Haynes, Recording Secretary
Alice Kemp
1. Presentation on Olympic Training Center by Dave Nielsen, Former Executive Director, San
Diego National Sports Training Foundation and Patrick Barry, Vice President, San Diego
National Sports Training Foundation
Member Compton introduced Dave Nielsen and Patrick Barry. Mr. Nielsen gave a history of the
Olympic Training Center, noting that the OTC is a non-profit organization governed by a Board of
Trustees. They are partners with the United States Olympic Committee (USOC).
Mr. Nielsen noted that the USOC will be responsible to own and operate their own facilities at their
expense. The original agreement looked at 40-50 pieces of property in Chula Vista. In October of 88,
EastLake was selected. The property was free and a cash contribution was promised.
Mr. Nielson noted funding is difficult. Proposals call for construction of housing, fields, courts, etc.
The project will be a boon to South bay. The direct economic impact calls for an annual operating
budget for USOC of $5-6 million/year with about 125 people employed. The indirect benefits that will
come from the OTC will come in the form of spin-off activities held here such as technical meetings,
conferences of statewide and international nature, research and development (athletic equipment, etc.).
Motels will be needed to house the athletes and their parents who are attending these training camps.
Mr. Barry noted how impressed he was with the leadership qualities of the City of Chula Vista which
was apparent in the development of the eastern parts of the City.
The OTC continues to need help. They have received support from this community in the form of the
sale of license plates. Mr. Doug Fuller has approached the dealerships about selling those plates; they
are talking to Council and the City Manager about gap financing.
Member Compton asked about timeframes. Mr. Nielsen responded that if they can agree with the
Olympic Committee on what the first phase looks like, it will be around one year of construction before
athletes are here. Some national teams have asked if they can come out before facilities are
completed.
Mr. Barry noted that the Olympic Committee anticipates 500,000 annual visitors to the site which will
generate around $500,000-600,000/year from purchases at the gift shop.
Mr. Nielson noted that the gift shop in Colorado Springs is one of the highest grossing retail spaces
in the country. People love to buy Olympic goods. People are expected to be there year round.
I~">>
EDC, Minutes
February 3, 1993
Page 2
DRAFT
In response to Member LoBue's questions regarding hotel sites and financial problems that may change
scheduling, Mr. Nielson said that the nearest place would be close to EastLake near the Visitor's
Center. As to financial problems, USOC controls the rings and Atlanta's handing of the construction.
Mr. Nielson said they were there today to ask for general support from the EDC and if appropriate, to
have the EDC review things as they come along with comments to Council as a group, or as
individuals. They would like this type of input. They are working with the City (Lyman Christopher)
as far as a loan goes.
Due to time constraints and a request from staff, item 6 a. was taken out of sequence.
6..NEW BUSINESS
a. Report: Development Impact Fees Update - Marty Chase
;, Mr. Chase reported that the Development Impact Fee (DIF) was established to provide for the capital
facilities and equipment needed to support new development. The size and/or number of facilities
needed is generally based on a citywide service standard. Generally, the standard applied to new
facilities reflects the level of service which was being met by the City prior to development. If the
standard is set at a higher service level, the City is obligated to correct the "deficiency" in its pre-
existing level of service. Mr. Chase gave the library as an example. The standard applied to library
space is .6 square feet per-capita. Since the City was below this standard when the DIF was
established, the City must pay to construct sufficient new library square footage to bring its pre-
existing level up to the new standard. For libraries, the pre-existing deficiency will be corrected when
the new Montgomery/Otay library is built.
Mr. Chase also stated that the DIF cannot be relied upon to finance the construction of all facilities at
the time they may be needed. There may be times when facilities will be needed before sufficient
funds can be accumulated in the DIF. Mr. Chase noted this concluded his presentation and asked if
the members had any questions.
Member Compton asked about the use of the tax money brought in from the new homes built on a
yearly basis; where is that money going?
Mr. Chase responded that there is a distinction between the use of these fees for capital facilities, and
the assumption is that the tax monies that flow into the City's general fund are used to fund costs of
operating these facilities. Impact fees can only be established to pay for the cost of construction. The
fee a builder pays is divided up among nine components covered by the DIF. A community like
EastLake generates new tax revenue for the City, it doesn't incur the demand on services right away.
These subsidize the needs on the part of the City. This is general tax money that goes into the City's
General Fund and is spread out, mostly in increases to the Police Department.
Member Compton asked about the Corporate Yard and how it fits into this category. Mr. Chase
responded this category, for example, looks at if there were no' roads there would be some
inefficiencies in terms of service level because the yard is in the western part of the City and we are
growing towards the east.
Due to time limitations, Commission members agreed to hold further discussion on this item until after
the approval of minutes and election of ex-officio member terms. .
,,2. APPROV AL OF MINUTES - December 2, 1992 and January 6, 1993
.
,
, MSC (Davis/LoBue) to approve the minutes as submitted 16-0-3; Allen, Tuchscher, Peter absent).
/j, '.1"
DRAFT
EDC, Minutes
February 3, 1993
Page 3
b. Ordinance 2531 - Discussion and Selection of Terms for Ex-Officiis
Discussion ensued regarding the way Commissioners would select the terms for each ex-officio.
Member LoBue asked if there was a way these seats were defined; that is, were they selected
specifically for the organization they represent or the person filling the seat. He asked if the
. Commission was placing a limit on the person or the category the person was in. Member Compton
stated he also had a concern with this. For example, he noted that an ex-officio such as Mr. Fuller in
pulling a short term, would not be on the Commission long enough to give input on decisions and
recommendations. He did not see any necessity in having staggered terms, although there should be
a term limit.
In answer to Member Lopez' question, Member Compton replied that an ex-officio can reapply at the
end of his term. To further clarify, Mr. Fuller stated that he was asked to serve on the Committee as
a member, but did not live within the City limits so he was not qualified to serve on the Commission
as a voting member. He was then asked to be an ex-officio member. His concern with the position
is that he can contribute to meetings but cannot vote on issues. Member Compton stated that the
Commission would actively listen to anything the ex-officio members had to say and take that into
consideration when making a decision. The Commission would encourage all members to actively
participate in discussions.
The Commission agreed to place the names of the ex-officio members in a cup and, as the names were
drawn, assign the terms as listed in the ordinance. The terms were drawn as follows:
Art Sellgren - term to end June 30, 1994
Doug Fuller, Brene Patrick - term to end June 30, 1995
Don Sutherland, Ken Clark - term to end June 30, 1996
MSC (Maslak/Davisl to !lpprove the terms as selected (6-0-3; Allen, Tuchscher, Peter absent)
At this time, Member Compton opened up discussion on the DIF report presented by Mr. Chase. It was
agreed that the Commission would request further information and docket the item again for the
meeting of March 3. Items such as the Corporate Yard, consolidating services with the County and
City of San Diego for a corporate yard, and SR 125 will be discussed.
Member Compton introduced Lyle Haynes who was filling in for Cheryl Dye. Member Lopez said to
pass on the Commission's best wishes for her recovery as soon as she's gone into surgery.
Mr. Haynes reported briefly on money for business retention and the CRA program. He is trying to
come up with a CRA reinvestment strategy in conjunction with the EDC and Carras Community
Investments, the consultant who will be facilitating this process. Mr. Haynes noted they had
$650,000 in an account that was to have been used in the downtown area and had been identified
as a source to be used as "seed money" for the CRA program. The budget cuts have impacted the
Redevelopment Agency in about this same amount. The Agency has to make payment into a fund by
May 10 and this source of "seed money" was considered to make the payment. The situation is that
staff now needs to make a recommendation to the Agency on how staff will come up with $650,000
to make this payment.
Member Compton stated this would make a difference on how the Commission will approach things
now since there are limited areas they can take money from now. They had thought of using the
money as a loan guarantee to expand their businesses. The money would not actually be taken out
of the City's account unless there was a default.
I~~/
EDC, Minutes
February 3, 1993
Page 4
DRAFT
4. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Retention of Business
Member LoBue reported they have had several meetings with various agencies and have gathered some
good information. The preliminary recommendations will be presented to the EDC within a month or
two.
B. Permit Process Streamlining - No report.
C. International Airport - No report.
Councilman Moore passed around a copy of a letter from the Ambassador to Mexico noting they are
not interested in the Twin Ports concept.
D. Joint Marketing Efforts
Member Maslak reported that the South County EDC invited him to join them at their annual planning
retreat as an observer. He will use this as a quorum to bring up the issue of joint efforts, including
marketing.
E. North American Free Trade Agreement
Member Lopez reported that he met with Ms. Dye and they are looking at February 23 or March 2 to
go to Council with their report. He is coordinating representatives to attend the me!lting; Mr. Tony
Fernandez, a businessman and advisor to the Mexican government in NAFT A negotiations, and the
author of the study done by Southwestern College, Andrea Migdall, an attorney with Gray; Carey,
AmeS, et al. Mr. Lopez also commented on the Williams-Kuebelbeck study Ms. Dye had sent, noting
it was very succinct and comprehensive.
F. Community Reinvestment Act
Mr. Haynes reported that the results will be compiled within the next two weeks. They can then start
on program development.
G. Special Events - No report.
H. Biotech/High Tech- No report.
I. Job Training - No report.
5. LIAISON REPORTS
A. Bayfront Task Force - No report.
B. Chamber Economic Development Committee
Member Maslak noted that the Chamber newsletter now has a new section which includes a summary
of all Chamber issues that are being advocated at the time.
C. So. Co. Economic Development Council - No report.
D. Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee - No report.
7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
IJ ".2.'1
.
DRAFT
EDC, Minutes
February 3, 1993
Page 5
8. MEMBERS' COMMENTS
a. Member Lopez noted he attended a forum on the environment promoted by Chula Vista. He
was impressed that Mayor Nader was taking the lead in doing such a good job in terms of
meeting regularly with the Mayor of Tijuana.
b. Member Davis noted the California Water Resources Board will be meeting on the 15th to look
at whether shipping water down through the delta will threaten the ecological integrity of the
delta.
c. Member Johnson passed out a copy of the newsletter from the San Diego Economic
Conversion Council which showed local events going on in the City of San Diego. He also
noted there will be a workshop sponsored by the San Diego Community College District on
building bi-national bridges (educational and economical).
d. Councilman Moore reported that a Chinese-Hong Kong group is being sponsored downtown
by the San Diego Economic Development Corporation on March 4. Their reason for being here
is to see about business here. He asked that any members interested in attending contact the
Community Development Department.
9. ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT at 2: 1 0 p.m. to the regularly scheduled meeting of Wednesday, March 3, 1993 at
12:00 noon in the Public Service Building, Conference Rooms 2&3.
~ kk.
Alice Kemp, Recording secretary~
A:\FEB93.AGE
)J,'" .2.1
MINUTES
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
DECEMBER 9, 1992
LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM
3:30 PM
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Alexander, Trustees Donovan,
Williams, Ex-officio member Lathers*
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
vice Chair Viesca (excused), Trustee
Wilson (excused)
Library Director Lane, Assistant Library
Director Palmer
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Deputy City Manager, Jim Thomson; Special
proj ects Manager, Marty Chase; Budget
Manager, Dawn Herring; Senior Management
Assistant, Shauna Stokes; Administrative
Analyst II, Gerald Young
)
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of October 28, 1992
MSUC (Donovan/Williams) to approve the minutes of the October
28, 1992 meeting as submitted.
II. CONTINUED MATTERS
l~
A. Library Board Budget
MSUC (Donovan/Williams) that any reductions in the
Library Board budget be taken from the travel account, as
all other accounts are related to staff functions and are
necessary.
(Trustee Williams left the meeting at 4:07 pm)
B. Loss of reinstatement of a portion of Library book budget
Director Lane reported that Council followed the City
Manager's recommendation not to restore the money for
books and materials cut from the current year's budget.
The rationale behind this was that additional books are
being purchased for the EastLake High School/Library.
*
Joanna Lathers, Hilltop High School student, was selected by
the Youth Commission to represent the youth of Chula Vista in
library matters. The Library Board requested this eX-Officio
position. '
)
/J,';JP
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
- 2 -
DECEMBER 9, 1992
The EastLake books, however, will be duplicates of those
already available at other Chula Vista Libraries.
Cutting the budget of the Library at 365 F Street by
$25,623 means 1,543 fewer currently published books and
potential circulation loss of 20,717 transactions.
Deputy City Manager Thomson explained that this was part
of the cuts that each department was obliged to make.
Chair Alexander asserted that the Library'S two percent
cut constituted a cut in service to the public since
fewer books would be available for the public to read.
Other departments were not required to decrease their
service levels.
III. NEW BUSINESS
A.
Development Impact Fees for Libraries - Marty Chase
Marty Chase, Special Project Manager, informed the
Trustees that the City is in the process of revising the
City's development impact fees as they relate to public
facilities. DIF fees are based on the need generated by
the new development. Using a formula of the total
population at build-out of the project multiplied by the
library standard of .6 square feet per capita determines,~
the square footage of library space needed for a
developing area.
\
)
Once libraries needs are assessed, an attempt is made to
estimate the cost of building and maintaining these
facilities. Previous DIF fees covered the cost of an
opening day collection only, the revised DIF will provide
adequate funding for collection expansion past the first
year.
DIF fees are currently $2,500 per dwelling unit. An
increase of 26% is proposed. This increase could have
been considerably larger, but the City is currently not
considering building a permanent library in EastLake
until the High School pilot project's effectiveness is
determined.
)
Deputy City Manager Thomson proposed that the Library
Master Plan be updated after an evaluation of the Otay
Ranch situation and the EastLake High School Library
pilot program is tested. At that time the Library
component of the DIF would be updated to include
necessary library facilities.
II, ""3/
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
- 3 -
DECEMBER 9, 1992
Chair Alexander asked how Chula vista's development
impact fees compared with other high growth areas in San
Diego. Mr. Chase replied that Chula vista was within the
top third. Deputy City Manager Thomson reported that the
City is trying to update the public facility development
impact fees every year. Once the otay Ranch proj ect
question is determined, there will be a separate Otay
Ranch development impact fees. The cost of the revision
to the master plan can be financed from these fees.
B. Amended South Chula vista Library Plans
Director Lane reported on the changes in the plans for
the South Chula vista Library as a result of an informal
critique by the State Librarian. She displayed the
revised plans and a model. All the elements of the
previous plans have been incorporated into the new ones,
but rearranged. The most significant change is the main
entrance now faces east towards the bulk of the parking
rather than south.
The Library Director believes that the changes improve
the plans. The revised plans address some of the
concerns of other City Departments as well. as, those of,r
the State Librarian.
Because of the short time frame required by the State
Grant, the City Council reviewed and approved these
revised conceptual plans at the Council meeting of
December 8th. Director Lane reported that the Mayor
voiced his discomfort in approving the plans before the
Library Board of Trustees reviewed them. Deputy City
Manager Thomson added that even though the Council
approved the plans, they would like to hear any concerns
about the plans the Trustees may have. Jim Thomson asked
the Trustees to give staff direction as to whether it
would be helpful to schedule special meetings if they are
necessary.
)
Director Lane reported at the December 8th Council
meeting councilmember Rindone asked if the structure was
being planned so that a second floor could be added at a
later date. This request would most likely require a
reapplication. It would also make the construction costs
higher resulting in a budget change. Councilman Fox
suggested a mural be painted on the outside of the
building to help defray graffiti. Architect Legorreta is
very interested in this, but currently no funding is
available. Councilman Moore asked that a turnout for
) J, 'J;J...
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
- 4 -
DECEMBER 9, 1992
buses be placed in the San Diego Gas and Electric
easement to unload passengers.
MSUC (Williams/Donovan) that Library Board accepts the
revised plan presented by the Library Director.
Chair Alexander reported that the Trustees. had an
adequate amount of time to review the functional
elements of the new design received in their meeting
packets, even through the Council met the day before the
Trustees did.
C. Need for update of the Library Master Plan
Chair Alexander asked when work on revising the master
plan would begin. Deputy city Manager Thomson suggested
that this be delayed until the otay Ranch jurisdictional
issue is resolved and the impact of the EastLake High
SchOOl/Library pilot project is evaluated. He estimated
this would not happen until FY 1994-95.
(David Palmer, Assistant Library Director, arrived at
4:37 pm)
Director Lane reported that the Eastern. Territories or
portion of the Library Master Plan is now out of date and
should be updated. When the plan is revised, it will
include a time schedule of when the libraries are
scheduled to open and also a financing plan showing how
much these libraries will cost and where the funds would
come from.
The Eastlake Development Company wants the city to make
a decision as to whether the City is going to build a
permanent library facility in the EastLake Village
Center. The City probably would commit to make a
decision three to five years after the EastLake High
School/Library pilot project is begun.
IV. LIBRARY DIRECTOR'S REPORT
A.
EastLake High School/Public Library Update
)
Deputy City Manager Thomson has worked on the City'S team
on negotiating a contract with EastLake Development
company. He thinks a final agreement will be made in a
month.
.
I~~.JY
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
- 5 -
DECEMBER 9, 1992
David Palmer stated that the School District has been
extremely cooperative up to this point in working out
issues on the contract. We are waiting for the
Administrative response of the Sweetwater School District
so that the contract could go to Council and the School
Board in January. If this could be accomplished, the
library would open to patrons in February or March.
Recruitment of staff would be the most time consuming
factor in opening this branch.
Chair Alexander asked about security at EastLake High
School. Assistant Director Palmer reported that the
General Contractor is providing security on site during
the constructions phase. An on-site security person will
be hired after the completion of construction.
Chair Alexander asked Ex-officio Trustee Lathers her
impression of the EastLake Library. Trustee Lathers said
that the library is difficult to find from the parking
area. The computer system is not operational so books
are checked out by hand. The number of books is minimal
and there is no mechanism to find them.
)
B.
EastLake Development Corporation proposal for EastLake
permanent library
The city is negotiating a new contractual agreement with'~
the EastLake Development Corporation which is committed
to provide rental space, staff and books in SPA I. The
City has negotiated to transfer the funds for rental
space, staff and books to the Library at EastLake High
School. The EastLake Development Company still wants a
permanent library building in the future EastLake Village
and has suggested the possibility of building a library
for the City and leasing it back. If the City does not
build a library in EastLake Village, the City may
exchange that acre site dedicated to a library for
another acre site located elsewhere for a library.
C. Museum Update
The museum is scheduled to open on January 17th.
V. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Friends
Betty Roche reported that the Friends received a thank-
you letter from Project HandClasp for the 200 lbs of
/ ~" Jr
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
- 6 -
DECEMBER 9, 1992
medical books and PUblications they donated. This makes
Chula Vista and the bookstore known round the world.
Betty reported that the new Friends Board members for
1993 are:
Harry Labore, President
Frances Reeves, Vice President
Marge Clark, Treasurer
Ronnie Berman, Secretary
The Friends will have their annual meeting on January 13,
1992.
Due to City wide budget cuts, funds to pay for the
volunteer coffee refreshments were discontinued. The
Friends of the Library have offered to pay $165 to keep
this function operating. The Friends will help with the
grand opening of the Chula Vista Heritage MUseum.
Director Lane thanked the Friends for the Christmas cheer
their poinsettias bring to the Library.
B. Public Comments
Robert Coye suggested the City arrange a bus route past
the new South Chula Vista Library. Assistant Director
Palmer replied that there is a bus stop near the new
library site. There had been a suggestion for a bus
turnout but Chula Vista Transit does not want their
busses to pullout and re-enter traffic. The street will
be widened adequately to make this unnecessary.
.r
C. Written Comments None
D. Board Comments
Trustee Donovan welcomed Joanne Lathers to the Board and
hoped that she enjoys her term as an ex-officio Board
member representing youth.
VI. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 5:16 pm. The next
Library Board of Trustees meeting will be held on January 27,
1993 at 3:30 pm in Conference Room One.
Chair Alexander welcomed Joanna Lathers to the Board.
I" .,:Jf'" .
~/J
Apdl19. 1993
IICJDDIlIbIe MaJor
CIl7 CouIIdJ Membels
City of 0mJa ViIta
276POIIdhA_
0IuIa VISII, CA .91910
BE: CIF Support- DemI14i - PaIIIle Hearlnaau PublIc FacIlity Fe.
Dear Mr. Ma)U lIId CbuDcllMembc:rB;
Tbe Omstrac:lion JncIuJ1rJ Fedenlion appIeCIates thls ~ 10 ellpftllllll1s IUpfJOI't
on the City Maoagen RlCOlDIDcodItion 10 l{lllt'O.e 1he 1993 UpdaIc of tile PlIb1ic
PIIci1Itles DcvdopmeDt Impact Fee. We also IMI/POI1 1nl1iadD& a 0AUIplda.ustve review
Ofdle Ulmuy MasterPtaa: PlreStallonMasterPlan; Ovic ~ Masler Plan lIId
pt1e(llllllion of a PllbUc PacIlity Fee ClIpilallmplovemeot Ploject t1uougb the ye.-201o.
. CIF is very ~a1Ive ar1he cltYs ~......"""'llIlonlOdc:l:reasefees OII<nmmen:lal8Dd
iDdUSllial acreage. We are as appm:ia1lve 10 see Ibat DO iIIl:reasc Is ~ ....m........ CIl the
reslden1ial side. 1bese recommPNtotinml are weIllaten as lbey IeIld a clear 8Dd pllIiIive
signal 10 die business comm1ll1ity duriDg 1Dugh economic times.
Lastly, we BU<<XJIt cJcfenlDa any h.c.....1n the ttamc fmpal:t fee 1JIIJlthe DeW SR 115
fee III ready tbr COImriJ review.
Once lI(llIID. CIP suppoJlll die Cilts recon..n_~QJ1 on 1beac I8sues and asks for JOIII'
considmdkm.
vm;;:
!i~AnalyR .
cc: Mr.. JOhn Ooss
C1y Manager
Mr. Marty Cbue
Spccla1 Projects Manager
/(,-37
APR 2eI '93 lil6:46 BFlL.DWIN'CO. 619 ~9' e24~
P.2
,
,
,
.....~.
','
~
~,;..- . :<~
-., ".i
. .~
~~m jre, ~
f:~._-
~
i"
c.
., .
~':"..
~
t-
April 19, 1993
~.
The BaldwIn eolllpllDY
CrrqtsmI:mship In /nIJJdIng $lIP ]956
.
.
,
Hayor Tim Nader
City Council MeDbers
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 4th Avenue
Chula vista,;;,~.._.9l910
.,.
L. '.)
,.
.....
,
,
.,
.-
Dear Honorabte Mayor Tim Nader and City council HeJllbers:
We have reviewed the P\:II:)lic Facilities DeVelopment Impact Fee
(PFDIF) staff report scheduled for tomorrow's public heating. We
recognize that the City held a workshop for public input and:
comments on ::January 27th. Unfortunately we were unaware until,
today of the particular recommendation to merge all PFDIF ~unds
into a single fund.
~ .
We 'are very 19.oncerned about consolidating the fee oomponents and ':-
no longer providing an accounting mechanism for separate tunds. In
effect, all '~ees collected in the PDlF (police, fire, libraries,
civic center, corporate yard, FIS, etc.) would be cOJ!llllingled.
There are several reasons for our concern and oppositiob to one
C'
fund. :.....
1 . . '. .
First, it is prudent business to maintain separate accounts. When
funds are commingled, it is easy to lose track of fees collected
and their intended use. Certain facilities, say a fire station, ......n
will be built using the total fee collected as a financing
mechanism, leaving the potential for no funds to be available for
1ibraries or other facilities. The Traffic DIF, is an exaDple
where SR12S fees and road tees were ~ixed. All fund8 bave been
expended tor roads and no monies are now available for funding
SR125. AS a result, the city statf is considering a separate road
'l'DIF and sR125 DIF. We foresee silnilar proble~s with PFDIF
facilities ~~ funds are mixed. ..
,
'I.:
.....
..'
,.
"':c::-.:.~.-
, '.
.' .: ~ ~ :.. .. ..
.' .
. ':r ~
..
~\97S E1 C8IIIino RaI.I . Suite 2DO . San Dic&o, CA !l2130 . (Q9) 2S~
,
~.
I&'- 3~
.
F1PR 2e '93 00: 47 I3AL.DWIN CO. 619 259 0242eJl"'ll'1Ml'eI
P.3
Secondly, we .believe that there may be a nexus problem ~f these
fees: are co1lllll1nqled into one fund. OUr qoal is to assure All PFDIF
facilities are provided for as development occurs. We do not
oppose funds beinq loaned between accounts tor tinancinq PurPoses
if necessary. We urge you to maintain current accountinq p;ractices
and keep the PFPIF funds separate.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
~~
Liz Lonq
project Manaqer
cc: George Kremple
Marty Chase
/(P-39'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
FOR
PuBLIC FACILITIES
1993 UPDATE
Table of Contents
Section
DescriDtion
Pal!:e
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Purpose
1.3 Key Assumptions
1.4 Summary of Facility Costs and Fees
1
2
3
8
2
METHODOLOGY
2.1 Development Forecast
2.2 Spread Methodology
2.3 Calculating Cost Shares
14
14
15
3
IMPLEMENTATION
3.1 Overview
3.2 Advance Construction of Fee Projects
3.3 Ordinance
22
22
23
4
PUBLIC FACILITY REQUIREMENTS, COSTS AND
DOCUMENTATION
4.1 Civic Center Expansion 24
4.2 Police Department Expansion and Improvements 30
4.3 Corporation Yard Relocation 35
4.4 Libraries 40
4.5 Fire Suppression System 47
4.6 Geographic Information System 51
4.7 Mainframe Computer 54
4.8 Telephone System Upgrade 57
4.9 Records Management System 60
1993 Public Facililies D1F Updale
Ciry of Chula Visla
IG .. L(l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
(coot'd)
Fi2Ures
Description Pal!:e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Public Facility Cost Shares 9
Development Increments 10
1993 Fee Calculations 11
Summary - 1993 Fees Per Facility 12
Summary of Fees per Land Use Type and Increment 13
Equivalent Dwelling Units 15
Calculation of Future D IF Shares 16
Future Development Land Use 18
Community Planning Areas 20
Map of Development Projects in Eastern Territories 21
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chuta Vista
J~- 4i.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
(cont'd)
Summarv of Documentation
4.1 Civic Center Expansion
1. DIF Fund Status - As of June 30, 1992
2. Staff memo dated February 10, 1992.
3. Attachments A - H, various cost spreadsheets
4. Staff memos dated December 18, 1991, November 4, 1991, December 27, 1991,
November 18, 1991 and December 16, 1991.
5. Excerpts from "A Master Plan for the Chula Vista Civic Center", by Danielson
Design Group, Michael Feerer & Associates, May 8, 1989.
a. "The Need for Changes to the Civic Center", pages 2.1 and 2.2.
b. "Civic Center Summary", pages 3.3 and 3.4.
c. "Suburban" Scheme cost estimate, January 1990.
6. Final Report, February 16, 1990.
7. Staff letter dated June 28, 1990.
4.2 Police Department Expansion and Improvements
1. DIF Fund Status - As of June 30, 1992
2. Cost spreadsheet for Police Facility Remodeling
3. Memo to Dawn Herring dated March 12, 1992 Re: Police Remodel Total Cost.
4. CAD cost calculations spreadsheet
5. Staff Memo of September 25, 1990
6. Police Department Remodel - Long Term Impact (Memo March 13, 1990)
7. Police Rolling Stock and Excess Capacity Calculations
8. Capital Equipment and Fixtures Cost Memo Dated September 16, 1992
4.3 Corooration Yard Relocation
1. DIF Fund Status - As of June 30, 1992
2. Adjusted Cost Spreadsheets
3. Construction Cost Estimate dated December 9, 1991
4. Letter dated November 11, 1987, subject: Projected Costs for New Operations
Center
5. Corporation Yard Rolling Stock Calculations
6. Analysis of Vehicle and Communication Equipment Replacement Needs,
May 1984, page 38
7. Agreement dated August 30, 1963 for the purchase of the existing yard site.
8. Corporation Yard Value Calculations based on CPI.
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
J~-~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.4 Libraries
1. DIF Fund Status - As of June 30, 1992
2. Memos to Dawn Herring dated April 8, April 14, and January 21, 1992 Re: Update
of Library Projects
3. Letter dated December 19, 1989 from Rosemary Lane, Library Director
4. Attachment "A", Council Conference Agenda Statement
5. Attachment "B", Growth Management Oversight Committee
6. Attachment "C", CIP Project Estimate
7. Replacement of Automated System (Memo 3-16-90)
8. Letter to Willdan Associates dated 3-16-90 Re: Master Plan Fee
4.5 Fire Suppression System
1. DIF Fund Status - As of June 30, 1992
2. Attachment I: Breakdown of fIre station and related costs.
3. Fire Station Master Plan Executive Summary dated March 23, 1989.
4. Brush Rig Cost Estimate, October 27, 1989.
5. EastLake Development Company letter of 4-15-92 regarding Interim Station
Parcel.
6. Development Share Calculations of Fire Station #1 Expansion, Attachment A, 11-
19-90
4.6 Geol!raphic Information System
1. DIF Fund Status - As of June 30, 1992
2. Memo to Dawn Herring dated April 2, 1992 Re: DIF Review
3. GIS Capital Improvement Program detail spreadsheet dated December 15, 1991
4. Excerpts from City of Chula Vista Geographic Information System Study dated
May 19, 1987
4.7 Mainframe Computer
1. DIF Fund Status - As of June 30, 1992
2. Memo to Jim Thomson dated January 21, 1992
3. CIP project detail dated December 17, 1991
4. Letter dated November 2, 1989, "Replacement of Mainframe Computer"
5. Cost comparison dated November I, 1989
4.8 Telephone System Update
1. DIF Fund Status - As of June 30, 1992
2. CIP project detail dated January 23, 1992
3. Letter dated November 27, 1989, "Phone System Upgrade Overview"
4. Attachment 1, "Cost Estimate Phase 1"
5. Attachment 2, "Cost Estimate Phase 2"
6. CIP Project GG910 - Phone System Upgrades
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
iv
/~ - t.f1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.9 Records Manaeement System
1. DIF Fund Status - As of June 30, 1992
2. CIP project detail dated December, 1991
3. City Staff Memo dated August 31, 1990
4. City Staff Memo dated June 18, 1990
v
I~- L(~
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECI10N 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
BACKGROUND
Following the adoption of development impact fees to fund major street improve-
ments in the eastern area of the city, the City undertook an in-house study of other
public facilities that were projected to be impacted by future growth. The result of
that study was the adoption of Ordinance 2320 in August, 1989 which addressed a
series of "Supplemental" Development Impact Fees.
During the following year, the fees were studied in greater detail and, on January
8, 1991, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2432 (First Reading), which amended
Ordinance 2320 and increased the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee from
$1,374 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) to $2,150. The ordinance requires that
the fee be reviewed annually. This report constitutes the results of the 1992 annual
review.
The 1993 report further refines the cost estimates associated with each proposed
facility. The cost estimates are based on more recent studies and further City staff
analysis of the facility needs created by future development. The initial fees adopted
in 1989 and revised in 1991 fell short of addressing all of the impacts of future
development, even though they were based on the best information available at that
time. As a result, the capital related costs associated with new development were
underestimated. Unless offset by other factors, these additional costs would result
in higher fees per EDU. Several factors mitigated the impact on fees: (1) the joint
City-School District library planned for the Eastlake I development significantly
reduced the costs associated with that project; (2) the more intensive staff review,
in addition to more accurately identifying costs associated with development, also
more accurately identified pre-existing City deficiencies. As a result the City share
has increase from $7,910,647 to $21,281,317. More than half of these costs are
associated with the planned Montgomery-Otay Library and will be funded in PaI:t
by the State Grant. Of the remaining costs, only a small percentage represent
general fund monies; and (3) the benefit year for a number of projects was extended,
thereby lowering the cost per EDU. Lastly, and most significantly, staff is
recommending that the fee associated with the Civic Center component remain at
the 1991 level, to account for possible changes in project costs resulting from
several near-term events and a reassessment of overall project needs.
The 1993 report also adjusts the base year and new development populations, based
on the 1990 Census information, which therefore necessarily leads to an adjustment
of the City share and DIF share.
/993 Public Facilities DlF Update
City of Chu/a Vista
1
I~ -J./~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.2
PuRPOSE
This Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Report is intended to identify the
public facilities required to support future development within the City of Chula
Vista's general planning area except for approximately 9,500 acres within a special
study area consisting of the western portion of Otay Ranch, purchased by The
Baldwin Company. These public facilities include:
. Civic Center Expansion
. Police Department Expansion and Improvements
. Corporation Yard Relocation
. Libraries
. Fire Suppression System
. Geographic Information System (GIS)
. Mainframe Computer
. Telephone System Upgrade
. Records Management System
It is the City's intent that the cost of these facilities be shared among the various
beneficiaries of the facilities. In the case where the existing population creates a
need for a facility, the cost associated with this "City Share" will be borne by the
City of Chula Vista on behalf of current residents. The City share represents a
deficiency to be made up by the City for existing residents and/or the provision by
the City of a new facility that benefits both existing and future residents. On the
other hand, where future development creates an additional facility need for the new
residents, the cost associated with this new need is apportioned to future develop-
ment in the form of a fee, and represents the DIF share.
Assembly Bill 1600, enacted in 1987 and effective January 1, 1989, as Government
Code Section 66000, requires that a city establish a reasonable relationship, or
"nexus", between a development project or class of development projects and the
public improvement for which a developer fee is charged. The City must:
. Identify the purpose of the fee;
. Identify the use to which the fee will be put;
. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and
the type of development project on which the fee is imposed (a "type"
nexus); and
. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is
imposed (a "burden" nexus). In addition, when a city imposes a fee as a
condition of development approval, it must determine how there is a
reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
2
~-47
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
public facility or portion of that facility attributable to the development on
which the fee is imposed.
Government Code Section 66000 also requires that the public agency segregate and
account for the fees received separate from general funds. In addition, if a city has
had possession of a developer fee for five years or more and has not committed or
expended that money for a project, then the City must make findings describing the
continuing need for the fees each fiscal year after the five year period has expired.
Fees excluded from the requirements of Section 66000 include:
. Fees charged in lieu of park land dedication under the Quimby Act;
. Regulatory and processing fees;
. Fees collected pursuant to a development agreement;
. Fees collected pursuant to a reimbursement agreement that exceed the
developer's share of an improvement;
. Assessment district proceedings or taxes; and
. Service charges for utility services such as sewer, water, and electricity.
This report evaluates nine public facilities needed within three different time spans.
Different time spans are used because each facility has a different projected life.
The civic center, the corporate yard, the libraries, the fire suppression system, and
records management system are designed to accommodate the projected growth
needs of the City to the year 2010.
The police facility is projected to require more square footage and possibly
additional square footage by the year 2005.
Although a portion of the mainframe computer's value will be retained after five
years, needed additions to its capacity and changes in technology will require its
rehabilitation by 2000. The GIS and the telephone system will also need expansion
or partial replacement by the year 2000.
Because of these varying lengths of adequate service, the time spans for financing
the facilities must also vary. This ensures that only those properties benefitting from
the facilities will finance them. Future upgrades or expansions of facilities will be
financed by the future development that benefits.
1.3
KEY ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions were used in the preparation of this public facilities
development impact fee report:
1. The public facilities listed below are needed to support the full development
in Chula Vista to the year 2010.
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
3
1~-lfY"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Civic Center Expansion
. Corporation Yard Relocation
. Libraries
. Fire Suppression System
. Records Management System
The public facilities listed below are needed to support the full development
in Chula Vista to the vear 2005.
. Police Department Expansion and Improvements
The public facilities listed below are needed to support development in Chula
Vista to the vear 2000.
. Geographic Information System
. Telephone System Upgrade
. Mainframe Computer
2.
For the purposes of this report, the "Area of Benefit" is all land within the
city limits of Chula Vista and all land within the general planning area.
Approximately 9,500 acres in the western portion of Otay Ranch are .!!Q!
included in this plan as they are in a special study area. The Mid-bayfront
project is considered part of the Area of Benefit, but is not being included
at this time since the exact number of residential units and industrial and
commercial acres have not been finalized. Once these figures are known,
they will be included in the land use totals.
3.
Development for the purposes of this plan is considered to take place at a
constant straight line rate over the next 20 years to build out in the year
2010. However, since the actual growth rate cannot be determined precisely,
the label "development increment" is used in place of "years". This relates
the collection of development impact fees only to the construction, of
Equivalent Dwelling Units (see #4 below), not time. If construction rates rise
or fall, the implementation of this financing plan is not affected.
4.
For the purposes of assigning benefit and apportioning fees, a common
Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) factor is used throughout this report. The
single family dwelling unit is equal to one EDU and all other land uses are
a ratio of this base measure.
5.
A majority of the undeveloped properties included in this report are beyond
the corporate boundaries of the City of Chula Vista. It is assumed that either
these properties will annex into the City of Chula Vista upon development
and therefore be subject to the impact fees adopted by the City, or the
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
4
14-ff
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
County of San Diego Board of Supervisors will participate with a fee
ordinance applicable to the land within the unincorporated area which
benefits from the facilities.
6.
The facility costs contained in this report are based upon 1991 and 1992
dollars and were not adjusted for assumed inflation or construction index
increases over the next 20 years. The report will be reviewed annually (as
required by law) and updated where necessary. The report may also be
reviewed when a major general plan amendment changes land uses and
affects the projected EDU's.
There is no precedent for including an inflation factor in cost estimates.
Inflation is evaluated annually and fees adjusted where appropriate in
accordance with City policies and regulations.
7.
In 1990, the buildout population was projected to be 193,800 based upon a
factor of 2.67 persons per dwelling unit. However, based upon Planning
Department's analysis of population figures supplied by the 1990 U.S.
Census and SANDAG, these figures have been amended to reflect a
population buildout of 204,690, based upon a density factor of 2.77 for the
base population of 129,240 and 2.96 for future development's population of
75,450.
8.
The impact fees resulting from this analysis are based on the best estimate
of facility costs available at this time. The costs of improvements and
facilities contained herein will be adjusted during the annual review period
and any revised fees will be based upon the latest facility costs data
available.
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
5
I to -.5:>
I
I
9.
A.
For the 1991 reVlSlon, new development's share of facilities was
established with the adoption of the December 12, 1990 report and
was calculated to be 36.4 percent based upon a population generation
factor of 2.67 and the following:
I
I
Rase Year EDU's = 54,878'
1990 Approved EDU's = 5,679'
1990 Remaining EDU's = 25.697'
1990 Ruildaut EDU's = 86,254
I
DIF share
City share
= (31,376/86,254) =
= (54,878/86,254) =
36.37% Use 36.4%
63.59% Use 63.6%
100.00%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Based on Land Use Inventory as of 7/1190. computed as follows:
I
Residential BOU's
+922 commercial acres @ 5.6 EDU's/AC
+630 industrial acres @ 5.6
-new BOU's already built
(4,170 residential EOU's
+ 419 conunercia1{uu:lustrial EOU's
=4,589 EDU',)
=
50.826
5.H3
3,528
~
EDU',
EOU's
EDU',
EDU',
I
=
54.878 EDU',
2 Based 00: Public Facilities DIF Benefit Area Land Use (as of November 1. 1990), calculated as follows:
I
I
Total residential EOU's
+304.3 conunercial acres @ 5.6
+630.3 industrial acres @ 5.6
+150 acres Olympic Training COlr@ 1.4
= 25.933 EDU',
1.704 EDU',
3,529 EDU',
-l!Q EDU',
31.376 EDU',
I
1993 Public Facilities D1F Update
City of Chula Vista
I
6
J ~ - SI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B. For the 1993 reVlSlon, new development's share is based on the-
revised population generation factors of 2.77 for the base population
and 2.96 for new development's population which results in the
following proportionate shares:
Base Year EDU's =
1992 Approved EDU's =
1992 Remaining EDU's =
1992 Buildou! EDU's =
54.633'
5.155
24.883'
84,671
DIF share
City share
= (30.038184.671) = 35.48% Use 35.5%
= (54.633184.671) = 64.52% Use 64.5%
10. The cost of these new facilities are apportioned for both the existing need
and for the needs created by new growth. The need for an improvement or
facility is documented in the general plan, a specific plan, a master plan or
other public documents as required by Government Code Section 66000.
This facility documentation is included at the end of each appropriate facility
section of the report.
11. In recognition of the City's efforts to accommodate new development's
impact on these facilities, each project includes, where appropriate, costs
associated with "project staff services" and "City finance charges". Project
staff services includes direct staff costs associated with project review,
project management, plan. checking, etc. City finance charges are the cost
of "borrowing" non-DIP funds for a specific period of time and interest rate,
when sufficient DIP funds have not been collected to fund a particular
project.
12. In addition to the capital cost of facilities as summarized on Figure 1, 4
percent of the cost has been added for DIP administration. DIF administra-
tion costs have been reduced from 6% to 4% since project staff services have
been added to the individual project costs. In the past, these direct project
1 Based OD Land Use Inventory as of 7/1190. computed as (oUows:
ReaideotialEDU's
+922 COIIlIIlat:ia11CreS @ S.4 FDU's/AC
+630 iDdustriaJ. acra @ 5.4
-new EDlJ'. already buDt
(4.170 resideo1ia1 EDU's
+ 404 commerc:ial/iDdusbial EDtJ',
>=4.574 EDU's)
= 50,826 EDU's
= 4,979 EDU's
3.402 EOU's
(4.S74) EDlJ',
54,633 EIXJ's
tRefereoce Fig. 8: Future Developmenl Land Use (as ofMarcb I, 1992), cakulaled as foUows:
Total remainiDg residential EDlJ's
+853 ooo-residential ICnlI @ 5.0
+150 acres Olympic Training CnlT@ 1.2S
Plus Approved fD(J's
Total FUture EDU',
20,431 EDlJ',
4,265 EDlJ"
--!!1. EDlJ',
24,883 EDlJ',
5.155 EDlJ',
JU,UJjS EDlJ"
1993 Public Facilities D1F Update
City of Chula Vista
7
I to -~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
staff services have been charged to DIP administration. It was felt that these
staff services more appropriately belong in the project costs. DIP adminis-
tration will now cover staff time for those staff members not directly
involved in anyone project, but rather those administering or overseeing the
entire DIP.
1.4 SUMMARY OF FACILITY COSTS AND FEES
Figure 1 lists the facilities identified as being necessary for the full development of
the City of Chula Vista. Both the 1991 and 1992 cost estimates are shown.
The fees per EDU listed in Figure 4 are based on three groups of development;
1990-2000, 1990-2005 and 1990-2010. Five facilities, namely the civic center, the
corporation yard, the libraries, fire station, and records management system are
projected to meet the City's needs through buildout in the year 2010. The police
facility, equipment and staffing is estimated to serve the existing and tilture
population through the year 2005. Three facilities, the geographic information
system, the mainframe computer, and the telephone system will meet the City's
needs for the projected development from 1990-2000.
Both the 1992 cost estimates for the City's share and new development's share have
increased over 1991 as follows:
Proportionate Shares 1992 Total Cost Percent Change!
City's Share2 $21,281,317 + 169.0%
New Development's Share $50,751,700 + .19%
Most of the cost increase is due to Ibe increase in the Libraries cost The 1992 figures now include the fW1 cost of !be buildout book
coUection. tbe deslgD cosCS oftbe new libraries aod the project staff service costs associated with the p1anninS and design of the new libraries.
2
City sbare includes the Corporation Yard's. Transit share oC $1.771,457. but does DOt include the Corporation Yard', QOD-DIF sbare of
$.5,155,536.
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
8
110 -53
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
"
.c
(I:l
-: ~~
.. E ~
~E= ....
.- =.0 '"
r..(I:l,,'"
r.. ....
'"
.-
:is
If
'"
1=
~ e ~
Q> "'~..c:
~ z~~
i ~
~
1
u
~
....
.'"
-
c:
~ e ~
Q> ~ g<..c:
i uti)
I: i>
i 0
~
1
u
~ ~ ~
~g-~
'" """ M
00";";
~
~
..c:
~
N 0\ It'l
l;;; ~ 8
",o\'vi
It'l It'l """
q"lO
.....-4 .,.....! N
'"
h
o
~
g ~ ~
~oOe
" '" 00
('I"') t"-... 00
eM";
.....
~
~
..c:
~
00 M 0\
0\ r-- 0\
M 00 0
~:28
r-- r-- .....
.....
'"
.~
o
~
>.
.<;:::
.....
.~
10.
c:
o
.-
'"
c: ~
o ~
.;; bl),~
~ ] ...
~ ta
u:i ~
.... ....
B ~
5 ..,
u u
t,) t,)
'S: '!>
o 0
o
z
..... -< N
.....
't:l
~
-
IE
fl'e
o ~
.., 0
t,) ....
;:l~
~.5
.....
....
l'l
...
QC
<<'l
....
l'\
~.s
~ .~
...:>:
:::> "
E::]
c\(.)
ti'&
:s Q
~u
~
.!:
~
&
.....
8 8 888
V"') N ....-4 t"- ......
~"";oOviN
00 ;}1; ~ :is ~
N '" '"
..... .....
8~~~~
r{ N \C vi' ..;
~:::I=:s;.~
~ ..... ~
fIl- fIl-
~ ...... ~ ~ - 0 00 ~ 0
...... ....... ('fj t' ~ l/") t-- '1'""'1
....."'Nlt'lMNoo~
~~~~~~~QC;
'" 0'..... :.l-
..... l'\
.
fIl- fIl-
g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o-~"";8"'ci
r-- 0 0\ 0\ ,.,
r-- t-;. 0\ It'l M M
N ....... ri
..... .....
~ ~ ~ ~
~~~:;i
...... 1:"--... 00 "i
..... N <=
~ III
O~;;;;8~O~~
t-;.",,"OO~ oo~
~~;f~ ~~
"'..... ~
E
c: B E
.2 ~.., B
~ E~ ~~
o B 0 '"
lI) Vol'.c t-t - +-I
; >..uB::> 5
'E ~c:E6.~~
.u o..8E;:::~
>< '~.s 8 ~ ~
.g",a:E~g~
e!..,g.~ao'"
o 'fij ~ th il '8. ~
~.lS .., 0 '01 ..!:l t,)
u :.:l ~ c3 ~ ~ ~
<'i --i .,.; \Ci r-: 00 0\
I~-,f
fIl- fIl-
fIl- fIl-
s
o
...
.c
=
(I:l
o
.....
~
<=
....
~
.....
0\
~
o
Eo<
~
It'l
o
--i
@>
c:
o
'::l
~
,-
c:
's
't:l
-<
!:l
o
-
o
.....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The facilities and development increments are shown below.
FIGURE 2
DEVELOPMENT INCREMENTS
TARGET DEVELOPMENT
INCREMENTS
FACILITY 1990/2000 1990/2005 1990/2010
1 Civic Center Expansion ./
2 Police Department Expansion ./
and Improvements
3 Corporation Yard Relocation ./
4 Libraries ./
5 Fire Suppression System ./
6 Geographic Information System ./
7 Mainframe Computer ./
8 Telephone System Upgrade ./
9 Records Management System ./
1990/2000 1990/2005 1990/2010
Remaining EDU's per Increment' 6,220 18,662 24,883
1
See Figure 6
1993 Public Facilities DlF Update
City of Chula Vista
10
I~-~
I
I FIGURE 3
1993 FEE CALCULATIONS
I
1. Civic Center Expansion & Parking
I $13J13,300 = $527.00 say $527/EDU
24,883 EDU's
I 2. Police Department Expansion and Improvements
$4,392,400 = $235.37 say $235/EDU
I 18,662 EDU's
3. Corporation Yard Relocation
I $12.826.500 = $515.47 say $515/EDU
24,883 EDU's
I 4. Libraries
$13.541.200 = $544.19 say $544/EDU
24,883 EDU's
I 5. Fire Suppression Svstem
$3.498,100 = $140.58 say $141/EDU
I 24,883 EDU's
6. GIS
I $605,700 = $48.69 say $ 49/EDU
12,441 EDU's
I 7. Mainframe Computer
$282JOO = $22.68 say $23/EDU
I 12,441EDU's
8. Telephone Svstem Update
I $404.200 = $32.49 say $32/EDU
12.441 EDU's
I 9. Records Management Svstem
$112.800 = $ 4.53 say $5/EDU
24,883 EDU's
I
I
I 1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
I 11
I ~ -,f,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
l:Io=
\iol....
0= N 0 II"l ~ ..... 0 0 0 II"l 0\ ....
looN ..... ~ I- ....
.. . II"l II"l II"l ..... ~
llo.g ~ ....
tN ~
r..
~
l:IlIl
\iol8 N II"l II"l ~ ..... 0 0 0 II"l 0\ Ie
looN ...., ..... ~ I- ~
~~ II"l C'l II"l II"l .....
t~ ~ ~
r..
~
~~ N II"l II"l ~ ..... 0\ ...., C'l II"l 0\ 0=
...., ..... ~ ~ C'l ...., I- III
looN II"l C'l II"l II"l ..... ....
>- l:~ ~ ~
t::
== t~
t..l
-< r..
"~r..
!~f ...:i
~~12 -<
G:fI'.l~ Eo<
r.. 0
l'l :l Eo<
~ l':
~
....
..
~
.....
.~ bl) ] e
..... ] l': l': B e ~
'0 0 '"
la "~ 0 ;>, .. B II"l
~ '" "J:l 1 0
~ a CIl '"
'" e ;>, ..,;
g l': CIl
0 ~ bj 0 @
"~ - "J:l ~ "'" -
'" >J.l ~ ~ l':
l': ;>, ~ i l':
'" - CIl :0 e 0
"'" l': ] l': E' "J:l
~ i 0 ..E B a
>- "~ ..s 0 '"
.... '" u ;>, a '"
'" CIl "~
E eo l': e u ~ ~ l':
0 :a .. ~
8 0 "J:l '" "'" l':
~ .. go ~ 0 '"
"~ <l:: ..c: ~ -<
u .. CIl "'"
u e- l':
"~ :.= J;l 0 "a ..!:l ~ ~
> .0
U 0 8 ;::l .. ~ ~
~ ... 0 0
..... <'l r<i ..,; .,.; .a r-: 00 a\ 0
.....
~.s
.g .~
",::>:
:::>.l!
f:::~
QI..l
~~
:-s C>
~G
~
.>1
~
...
~
...
C'l
.....
I~ -S7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
FIGURE 5
SUMMARY OF FEES PER LAND USE TYPE AND INCREMENT
1991 Fees 1993 Fees
Land Use 1990-1995 1993-2000
Residential $ 2, 150/OU $ 2, 150/OU
Commercial 12,040/AC lO,750/AC
Industrial 12,040/AC 10,750/AC
OTC 3,OlO/AC 2,688/AC
Land Use 1996-2000 2001-2005
Residential $ 2,105/OU $ 2,046/OU
Commercial l1,788/AC 1O,230/AC
Industrial 11,788/AC 1O,230/AC
OTC 2,947/AC 2,558/AC
, and Use 2001-2010 2006-2010
Residential $ 1,66O/OU $ 1,811/OU
Commercial 9,296/AC 9,055/AC
Industrial 9,296/AC 9,055/AC
OTC 2,324/AC 2,264/AC
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chu/a Vista
13
I ~-1r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 2
METHODOLOGY
2.1 DEVELOPMENT FORECAST
Figure 8 on pages 17 and 18 identifies the residential, commercial and industrial land
uses remaining to be developed on a city-wide basis excluding the Otay Ranch
Special Study area. The figure identifies that 20,431 dwelling units and 1,003 acres
of non-residential acres remain to be developed through buildout. Also included in
the calculations is the 150 acre Olympic Training Center.
2.2 SPREAD METHODOLOGY
It is required that the apportionment of costs and resulting fees be based upon benefit
received. For streets and highways, the average daily trip (ADT) is most often used
as the appropriate factor. For water systems, it can be a demand factor based upon
average gallons per day. For sewer systems, it can be a flow factor based upon
average gallons per day.
Because each of the nine facilities described herein is based upon providing a people-
related public service to the community, the cost of the facilities has been spread to
new development based on the population generated by the specific use. There is a
correlation between the number of people living in a residential unit, the number of
people assembled in an area for employment, and the level of facilities needed to
protect and serve these populations. For example, library sites are determined based
on the size and location of the population. A fire suppression system is designed to
deal with the various densities of residential uses as well as industrial and commercial
uses. Police protection is also affected by high concentrations of people and both the
police headquarters and the civic center are used by and designed to serve people.
As the facilities are population-based, an effort was made to determine the number
of people "generated" by a given land use. According to the Chula Vista Planning
Department, the average residential population generation figure is based upon a
density factor of 2.77 persons per dwelling unit for the base population and 2.96 for
future development. (See attachments at the end of this Section.) The San Diego
Traffic Generation report dated July, 1992 (SANDAG) indicates that daily population
is affected by industrial and commercial land. Each non-residential land use
generates an average number of employees per acre, as listed under "Population
Generation Figure" in Figure 6.
The single family dwelling unit is generally accepted as the basis for the assignment
of equivalent dwelling units. A single family EDU has a value of one (1) whether
1993 Public Facilities DlF Update
City of Chula Vista
14
, ~ -51
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
it represents one Average Daily Trip in the instance of transportation facilities, or
whether it represents one population unit of 2.96 in the case of services and facilities
related to population demands. Each Population Generation Figure is divided by the
2.96 persons per dwelling unit to create a ratio between commercial and industrial
acres and the single family EDU.
The residential dwelling units and commercial and industrial acres remaining to be
developed together with the Olympic Training Center equals 24,883 EDU's. The
annual Development Impact Fee charged to new development is based on these
remaining EDU's. Each year, the remaining EDU's are recalculated since the DIF
is charged only to remaining development
FIGURE 6
EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS
Population Population
Remaining Generation EDU Remaining
Land Use DU's/AC's Figure Factor EDU'S
Residential 2Q,431 DU 2.96 persons/du 1.00 20,431
Comm./Ind. 853 AC 15 employees/ac 5.00 4,265
OTC 150 AC 3.75 persons/ac 1.25 187
TOTAL REMAINING EDU's 24,883
2.3 CALCULATING COST SHARES
The cost of new facilities is apportioned to both the existing city population where
current facilities are deficient and to new or future development where the facility
will create capacity required by such new development. The City share and New
Development's share are based on the Base Year EDU's and the Total EDU's
(Approved EDU's plus Remaining EDU's), respectively. New developments share
of facilities was established with the adoption of the December 12, 1990 Development
Impact Fee for Public Facilities Report, and was modified based on new 1990 Census
information. It is calculated to be 35.5 percent based upon the following which is
further clarified on pages 5 and 6 of this report.
Base Year EDU's
Approved EDU's
Remaining EDU's
Buildout EDU's
= 54,633
= 5,155
= 24.883
= 84,671
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
15
l~-tP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In order to accurately apportion the costs between the city and new development, it
is necessary to examine each facility in terms of the benefits accruing to both the
"city share" and "future development's share". The following table identifies the
factors and percentages used to apportion the costs.
FIGURE 7
CALCULATION OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SHARES
Project No. DIF Project DIF Share
1. Civic Center Expansion .9061
IA. Civic Center Parking Expansion .752
2. Police Department Expansion and Improvements
Remodel .70
Communication Consoles .355
CAD .355
MDT .355
Animal Shelter -- 3
Police Beat Master Plan 1.00
Capital Equipment/Fixtures 1.00
3. Corporation Yard .818'
4. Library Facilities/Equipment
Sweetwater/Bonita/Eastern Territories 1.00
Supplemental Facilities (Montgomery) .362
Automation System .377
1 $1,197,156 (City Sbare)/$12.783.213 (Project C05ts) == .094 City Share = .906 DIF Share
2
$1,757,854 City SbareJS7,041.7S8 (Project Costs) = .25 City Share = .75 DIF Share
3
Animal Shelter expansion included in Corporation Yard project.
4 Calculated as foUows:
$
$
$
$
22,778.952
5.155,536
656,236
16.967.180
Total project cost
Less costs associated wiih extra capacity, e.g. to serve future annexations. reserves, etc.
Less preseDt land value
Total
City Share =
Transit Share =
DIF Sbare =
$1,144.934 + S182,72S = $1.327.6591$16.967.180 = .078
$1,226,864 + $544,593 = $1.771,4571$16,967,180 = .104
1.00 - .078 - .104 = .818
1993 Public Facilities D1F Update
City of Chula Vista
16
I ~ - 41
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 7 (CONT'D)
CALCULATION OF FurURE DEVELOPMENT SHARES
Project No. DIF Project DIF Share
5. Fire Facilities/Equipment
Training Tower/Classroom .355
Police Briefing Room 1.00'
Sunbow Fire Station 1.00
Rancho del Rey Fire Station 1.00
Permanent Fire Station #6 1.00
Interim Fire Station #6 1.00
Brush Rig 1.00
Fire Station Master Plan 1.00
Radio Tower 1.00
Fire Station #1 Remodel .184
6. Geographic Information System .355
7. Mainframe Computer .3133
8. Telephone System Upgrades 1.00
9. Records Management System .355
10. General Administration 1.00
1 Planned as part of the rue training classroom
1993 Public Facilities DlF Update
City of Chula Vista
17
I ~ - ~.2
I
I
;:; ::: ~ ; '" '" '" '" '" '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 18 ~ l'J ~ '" '" '"
" ~ ~ ~ i;;
~"'.~ ~ ::.r :::: N ~ ~ ::l ~
::>. .; ..;
fil!:b
l> :i '" ~ " '" '" '" '" '" '" ~ ~ '" ~ '" '" '" :<l '" '" '" '" '"
!ii~f i;i vi .. ::j !i!
~
" :li ~ ~ ~ R '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" '" '"
~ ~ ~ l:;
- .~ :::: .. N
~gl N N
~ :;: '" l" N '" '" '" '" '" '" N ~ '" '" '" '" .. '" '" '" '" '" '"
j!U N :;i ?! g
i N N '" l! .. '" '" '" :i '" '" ~ '" q ~ '" '" '" :<l '" '" '" '" '"
~ :i ... ..;
II ~ ~ ~
d8 :li ~ :li ~ ~. ~ l!l ;;\ '" g s '" '" l! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::l ~ .. ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
:::: ::, ::l .. N ~
..
~
.~8 .., .., .., ~ '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" ~ '" '"
~
..."
:>1]
.., .., .., ~ '" '" '" '" '" :g '" '" ~ ;l; '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
ifh ~ 5 .. 11 ..
" .(
i!::> .., .., .., N .. ~ ;;\ '" ~ ~ '" '" 5 ~ :;: ~ ~ '" ~ ::l ~ ~ '"
~ .. N :g 5 ~ ~ ~ ~
.. Cl .. .. N
rp N
" jj
~ .s
j.
" l!
m i l i 8 J
z .l! ! 8 ~ ~ ~
~ 8 ~ ! ~ ~ '" ~
.! 1 z '" - Jl
~ .i! ~ I ~ " ~ ~ ! 0 '" ~ ;
'"' :jj El 8 ! ~ - j 0, '" El B . . :jj .S
j i ~ '"' ~ ~ ~ ~
I ~ j ) ~ j ~ <l G ~ g l! ~ ~ fo .R j .. ~ .i ~ .R ~ ~ ~ j .~ ~
! ~~ ~ .! oil g .! ~ .! g :r . ~
Jl '"' ;05: " ~ '" ~ '" :i
Jll " Cl Cl < '" '" '" '" '" '" - <: '" - - - - - <: <: '" '" '"
r~ ~ ~ <: - N ~ .. ~ .. ~ . "- It. .. .:! D ~ !I. i!: Ii. <Ii :i ;: ~ ::: :!:
:z: ~ ..
z z
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
..t
I
I
I
'a
!
t!
,..
.3
I
.
..
t
..
~
;:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u-~
" "
~ .~
...::>:
:::> "
~]
i::lt.)
~~
:-;: Q
~o
~
."
~
~
'"
....
00
.....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ 0 0 18 :rl to ~
:;:r~ N :g i<: ~ ~
:: .. M '0 ~
N " ~
~
51!.,
.
0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 1> 0 0 ~ !!l ~
!t~rl ~ ::i
~
~
Z ..
" 0 ~ ~ ::; ~ 18. ~ 0 0 18 ~ ~
~ ~
- ..~ "t M
- N '"
~8! ~
0 ~ 0 0 0 0 1> 0 0 ~ ~
J~U - .... ><l
, ill
)1 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~
.. .... :i
..
~ M
3 0 ~. ~ ::; ;;: :a ~ 0 ;;: 18 ~ ~
.. ~
Ha "t ~ M
~ ~ N ~ ill
N
~
...is 0 (0 0 0 0 1> 0 0 0 18 ~ "I
- M
!i "
0 :Ii 0 0 ;; 0 0 0 0 ! "I
iih ~ M ~
'" <
':;' 0 ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ! "I
N ~ .. ~
..,!\Q "t - M
- - "
~p ~
'" Jj
~ ~
:;;
.ll l
I ~
! ~ " i ~
1 " '~
~ . .. ; ! I
~ ..
i " j :>l ~ j
& - .. ~ ~
'" ~ ~ ~ i ~ l
ii . .. j >
~ i ~ " " ~ 8
~ ~ 8 ~ .n 6
I--
Jl} '" "' '" '" < - < Q "" - -
-
U ~ ~ ~ :! ~ lG _ N ;l ;\ a:
~ ~ - N N
~~
-",
~-
l~~
<.il
ii~d
111
dJl<!S
~ s
~ .~
...::..
;:,.s!
f:::.i!
Cl\.)
"'''&
.~ >..
'- ~.
=::0
~
.!,;
~
&
.....
o-l....~
i .
~ 0\
lIt ~ ......
g
il';;H ~
:>l6iU
.! . 'S
i t:S :;.
"
Hu~ ;!l
~u.:d:::: ~
I
.. f
.s
~ ..
..
Il >
11 .
~ ~ d
0
! .;i, 11
';0.8 $'
] il:s I
. ~ ~ 3i
.
J&~~ is
~ I!;' . & h
~un ~
u8- ~
.:i'i~ ~
~<=cjd ~r--r !
~ ~...t~
..; ... ..;
1 ~ - ~If
.
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. r:
L""1-.....J
~
"0
c
Q)
0>
~
l\
b~
.. ~..,'.:w;:
. ...., . .-'If"'.."
.~, "." .... ........./
U j' .~~.' /'" \
((" *~, /
[ :. ~ ... "iu L/ A' ..
. t! r--\ c.'
. . : {/""/'/ /\ ,..'~~
;~I :~ ,I :\\:/ '\ (
1 . · ".... \ "",1 .
oJ '" · "". /~ (.,"/ .,.\ / .
l! '" . ii. '-. '." 1//"... (J) '-
~ . : .... '\ dl." \ . C Q)
.... / \'J"/" \.. 'i \ ~ .0....
. .' . 'I,.. '. \ \&I
. .... .. \ \~ \ \ -- .
11"'/ \ v,., \ \<'~O ~-=.- .(.. .
~' \ . ,.,\./\ .... .'-" .
m \ ". <..., J II II' "~I '..d"
V '\ c, \ '" \&I " .
l~ .,. ill { ',~ ,,'
"f%j \ ,]\\, I, '
....,.1./ ~ 1,..ll. " \ ,"
"', ;>,;, I /
"', ) .-.' '
.;\ ..... . ~,\ I
iI, "." ,1:..'/"
:'<l~\\,iD\; ,
,,\/"0" . .' //. ...~ \J, :
.".................. '/~.t~~...1 I:
.-.1/.. '. bL ..."....I,....! I .
>.'.i. ), r"~
,,/,-j/}~l _
..~ i..2..:..I:F- C
~ 0
S ....
>.
o
CO
'\
.
.
.....\
,
,
.. .
.
~~
,,<~
::>~o
E,-u
E~c
005
U~CO
.
~
. ~
.g
'l1. "
t> ~
i 8
~Q
J~-t6
en
~
<
~
.-
c
c
o
i5:
~
c
;:,
E
E
o
o
o
I
~~ ~
~f---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
<!:
.....
00
5
<!:
.-J
::>
I
o
lL
o
~
<3
II
I'
o I!
z I ~
W II
"
~
~
~ ~
!l! !l!
ILl l=l ~ <It
. ~ w ~
e ~ oCt
~ ~
0( ,.."'" I-
ki ~ u.. 5
;;r u S 8
~z-
JI,- '7
oW
~ III
~ .II
I ~ll
~il
I ~
c5
'"
<<
Cl
z
::5
w
--'
OJ
<<
"-
g
w
G;
o
...::""~'~
'."'_ ' ::-- ,I
l' @) ~I
~ @) t -..' :h
~I
LJ
I ATTACHMENT A
I
Population Density
..thod 1
lIensus Tracts East of I-80S
Ireet -. 1990 Census New Un; ts* Current
Population Housing Un; ts Density 1990-1992 PopuLation
I 32.04 1 1 1.00 1
32.07 431 239 1.80 431
100.07 1 1 1.00 1
133.05 10,181 3,012 3.38 322 11,269
I 134.05 2,699 881 3.06 101 3,008
134.06 10,081 3,462 2.91 212 10,698
134.07 2,512 1,091 2.30 1,017 4,854
I 134.08 4,720 1,512 3.12 88 4,995
134.09 5,167 1,794 2.88 5,167
r2 Totol: 11,993 1,740 40,424
Housing
I Units Population Dens i ty
E of 805 13,733 40,424 2.94
I of 805 36,373 101,376 2.79
50,106
Total" 141,770 2.83
IIlFrom Chute Vista PLanning Dept. Housing Unit Inventory
Total figures from state Dept. of Finance estimate dated Jan 1, 1992.
Figures for area west of 1-805 are derived from the other two lines.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)le -~g'
1
1
Population Density
tthod 2
Census Tracts East of 1-805
_ract Lend Use Inventory*
Units Pop.Jlation
1 32.07 237 593
1 133.05 3,352 9,993
134.05 924 2,962
134.06 3,474 10,154
1 134.07 1,848 5,329
134.08 1,534 4,894
134.09 1,781 5,221
t:total 13,150 39,146
of 1-805 39,219 102,691
rtal 52,369 141,837
Density
1* City of Chute Vista Land Use Inventory,
ay 21, 1992.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2.50
2.98
3.21
2.92
2.88
3.19
2.93
2.98
2.62
2.71
by census tract and block;
Ii -f.t9
ATTACHMENT B
population Density
IIxistin; OIF Estimate
Total .
iy 1992 Estimates
ethod 1
East
West
Total
II
II
lethod 2
II
2.67
Average:
2.94
2.79
2.83
East
West
Total
East
West
Total
2.98
2.62
2.71
Ise of 2.96 population denshy for new development based on
IIreponder8nce of development occurring east of 1-805. figures
based on Planning Department, 1990 Census and SANDAG data.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
ATTACHMENT C
2.96
2.70
2.77
f~ -70
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECITON 3
IMPLEMENTATION
3.1 OVERVIEW
This report is intended to update the 1991 Public Facilities Development Fee
schedule. In the future, the fees may be updated annually for changes in the Engi-
neering-News Record Construction Index, the type, size, location or cost of the
various public facilities to be financed by the fee, changes in the land use designa-
tions in the City's General Plan, and upon other sound engineering, financing and
planning information.
This report assumes that the undeveloped properties beyond the corporate boundaries
of the City but within the General Plan Area Boundary will annex into the City of
Chula Vista upon development and therefore be subject to the facility impact fee
identified herein. The public facility fee is in addition to the requirements imposed
by other City laws, policies or regulations relating to the construction or financing
within subdivisions or developments.
The fee for each development is calculated at the time of building permit application
and is the amount as indicated at that time. The fee is not calculated on the tentative
or final map.
Section 3.2 addresses the construction of DIF facilities by a property owner/developer
and the subsequent process of crediting that construction for fees payable.
The ordinance following in Section 3.3 addresses, among other items, the developer
construction of various public facilities, the procedure for waiver or reduction of the
fee, and exemptions.
3.2 ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION OF FEE PROJECTS
As further discussed in the Growth Management Program, an owner/developer may
request authorization from the City to construct one or more of the DIF projects.
Upon application by an owner/developer to construct a fee project, an agreement
shall be prepared for City Council action which contains at least the following
information and requirements.
A. Detailed description of the project with a preliminary cost estimate.
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
22
l/'-7/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B. Requirements of owner/developer:
. prepare plans and specifications for approval by the city;
. secure and dedicate any right-of-way required for the project;
. secure all required permits, environmental clearances necessary for
construction of the project;
. provide performance bonds;
. pay all city fees and costs.
C. The owner/developer shall advance all necessary funds to construct the project.
The city will not be responsible for any construction costs beyond those agreed
to in advance by the city.
D. The owner/developer shall secure at least three (3) qualified bids for the
construction. Any extra work charges during construction shall be justified and
documented.
E. When all work has been completed to the satisfaction of the city, the owner/
developer shall submit verification to the city of payments made for the
construction. The City Manager shall make the final determination on
expenditures eligible for credit or cash reimbursement.
F. The city shall inspect all construction and verify quantities, in accordance with
the city and state code to ensure that the final improvement complies with all
applicable standards and is constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
G. The owner/developer will receive a credit against the required development
impact fees during the issuance of building permits for the proposed develop-
ment. If the total construction cost amounts to more than the total required
development impact fees, the owner/developer will either receive credit as
determined by the City Manager, or enter into a reimbursement agreement with
the City.
3.3
ORDINANCE
(Enclosed on following pages without pagination)
. New draft Ordinance
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chu/a Vista
23
l ~ - 7:2..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 4
PUBLIC FACn..rry REOUIREMENTS. COSTS AND DOCUMENTATION
This section of the report presents the requirements, costs and supporting documentation for
the nine facilities under consideration. For each facility, the following items are identified
and discussed:
. Existing condition
. Needed improvements
. Status of needed improvements
. Method of apportioning costs
Pertinent documentation including memoranda, reports, and letters are included for reference
at the end of each facility section.
4.1 CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION
Existinl! Condition
The existing civic center has for many years successfully accommodated city
administration offices. However, after the mid-1980's, extensive population growth
caused a corresponding increase in city staff and, what was once a sizeable facility
to meet the city's needs, is now seriously congested. A survey conducted by Michael
Feerer and Associates as part of the Chula Vista Civic Center Master Plan revealed
that most staff in the public services building are seriously hindered by space short-
ages, lack of parking, privacy and storage, as well as frequent noise distractions. The
present facility totals 101,730 square feet with 333 parking spaces.
Needed Improvements
At a council conference on June 22, 1989, site alternative three "The Suburban
Scheme" was selected from the Civic Center Master Plan dated May 8, 1989 as the
design for the new civic center. The facilities, including the police and fire stations,
will total 162,225 square feet and provide 672 parking spaces. This alternative is
estimated to cost $20,070,480 not including utilities and offsite improvements.
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
24
16 - 73
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Status of Needed Imorovements
Appraisals have been conducted on the property under consideration for purchase for
the parking structure. Interim remodels and rental of interim space are ongoing.
Method of AooortioniDl! Costs
Section 3.4 of the Master Plan for the Chula Vista Civic Center identifies a current
space deficiency exceeding 10 percent. The 1988 staffing levels require 110,910
square feet of civic center space. The city currently provides 101,730 square feet.
This represents a 9,180 square foot deficiency. The civic center master plan clearly
states that the addition of this square footage is required to meet space needs and
goals even under conditions of no growth.
The facility cost estimate identifies the cost per square foot for new construction,
minor and extensive remodeling, demolition, furniture, fixtures and equipment.
Averaging these estimates results in an overall cost of $128.17 per square foot for
the completed facility. Using this average cost, the City's share (9,180 square feet)
is $1,176,645. Including the City's share of interim facility rental results in a total
City share of $1,197,156.
The parking improvements have been separated from the building improvements to
more accurately account for the existing parking deficiency. According to the master
plan documents, there is a current deficiency of 114 parking spaces. At an average
cost per space of $10,480, the City's share of the parking improvements is
$1,757,854.
The civic center and parking improvements together total $20,070,480. The City's
share is $2,955,010. After subtracting the DIF fees collected to date including
interest earned for this facility, new development should fund $15,431,300.
Adiustment to DIF Share
The Civic Center expansion needs may change because of external events, such as
the possible Otay Ranch annexation and trip reduction plan being developed by the
City. Given these contingencies, staff is recommending that the fee component be
reduced to the 1991 level to reflect possible cost reductions stemming from these
events. Therefore, the revised DIF share is $13,113,300.
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
25
/~ - 71
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO.1
CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION
1991 1992
Description Cost Estimate Cost Estimate
1 Citv Hall $ 2,071,1001 $ 1,836,396
2 Public Services Pacility 2,843,9701 3,194,7232
3 New City Hall Annex Building 2,842,2001 4,316,3553
4 Lee:islative Offices 1,250,2001 O'
5 Demolition 83,500 92,675
6 Misc. Site Improvements 180,000 180,000
7 Landscaoine: 698,500 457,500'
8 Land Acauisition (459 "P" Street) 730,000 O.
9 Relocation Costs 0 33,825
10 ProfessionaV Architectural Services 0 1,053,447
11 Project Staff Services 0 210,690
Subtotal $ 10,747,755 $ 11,375,611
12 10% Contine:encv 1,074,775 1,137,561
Subtotal $ 11,822,530 $ 12,513,172
13 Interim Rental Space 0 223,223
14 Interim Remodel 0 245,5097
15 Master Plan (74%) 48,285 46,818
Subtotal $ 11,074,132 $ 13,028,722
16 Less Citv's Share (748,398) (1,197,156)
17 Less DIP fees collected plus interest (746,862) (1,757,854)
TOTAL $ 10,327,270 $ 10,147,390
USE $ . 10,147,400
18 Less Reduced DIP ShareS 0 (1,381,016)
19 Less Reduced Citv's ShareS 0 (143,284)
REVISED TOTAL $ 8,623,100
1
Reduced 6% 10 eliminate extra square footage needed if Bonita should annex to the city.
2
Excludes square footage associated with possible Bonita annexation. See Attacbmcnt E for medlodology.
3
IDcIudes legislative space (projected at $796.000) as per Civic Center Master Plan.
.
Coals included in figw-es for annex buildwg.
,
Additioaal $241,000 allocated 10 parting expansion
.
Land acquisition costs allocated to parking expansion.
7
This fIgure represents DIF share of remodeling wort already completed and paid for by the City, but part oftbe Civte Center expansion effort.
An atlacbmeat in the appendix outlines these costs.
8 ToIal is being revised to keep fee component at 1991 level, peoding reassessment of Civic Center Master Plan.
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
26
1 ~-7<
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT No. lA
CIVIC CENTER PARKING
1991 1992
Description Cost Estimate Cost Estimate
1 Subterranean Parking $ 1.008,000 $ 1,000,000
2 Parking Structure 2,872,000 2,864,000
3 Surface Parking 227,100 226,125
4 Landscapinl!: 0 241,0001
5 Site AClluisition 02 1,442,0003
6 Prof.! Arch. Services 0 511,266
7 Proiect Staff Services 0 102,253
Subtotal $ 4,107,100 $ 6,386,644
8 Contingency (10%) 410,710 638,664
9 Master Plan (26%) 16,965 16,450
Subtotal $ 4,534,775 $ 7,041,758
10 I Less City's Share (765,873) (1,757,854)
Total $ 3,768,902 $ 5,283,904
USE $ 5,283,900
11 Less Reduced DIF Share4 0 (595,275)
12 Less Reduced City's Share4 0 (198,425)
REVISED TOTAL $ 4,490,200
1 Previously allocated to civic center expansion project.
2 $730,000 previously allocated to civic ceoter expansion project.
3 Updated estimated by Community Deve1opmeot Departmea1.
4 Total is beiDg revised to keep fee component at 1991 level, pending reassessmeot or CMc Center Master Plan.
1993 Public Facilities DlF Update
City of Chula Vista
27
,~~ 7~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUMMARY
TOTAL GROSS COST: PROJECTS 1 AND lA
1991 1992
Description Cost Estimate Cost Estimate
1 Project 1: Civic Center $ 11,822,530 $ 13,028,722
2 Project 1A: Parking 4,534,775 7,041,758
Construction Cost Subtotal $ 16,357,305 $ 20,070,480
3 Citv Share: Civic Center (748,398) (1,197,156)
4 City Share: Parking (765,873) (1,757,854)
City Share Subtotal $ (1,514,271) $ (2,955,010)
5 I OIF Collected + Interest Earned (746,862) (1,684,176)
TOTAL $ 14,096,172 $ 15,431,294
USE $ 15,431,300
6 Less Reduced DIF Share 0 (1,976,291)
7 Less Reduced City Share 0 (341,709)
REVISED TOTAL $ 13,113,300
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
28
Ilr 77
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Chula Vista
Public Facilities Finance Plan
Documentation
Civic Center Exoansion
1. DIF Fund Status - As of June 30, 1992
2. Staff memo dated February 10, 1992.
3. Attachments A - H, various cost spreadsheets
4. Staff memos dated December 18, 1991, November 4, 1991, December 27, 1991,
November 18, 1991 and December 16, 1991.
5. Excerpts from "A Master Plan for the Chu1a Vista Civic Center", by Danielson
Design Group, Michael Feerer & Associates, May 8, 1989.
a. "The Need for Changes to the Civic Center", pages 2.1 and 2.2.
b. "Civic Center Summary", pages 3.3 and 3.4.
c. "Suburban" Scheme cost estimate, January 1990.
6. Final Report, February 16, 1990.
7. Staff letter dated June 28, 1990.
8. Interim Remodel - Civic Center Expansion Costs: DIP Share
Note: The following documentation material is .!!2! paginated.
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
29
/~ -7~
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1------
Rev BY:WiLLDAN SAN DiEGO
1- 7-93 III :09AM
425 al04"
D.
CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION DIF FUND-AS OF 6/30/92
A.
DIF Revenues received to date,
B.
OIF Investment earnings to date:
Total Revcmuea
c.
commitments to date:
DIF
Conttlleted
civic Center Master Plan:
Relocate Credit Union:
Remodel Administration offices:
Remodel Publio Servioea bldg;
Remodel City Hall South;
Remodel new Com Dev bldg:
Sub-total,
Or-aoing
Staff services
Interim r.mtal
Sub-total i
re, parking lot acq:
space at EI Dorado:
'l'O'l'AL:
~
Completed
Relocate Credit Union:
Remodel Administration offices:
Remodel Public Bervices bldg:
R.model City Hall South:
Remodel new Com Dev bldg:
Civio Center Master Plan:
TOTAL:
Currently planned expenditures:
Land purchase tor parking structure
Remodeling or Engineering Department
N,-7f
WILLDAN SAN DIEGO;' a
1-06-93
$ 1,490,887
$ 193.289
$ 1,684,176
$
46, B 18
8,692
26,394
33,877
28,086
148.46Q
292,327
$
$
$
15,189
20.159
35,339
327,575
$
$
902
30,610
3,440
2,852
15,075
63 2611
116,147
$
I.
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f .
February 10, 1992
TO:
Dawn Hening
Marty Chase ,V
Jerry Young Y
DIF Update: Civic Center Expansion
FROM:
RE:
The proposed revisions to the Civic Center project, along with supporting documentation,
are attached. The overall project cost in,creased by $1,017,582. This increase breaks down
as follows: a $389,274 increase (2.5%) in the DIF share and a $628,308 increase (41.5%)
in the City share.
The principle factors increasing overall project costs were:
1. An increase of $712,000 in site acquisition costs, reflecting more up to date
information from the Redevelopment Agency.
2. A decrease in the share of costs attributed to the possible annexation of
Bonita. A quick and dirty adjustment made last year attnouted 6% of the
total project cost to Bonita. This assumed a strict proportionate relationship
based on population. Accordingly, 6% of the costs were removed from the
project.
A more thorough analysis of the Civic Center Master Plan indicated, however,
that annexation of an preexisting developed area would have significantly
less impact on City staffing than annexation of an undeveloped area, which
when developed would increase the population by a similar amount. The
1989 Civic Center Master Plan attributed a need for 695 additional square
footage should Bonita annex. Without going into detail, we felt that this
figure was too low. Subsequent adjustments raised it to 1,925 square feet.
While the Bonita-related impacts had been overstated in the Civic Center
expansion component, these impacts were understated in the parking
expansion component. In fact, the quick and dirty analysis referred to earlier
had not made any reduction in parking-related costs to account for Bonita.
Reductions in the parking component of the project, resulting from the
possible annexation of Bonita, are incorporated in the revised cost figures.
/~ -C?c.>
.
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Overall, our more comprehensive review resulted in a net reduction in the
costs associated with a possible Bonita annexation. The costs not attributed
to Bonita were added back into the project.
3. The addition of $120,840 to cover interim rental space needed by the City
until the first expansion phase is undertaken. These costs, based on
cumulative rental costs for space through the year 1994-95 for the Finance
Department's Purchasing Division and the and the Engineering Department's
Construction/InSpection Division, were split between DIF and the City1
4. The addition of $140,210 to cover the costs of building-related equipment
(i.e. copier and fax machine) for the new annex building.
5. The addition of $104,581 in office-related equipment (computer equipment)
for new staff based on the City's staff/computer ratio.
~
6. The addition of $33,855 for moving and phone relocation costs associated
with the remodeling.
,/
The principle factors decreasing project costs (or increasing the City share) were:
7. The costs associated with remodeling the Legislative Offices were decreased
by $454,000, based on the Civic Center plan adopted by Council.
8. The City's pre-existing space deficiency was increased from 7,210 square feet
to 9,180 square feet. This increase was based on a detailed review of the
City's 1988 existing square footage. The change in space deficiency increased
the City share by $291,604 (39%).
9. The City's preexisting parking deficiency was found to be accurate. However,
the cost for correcting this deficiency was found to be understated. Using
more accurate data, the City share for parking improvements increased by
$324,086 (42.3%).
Lastly, based on discussions with the City's Building Services Superintendent, consideration
was given to increasing the project cost associated with minor remodeling, from $35 to
$50/square foot. We decided not to modify any of the construction and equipment cost
estimates used in the original Master Plan. Cost figures, particularly those associated with
minor remodeling, should therefore be reviewed as part of the 1993 update.
1
1 The split was based on the ratio of City:D1F shares of the costs associated with the Civic Center
Expansion (Project No 1).
J~ -<i'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Attachment A
CIVIC CENTER SPACE NEEDS
l5-Feb-93
Master Plan Detail
Buildings
Square Footage
1988 Buildout
Demolition/
Net Gain Remodeling New Constr.
City Hall
City Hall Storage
17,470
600
23,000
4,930
(2,800)
7,730
City Hall Annex
Information Systems*
Community Development
Legislative
31,500
24,795
31,500
Public Services 30,360
Less: Public Services Space Needs
Related to Population Changes
40,600
9,915
(3,585)
(3,120)
(6,080)
0,350)
11,265
3,585
3,120
6,080
(325)
Total
61,215
94,775
39,640
(16,935)
50,495
1988 Sq. Ft.
Actual Needed
1988 Parking
Actual Needed
Master Plan Base
Less: Legislative
Net Master Plan Base
61,215
(6,080)
55,135
67,640
(6,080)
61,560
333
447
Civic Center Deficiency
6,425
114
Police/Information
Systems Space
46,595
49,350
Total
101,730 110,910
333
447
Total Deficiency
Plus: Lost Spaces
Avg. Cost/Sq. Ft. or
Parking Space
9,180
114
56
City Share
$128.17
$1,176,645
$10,340
1,757,854
* Cost of Information Systems remodeling to be part of Police
Facility and Equipment project.
1~-1~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Attachment B
Average Cost per Square Foot
17-Feb-93
Sq. Ft.
Cost/SF
Cost
1. Construction NEW
NEW (ANNEX)
EXTENS. REMODEL
MINOR REMODEL
18,995
31,500
18,240
26,790
$115
$125
$75
$35
2,184,425
3,937,500
1,368,000
937,650
2. Furniture, Fixtures, Equipment (Exc1. Computers and Bldg.
CITY HALL
PUBLIC SERVICES
ANNEX
Equip. )*
64,913
406,196
204,000
3. Professional/Architectural Services
1,053,447
4. City Staff Services
210,689
5. Moving Costs
33,825
6. Site Improvements and Landscaping
637,500
7. Demolition
92,675
Total Cost
Average Construction Cost -
$11,130,821 / 95,525 SF -
11,130,821
116.52
$128.17
W/ 10% Contingency
* Excluded costs total: $104,581 for computer equipment and $140,210 for
building equipment. Added to the construction cost figure of
$11,130,821 (see above), this yields the project subtotal as shown on
page 26 ($11,375,611).
)~ -~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Attachment C
l5-Feb-93
CIVIC CENTER PARKING
Description
1991
Estimate
1992
Estimate
1. Parking Structure
2. Subterranean Parking
3. Surface Parking
4. Site Acquisition
5. Landscaping
6. Professional/Architectural Svs
7. City Staff Services
2 , 872 , 000
1,008,000
227,100
o
o
o
o
2,864,000
1,000,000
226,125
1,442,000
241,000
511,266
102,253
SUBTOTAL
$6,386,644
6. Contingency (10%)
7. Master Plan (26%)
638,664
16,450
TOTAL
$7,041,758
Total Spaces = 675 - 3 for population adjustment - 672.
Spaces to be built: 681
Note: Total spaces to be built includes replacement of several spaces
which would be lost to new construction (including construction of a
three story parking garage on the site of an existing 111 space lot.
Since one of the additional stories would be needed for new growth and
one to account for the city's deficiency, the cost of the third story
has been divided between the two. The city share is thus the
existing deficiency of 114 spaces plus half of the existing lot to be
removed (or 56 spaces) for a total of 170 spaces.
Average Cost/Space -
$7,041,758 /
681
$10,340
City Share =
$10,340 *
170
$1,757,854
It. -Cf~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Attachment D
CIVIC CENTER COST ESTIMATES
l5-Feb-93
1. FACILITIES
A. City Hall
New Construction (1 Story Addition)
7,730 SF @ $ll5/SF - $
Extensive Remodeling
8,775 SF @ $75/SF
Minor Remodeling
5,895 SF @ $35/SF -
Professional/Architectural Svs.
City Staff Services
Office Furniture, Fixtures,
and Equipment
888,950
658,125
206,325
219,175
43,835
82,996
Subtotal, City Hall:
2,099,406
B. Public Services Facility
New Construction (1 Story Addition)
11,265 SF @ $115/SF -
Extensive Remodeling
9,465 SF @ $75/SF
Minor Remodeling
20,895 SF @ $35/SF -
Professional/Architectural Svs.
City Staff Services
Office Furniture, Fixtures,
and Equipment
1,295,475
709,875
731,325
342,084
68,417
458,048
Subtotal, Public Services:
3,605,224
C. New City Hall Annex Building
* New Construction
31,500 SF @ $125/SF -
Professional/Architectural Svs.
City Staff Services
Office Furniture, Fixtures,
and Equipment
Building Equipment
High Volume Copier/Duplicator
and Fax Machine
3,937,500
492,188
98,438
238,646
140,210
Subtotal, Annex:
4,906,981
2. DEMOLITION
A. Buildings
City Hall (2,800 SF @ $2/SF)
Comm Dev (3,120 SF @ $1.50/SF)
Legislative (6,080 SF @ $1.50/SF)
Public Services (1,350 SF @ $2/SF)
5,600
4,680
9,120
2,700
* Note: City hall annex includes legislative office space.
It, -rr5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Attachment D - pg. 2
l5-Feb-93
B. Sitework
141,150 SF @ $.50/SF -
70,575
Subtotal, Demolition:
92,675
3. MOVING AND PHONE RELOCATION COSTS
33,825
4. MISCELLANEOUS SITE IMPROVEMENTS
A. Paving, Hardscape, etc. (not utilities,
curb, gutter, and perimeter sidewalks)
15,000 SF @ $12/SF
180,000
5. LANDSCAPING
A. Planting and Irrigation on Grade
457,500
CIVIC CENTER SUBTOTAL:
$
11,375,611
6. SURFACE AND STRUCTURE PARKING
A. . Surface Parking & Link to Parking Structure
45,425 SF @ $5/SF 227,125
Less: Employee/Visitor Parking for
Population Change (1,000)
B. Police Secured Subterranean
Parking Structure
One level below grade
126 Spaces @ $8,000/Space
Less: Police Parking for
Population Change
1,008,000
(8,000)
C. Parking Structure
Two levels above grade
359 Spaces @ $8,OOO/Space
Less: Visitor Parking for
Population Change
2,872,000
(8,000)
D. Professional/Architectural Svs.
City Staff Services
511,266
102,253
7. LAND ACQUISITION
Additional Parcels for Parking Areas
1,442,000
8. LANDSCAPING
A. Planting & Irrigation on North
Side of Parking Structure
12,050 SF @ $20 SF
241,000
PARKING SUBTOTAL:
$
6,386,644
/, - ~"
.
I Attachment D - pg. 3 17-Sep-92
I CIVIC CENTER SUBTOTAL: $ 11,375,611
Contingency (10%) 1,137,561
Master Plan (74%) 48,285
I INTERIM RENTAL SPACE TOTAL: 209,580
CIVIC CENTER TOTAL: $ 12,771,037
I
I PARKING SUBTOTAL: $ 6,386,644
Contingency (10%) 638,664
I Master Plan (26%) 16,965
PARKING TOTAL: $ 7,042,273
.
PROJECT TOTAL $ 19,813,311
. MINUS CITY SHARE:
A. Civic Center
Deficiency * Avg Cost/Sq.Ft. (1,176,645)
. B. Rental Space 9.37% (19,632)
C. Parking (1,194,671)
GRAND TOTAL DIF SHARE: $ 17,422,362
I Less DIF Fees Collected: (1,684,176)
NET DIF SHARE: $ 15,738,186
I
I
I
I
I
I;
I
I J~ -y7
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Attachment E
l ?OPULATION ADJUSTMENTS
l7-Sep-92
Initial Civic Center Kaster Plan assumed that the Bonita area would
be annexed by the City by 1995. As such an annexation would not be
relevant to the purposes of the DlF, the additions to the plan which
are related to Bonita should be backed out. At the same time, however,
The City'a buildout population estimate has increased from 193,800 to
204,690. This increase of 10,890 is actually a decrease of 2,310 from
the population assuming Bonita's annexation (207,000). Therefore, the
marginal impact of Bonita has been used to determine the cost of the
actual space needed (2,310/14,000 - 16.5% of Bonita costs).
Bonita Assumptions:
Department
Employees
Kaster Plan
Sq. Ft./Employee
Total
Square Feet
Building and Housing
Engineering
Finance
Planning
1
1
1
3
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
975
Bonita Share:
Pop. Change Share:
6
(1)
1,950
(325)
Note: Average square footage per employee includes shared space.
Parking
Standard
Bonita-Related
Total
Police Parking
Other Employees
Visitors
0.37
0.90
0.0006
14
6
14,000
5
5
8
Bonita Spaces:
Pop. Change Spaces:
18
(3)
Therefore, to compensate for the new population total of 204,690, the
Civic Center should be adjusted for 1 less employee @ 325 SF and 3 less
parking spaces (16.5% of Bonita needs). These costs will be approximated
in the course of the current DIF update and incorporated into later
revisions of the Civic Center Kaster Plan.
I' - Y?
Inventory of Personal
Computers
29- Jan -92
BASE YEAR: 1991
MICROCOMPUTERS
Employees
Computers
Positions
per Computer.
City Hall i Finance
39
85.15
2.18
Fire Station 1
4
15.5
3.88
Information Sys.
3
10
3.33
Public Services
30
135.3
4.51
Total 1991
76
245.95
3.24
MAINFRAME TERNINAW
Terminals
Positions
Employees
Per Terminal
r
oN)
City Hall i Finance
16
85.15
5.32
-�D
Fire Station 1
1
15.5
15.50
Information Sys.
it
10
0.91
Public Services
6
135.3
22.55
Total 1991
34
245.95
7.23
PRINTERS
Employees
Printers
Positions
Per Printer
City Hall i Finance
32
85.15
2.66
Fire Station 1
4
15.5
3.88
Information Sys.
4
10
2.50
Public Services
22
135.3
6.15
H
Total 1991
62
245.95
3.97
a
I
I t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~.(J'Jr G,- I
April 27, 1992
RE: COSTS FOR INTERIM OFFICE SPACE
Due to the current lack of space at the Civic Center, two City Divisions have been relocated
to the El Dorado Building (Fourth Avenue). Current plans are to continue to lease
additional office space until sufficient new space is developed as part of the Civic Center
Expansion project within the Public Facilities DIF. The cost associated with the interim
space needs of the City is as follows:
YEAR
ENGINEERING FINANCE
CONSTRUCTION & INSPECTION PURCHASING DMSION
89-90 $ 19,800 *1* N/A
90-91 $ 23,760 N/A
91-92 $ 23,760 $ 9,540 *2*
92-93 $ 23,760 $ 9,420
93-94 $ 23,760 $ 9,420
94-95 $ 23,760 $ 9,420
95-96 $ 23,760 $ 9,420
$162,360 $47,220
TOTAL COST = $162,360 + $47,220 = $209,580
DIP SHARE = .92 = $192,814
CITY SHARE = ,08 = $ 16,780
*1* $23,760 annual rent @ 10 months
*2* $9,420 annual rent and communication line maintenance @ 7 months plus one-
time moving expense of $4,045.
_ J' - '1'0
I.
-'8
. _ II
.. 10
-.
-.
-.
'-
'-
l.-
I.-
-.
1.1
I
ATTACHMENT H
11-19-90
ATTACHMENT A: Development Share of Fire Station '1 Expansion
1 Total Fire Prevention Space: 1,704
2 ' Growth Related: 37.50' *1*
3 Growth Related Square Footaqe: 639 -Fire
Prevention
4 Total Other Remodeled Space: 4,276
5 , Growth Related: 10.85'
6 Growth Related Square Footaqe: 464 -Other
7 TOTAL GROWTH RELATED SQUARE FOOTAGE: 1,103
TOTAL REMODELED SQUARE FOOTAGE:
OVerall percentaqe Growth Related:
TOTAL COST OF EXPANSION:
11
City Credit for New Development Share:
5,980
18.44'
$438,000
*2*
*********
$80,767
*********
*1*
Extra square footaqe needed to accommodate 8 versus 5
employees.
CV 89-90 CIP
*2*
I
I
I'
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
December 18, 1991
TO:
Dawn Herring, Budget Manager
cheryl Fruchter, Revenue Manager~
Budgeting for Rent for Puchasing Division's Office
space at the El Dorado Building
As of this month, the Purchasing Division was relocated to
the El Dorado Building, suite P. The cost for renting this
office space is $600 monthly. The monthly rental payments
are remitted to the Redevelopment Agency. As we've
discussed previously, these rental payments can be
appropriately charged to the Civic Center Expansion project.
Since this project is 93.66% funded by Development Impact
Fees (DIF), the proportion of rent to be paid by DIF could
be budgeted directly within the Civic Center Expansion
project. The remainder of the rent will be budgeted in the
Purchasing Division's Rental and Leases Account both this
and next fiscal year.
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Specifically, the estimated rental cost for the remainder of
FY 1991-92 is $4200. $3933 should be budgeted in account
802-8020-5271 for the DIF portion. As an aside, there is
quite a bit of additional money available in account 802-
8021-5291 if you wish to make a budget transfer. For the
remainder of this fiscal year, the costs to the General Fund
will be $266.28. The Finance Department will request a
budget transfer of this amount to account 100-0440-5271 to
cover this portion of the rental costs.
The rental costs for the FY 1992-93 budget are estimated at
$7200. Of this amount, $6743.52 should be budgeted in 802-
8020-5271. The remainder will be submitted in the Finance
Department's budget request.
Budgeting the amounts this way will provide two advantages:
1) This year's costs can be met through budget transfers so
that budget amendments will not be required, and 2) future
costs will be budgeted directly from the appropriate funding
source so there wil~ be no need for transfers between DIF
and General funds.
cc
Lyman Christopher
Gina Ghosn
Jim Espinosa
Susan Cole
Teri Enos
Marty Chase
l~ -1~
I.
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
While the total dollar amount; is not considered to be significant in tenns of the PFDIF
I (every million dollars included in the PFDIF increases the fee on residential units by
approximately $42), the intent is to save General Fund monies wherever it's reasonably and
legally possible. Accordingly, it's my recommendation that furnishings be purchased from "...,s
I of(the PFDIF for the newly created Environmental Resource Manager position (appro~!e1y~ (, (' '"
~ $2,310 for a desk with side return, cre~l;"bookcase, desk chair, side chairs4ndfiT~-,\\ [-
cabinet). The furnishings currently in1hat office (the office of the Principal Management", ^ \:l
I Analyst in Management Services) were previously purchased using General Fund revenues. ~.
As such, these furnishings should be passed down to another General Fund user, defraying
. .
I
I
~
~
November 4, 1991
TO:
John Goss
/fi
Jim Thomson 'ill
Marty Chase wJ
VIA:
FROM:
RE:
Office Furnishings/Computers For New City Positions
John,
As you are aware, the annual update of the Public Facilities Development Impact .Fee
(PFDIF) is about to begin. In soliciting input from various staff, the Revenue Manager
suggested that the PFDIF be modified to include the cost of office furnishings and
computers for new positions. Since the Civic Center Expansion project is based on
additional staff, funds for these capital items would be incorporated within that project.
The City's DIF consultant has indicated that the proposed items are a legitimate DIF
expense. The Finance Director is willing to make the expenditures now, amending the DIF
budget at the time the revised PFDIF is sent to Council.
To insure that DIF funds are used properly, acceptable items and associated dollar amounts
will need to be specified. Essentially, the intent is to:
determine the requisite office furnishings associated with various types of
positions, using purchasing information and to
determine the ratio of computers/staff at the time the PFDIF was established.
(If, for example, the ratio was .4, then the PFDIF would be expected to pay
for the start-up computer needs for 4 of every 10 new positions in City
Hall/PSB.) ,
I ~ - C['5
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
future GF expenditures. It would be as inappropriate for these furnishings to be used to
support PFDIF needs as it would be for surplus sewer equipment to revert to general fund .
uses. Moreover, it's important that constant relationships be established between the
capital needs associated with expansion and the expenditure of PFDIF funds and that
possible precedents wherein general funds are used to support PFDIF capital be avoided.
John, it would be helpful if you could let me know as soon as possible whether you have
any problem with this approach. I am helping coordinate the office moves in the former
Management Services area and would like to order the necessary furnishings (including
items for Shauna) at the earliest date.
cc: Lyman Christopher
Dawn Herring
Sid Morris
a:\l1-4jdg
N - cri
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MEMORANDUM
December 27, 1991
File # KY-004
TO: Dawn Herring, Budget Manager
FROM: Susan Cole, Principal Management Assistan~1~
SUBJECT: Budgeting for Rent for Engineering construction/
Inspection Office Space at the El Dorado Building
The rent for the Engineering Construction/Inspection office space
in the El Dorado Building has been paid through June 30, 1991. No
rent has been paid yet for the current fiscal year, awaiting a
decision on the long term method of payment. The decision has now
been made to charge the rental payments. to the Civic Center
Expansion project. This will split the $23,760 annual amount
between Development Impact Fees (93.66%) and City funds (6.34%): .
For both FY92 and FY93 $22,253.64 should be budgeted in account
802-8020-5271 for the DIF portion. The remaining $1,506.36 will be
submitted in the Engineering Construction/Inspection budget for
FY93 in account 100-1423-5271. We will request a budget transfer
for the current fiscal year into the same account to cover the
$1,506.36 for FY92.
The City share that is budgeted in Engineering will mostly be
reimbursed by C.I.P. projects through full cost recovery since the
majority of the staff time in this division is spent on C.I.P.
projects.
Be:kw
cc: Lyman Christopher
Gina Ghosn
Teri Enos
Marty Chase
Roberto Saucedo
(SC\ELDOR.MEM)
Jb -f5
I
I
I \
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. .
01/07/92
To: Gina r.-1-'
From:CaroleVi
subj:Purchasinq Relocation Projecte~ Expense, FY 1991/92
I contacted Jim Espinosa reqardinq the use of the employee
benefits account, 100-0440-5142, for the "salary savinqs"
cateqory. Since Lorraine Bennett has worked as a temporary,
the employee benefits will have sufficient savinqs to cover
the estimated $1,S37.07 needed for the remainder of the fiscal
year.
There has been a chanqe in the source of funds transfer.
I have prepared a budqet adjustment request form as the "cover"
portion for your memo that will be attached to the budqet
transfer request. Also for your information, I had contacted
Teri Enos and she was workinq with Dawn Herrinq in order
to set up GG13S project. Dawn Herrinq called me and will be
sendinq you a memo reqardinq the source of funds transfer.
Dawn does NOT want to use the ~elephone Upqrade DIF Fund
S09 or the civic Center Expansion DIF Fund S02. She said to
take all monies from SOI-S010-5399-PFOI2, which is the
General Admin DIF continqency account.
REF
NO.
BUDGET
ACCT NO.
AMOUNT
NEEDED
TRANSFER FROM
----------------------------------------------------------------
1. SOl-SOI0-5250-GGI3S 1,650.00 * SOI-S010-5399-PFOI2
2. SOI-S010-5560-GGI3S 2,247.S4 * SOI-S010-5399-PFOI2
4. SOI-S010-5202-GGI3S 1,404.90 * SOI-S010-5399-PFOI2
6. SOI-S010-5291-GGI3S 421.47 * SOI-S010-5399-PFOI2
S. SOI-S010-5271-GGI3S 3,933.72 * SOI-S010-5399-PFOI2
3. 100-0440-5560 152.16 ** 100-0440-5142
5. 100-0440-5202 95.10 ** 100-0440-5142
7. 100-0440-5250 2S.53 ** 100-0440-5142
9. 100-0440-5271 266.2S ** 100-0440-5142
10. 100-0440-5252 1,295.00 ** 100-0440-5142
-----------
TOTAL 11,495.00
-
*Per Dawn Herrinq. M~mo to Gina to follow.
**As of pay period endinq 01/02/92 there is $20,065.S3 remaininq
in 100-0440-5142 with 13.3 pay periods remaininq. A total of
$12,024.17 has been spent out of the oriqinal $32,090 budqeted.
cc: Jim Espinosa
Cheryl Fruchter
Teri Enos
Dawn Herrinq
)& -rk
I.~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"j'
. .
November 18, 1991
rtI
TO: Gina Ghosn, Assistant Director of Finance
FROM: Ch~ryl Fruchter, Revenue Manager tf2..
SUBJECT: Fiscal :Impact and Charges Resulting from the
Relocation of the Purchasing Division
Below :I have listed the cost estimates related to the
Purchasing Division's impending move. Those costs listed as
attributable to the Public Facilities DIF, should come from
the Civic Center Expansion project, unless otherwise noted.
These costs were not included in the FY 1991-92 DIF budget,
but will be included later this y~ar, when the DIF budget is
amended in conjunction with the DIF.update. Expenditures
needed for maintenance performed on the El Dorado site are
going to be paid by Redevelopment. Rick Matkin is
coordinating these charges with Community Development staff.
The attached sheet shows all the cost estimates. To
summarize, the costs to be paid this year are as follows:
o $1650 from the Public Facilities DIF phone upgrade
project
o $8007.93 from the Public Facilities DIF Civic
Center expansion project.
o $1808.54 from the General Fund ($421.47 of which
comes from the reimbursements to General Fund from
the Civic Center DIF for staff time associated
with phone and electrical hookups)
cc
Lyman Christopher
)~ -17
I"
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
. -
,
COST ESTXKATES FOR PORCHASXNG DXVXSXON MOVE
~CI.J..:~
FUNDING
SOURCE
U) 100' TELEPHONE DIF
~) 93.66' CIVIC CTR DIF
@) 6.34' GENERAL ~D
l~j 93.66' CIV CTR DIF
~)6.34' GENERAL FUND
~~ 93.66' CIV CTR DIF
t1) 6.34t GENERAL FUND
(5) 93. 66t CIV CTR DIF
(",' 6.34t GENERAL FUND
~") 100' GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
$1650
$2400
$1500
$450
$4200
$1295
,
)~ -(8
DESCRIPTION
Purchase of phones and
phone lines
Purchase and installation
of .aedem F',;;,.J'Ti'.e..
Cost of movers
city staff services
(phone, electrical hook
up)
($600 per month) rent
($185 per month) phone
and comm line maintenance
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
December 16, 1991
TO:
Lyman Christopher, Director of Finance
Cheryl Fruchter, Revenue Manager@
Revisions to FY 1991-92 Revenue Estimates for
Revenue Account 100-3859 (Reimbursements from
Development Impact Fees - Public Facilities DIF)
and Revenue Account 100-3855 (Reimbursements from
Redevelopment Agency)
FROM:
SUBJECT:
After processing the first quarter reimbursements to the
General Fund from Public Facilities Development Impact Fees
and discussing reimbursement projections for the remainder
of this fiscal year with the Budget Manager and the various
DIF project managers, I am recommending that the estimated
reimbursements for Revenue Account 100-3859 be reduced
$185,044, from $685,731 to $500,687. There also needs to be
a reduction in the estimated reimbursements to the General
Fund from the Redevelopment Agency since a portion ($30,000)
of the DIF reimbursements are in fact coming from personnel
who were budgeted to be reimbursed 100% from Redevelopment
Agency. Therefore, the revenue estimate in Revenue Account
100-3855 (Reimbursements from the Redevelopment Agency)
should be reduced $30,000: changing the estimated revenue
from $1,973,350 to $1,943,350.
The attachment shows the specific changes in estimated DIF
reimbursements are shown specifically by the account in
which they were included in the DIF budget. Project numbers
are shown if staff time reimbursement estimates relate
specifically to a budgeted CIP project.
-:
cc
Teri Enos
Gina Ghosn
Dawn Herring'/
c:\cheryl\1216memo.doc
)~ -fC(
I
I !
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
I
I /~ - ;1)0
It
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(,
Page 2.1
_ _ CMoConfOl'IIII_'IM
7Ito-PIetWntI-.
Introduction
This chapter outlines several preliminary Issues that form the foundation-the
master planning context~hlnd our recommendations. The chapter's contents
will enhance the City's understanding of our findings presented in later sections
of this Master Plan.
First, we discuss the history behind the recently Increased need for changes to
the Civic Center. We then take a closer look at the current Civic Center situation
based on the findings of our City staff and visitor surveys. In response to the
situation, major goals of this Master Plan are defined to understand our overall
phliosophlcal approach towards future facility needs. Our plaMlng process for
this study Is also Illustrated In detail. Finally, key assumptions are reviewed that
Influence our recommendations. Therefore, the live sections of this chapter are:
. The Need For Changes To The CIvIc Center (Page 2.1)
. A Closer Look At The CUmmf Situlltlon (Pages 22 to 2.9)
. . Major Goals Of The Master Plan (Pages 2.10 to 2.14)
. OurPllInnlngPt~ {Pages 2. 15 to 2. 16)
. KeyAaumptlons (Pages2.16to220)
(.
The Need For Changes To The Civic Center
"Perhapl above all .I.....clty haIa Iymbollz. community. a value llpeclally ~ated In
tImII 01 blrllulenl chq..... Milam Labovlch In America'. CIty Hall, The P_lIon PnooI,
1884.
(
The City of Chula Vista now faces an Important threshold In regards to Its Civic
Center. With a major expansion and remodel In the early 1970's, the Civic Center
has for many years successfully accommodated City administrative offices, a
police headquarters and a lire station. In addition, offices for Legislative Services
and the County Health Department were conveniently located at the central site.
By the mid-1980's, however, Chula Vista witnessed extensive population growth
brought on by annexation of the Montgomery/Clay area to the south as well as
extensive new development to the east. Like many other southern California
cities, this population growth Increased the extent of City services, leading to a
correspondlng Increase In City stall.
Due to this stall growth, a Civic Center that once seemed sizable Is now seriously
congested In several areas. Since the community will continue to grow
throughout the next two decades_hlch will create a future need for even more
City staff--the space shortages will only become worse. Interior space and
parking spaces are now both at a premium throughout rroch of the complex. The
current Civic Center Is becoming more and more of a barrier to successful City
operationsmlncreaslngly hindering staff productivity, efficiency, morale,
communication and effective service to the public.
Numerous small remodel proJects have been proposed over the last few years to
relieve some of the space shortages. However, City management recognized
that without an Integrated, long-term strat~ for the Civic Center, such remodels
would only be temporary "band-aid" solutIOns that could Jeopardize the overall
favorable character of the Civic Center. Therefore, the City early In 1988
requested the consultant team of Danielson Design Group I Michael Feere, &
Associates I The Spurlock OffICe to develop a coordinated, long-range Master
Plan for the Civic Center.
I~ -If> I
..
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Civic Center Summary
ry
Forecasted Nelds
J' l. _ 11 -
........'.-.....,-,...--.-,- ,
. ......,..-...,."...,...
..........-..-..,-..:.,.....,.,'""..
". ...... ..... '. ...{~:b~~j~i~~~~
. , ' I .
,Em JEI11fBIml,'.
If!!J 1I!IJ1f!!J11i1!!iJ
I .f- .~______J
..-.....,..-.'.:...:.;.:,:,:.,:.,;':::,.,:,:,.;.._,.:::x::":::,.,:,,.::;.::-..:.:,_;.
........-...".. .
Staffing Forecasts
Administrative Departments
1. Building & Housing
2. Community Oev!llopment
3. Planning
4. Engineering
5. Finance
Subtotal:
Staff Per 1,000 Population:
Staff GrowthlYear During Period:
6. Mayor & Council
7. Administration
8. Management Services
9. City Clerk
10. City Attomey
Subtotal:
Staff Per 1,000 Population:
i '1aff GrowthIYear During Period:
11. Personnel
12. Parks & Recreation
Subtotal:
Staff Per 1,000 Population:
Staff GrowthlYear During Period:
Total Admlnllltratlve Dept. St8ff:
Staff Per 1,000 Population:
Staff GrowthIYear During Period:
Public Safety Departments
. Fire
. Police
Total Public Safety Staff:
Staff Per 1,000 Population:
Staff GrowthIYear During Period:
All Civic Center Departments
Grand Total CIvIc Centar Staff:
Staff Per 1,000 Population:
Staff GrowthIYesr During Period:
!
i19881995
"124.000 '159.000
QlonIIIy '.' CluontIlY
:.,.:'..,.....;.,:'-'".;.::.:-..;.:
..................
".....,......-..,..,.
-,':-";';:::""'::-:-"':':,:-,;"/'
"".'--,--,.,:..-..
..,....'-:..:.,_..-':.;..",..
.-" ....,.......-....
..' "---,-,"'-'-'
..... _, . _,.'., _':" c: _ ,::,;.:, :". ~:,
.....----.....-
.,...... ......,.
...-...,.,..,.....-..
...."-':.,:,..:,.,,,,:,.,;..
.........----..
.17.5
);:~~i:i
:'1'.00
;'95
....,...,.
.'llh.~:~
')\"-10.5
>17.0'
..:.>:..~O
..<.x.....:..5.P.
.1/43.0
'?;i;$~
..-.,--':. ',-',-"'"
"'-":'-"-".-......
.';:'::-:':::;::<:::\:"::\:\":.
'N.05
'1.52
....'..:..-:.c.'~
.,-.....:.."._..,.'.,--...
.,.',"',""'-'-""
........-....,."..,.
'''', ,,-,........_..
"':"""'-"'-,--'.',',.:..
......, -.--.....,
'---,---,----',"--
.'..,-,,-.,-----,.
'_::'::"':':':':C::':':'::-:::,
',' "-"",-'
,,'.--',-'" ': '-,'
'-"',:-,-,--,:,"',",
":",-,-,"-',".:.
':""-'-'c'::,: '-,'
',":..:'- ,,,:'
"'."."."-',-:,-.-'-,"
.........9.5
196.5
206.0
1.66
.... ..
':'.' -,-:.,,::'-'
"""'- :":-,,,:,
314.D5
.' 3.18
...... ,- ',","
:'-:':':"::":':-:,:.:':':0:':'
,-:",,,-..,-........._..y,.
:'-:.,-:.,.' .'-:-'::-,,:::,'::':,.-.:::.::::'
.:....c.,_.c.',':,.,.-...:',.
"':":-::':-::":,,'..,:,:":':'
'::':::-:"::':':':':':":",:,-:,,::-
"":"':"::'--:--:-::'::',:-"
.'--.--..-...........-...
. :-"'--:',",:/' .
..:._,..._'....
:::,~
.-....._'....,.,.
:-"-:"-:''':'
'~g:g
};~:~
\:.24.2
'1537
:~97
. }/:5.10
,':o,,:':::','::;:::"::,;:::}:;::::;
.......,.......6..5:.
;l~r\~~~
\.;;""c;o .'
'))18,0
'~l~A
'107
:'~;:25'
".13.25
.aO.5
...............19
.....:.....:.....-49
.....'.c:..:;..
-234.7
~:~
.:::::::c: :,_c-.
-'- -,' , '.
.-.'" --.-.-
.',,' "-'"
. ,...
.' ':.., ,"
'...., " ,-,'
...,.. '- -'-':'
'-"'-',, .,--",.-
. '''':-'- "
..., '. ,....
.'.-..' ',,".
.,-....-, .--,:'.
.-,,, ......
,,-:..-.- '-,.',-.'.
",-,-,, ..
"493.7
.... 3.11
14.24
)~ -II>J...
.'-......'.. --'
... .'.,
<:::::::(:'::':"::::::{::;::::::
':::':',.:,::.,:,:::,,-,,:,;:..::,;:::':
::...:...:,'...:.::.....:....:.....-,.
.."......
'-:.:::::_,::,:,;.,.._,:::,.,.:.:-:'::'
,;':":":"':::':,:':.::-::':':':'.
'::::::}::;::::::~r::~~:@~~:
":,:..-:,:,:",:,:-:::",,,:-;.:,:-,.:,
24:5
;~:~
.76.0
,;}25,~
.AT9.7
......1.02
...:.....'5.20
:;':::=::::.::~:'::::::~:;::::.:.,:::::::
~'ijO;;~~ .
;f!~i~~:g
j;;i1(1~ti .
..';:.:1&0
;.)(;33.
./:'.1.50.
.-.:.,.'...:--".,..-:-..,.........:.,..
/21.iS
':~~7~
. .....21
/:y~
~74~45
.{~~
.",':,'--:,-',- .-.
" c_,_-:.,_:,._,:,:"
'-:'",--"'-':-::':'-"-'::::
""-".:'-,-,--..".'
....:-._._,.:,--".--.
.'-.-',".-".
'..,_...,.....",...-.
'-'-'- ,"
"'-"',',-'-,-'c:":
. . ',,,-,,-,,-,:
','-,- ,,-.'.
"',' - -,-"
::-,:",::,-,.:.
'.' .13.0
272.0
'285.0
. 1.61
.....5.20
"-'''- .._-',-"
. ""....
.". .....---.
"," "-', , ..'.
. - -,.--..,'
......'-".",":':
. .. ''','-''
,,--:-:,-,-,,-.
,:":::,,,,:,.,.,:,,-,:-..-:
,...,.,,,...,......
---,,""",---'
:.,,:.:'.....--.-,:c'....:..
........,.-'...-.....,.-..
. ..------....
..---_.....-.."."-,.
','"-',-''' ..
859.45
...3.16
13.15
..,-.-,-:...;:.;.
"-::-'-":..':.'.:',"'-',.,:.-
: :.'-: -..-:' -,...(,.:~::.
.,-..-...-.:..,.."-'_.,..,....
,:::,:-.",.":.,,-,-,,,:.:,:.,.:.,
.....-.:.-.--:'-"..-....,:.:.:..-.
...-- -" ,"
...-.....-..- ....-.......'
'-"-" _..,,-.....
.".. -".:-',....--.'.'
.',.,.,:.....:.,:'-:,...,:-:...,,:
. ---- ....-..-..
... .........;:.;.
.:c":,',,_,:,-:,,.-,..,
..,.c:.,.:.:.,',_.:,....,:.,
....-.".,..-..-. ..
292.95
......1.42
1.85
..'.'" ---. -,'.
---"', .".....
',,,,--'--,""',-'.'
':"'.-,":",'.:.-:-:,"
"-' - ",,",:
'.-,-,,- 'c.:._'.
""--,-, .-..:
. - -""
'-:'-"- -',-"
'14.0
. 331.0
345.0
1.67
.6.00
.:.-....-"" -.'....;-:
..--- - ::.:::->::
. 637.95
3.08
. 7.85
Notes
, '..
.. .. .
,,' ..
'I~OOO 180jlIa ~............s.
..' .
rzza.45 f BanIlia" Illllonno.od.)
Average of 4.n new stall per year.
r245.o H _. Illllonnoud.)
Average of 6.32 new ltall per year.
r.71.45 f _" nolonnoud.)
.-wrage of 11.09 new stall per year.
.'i.ilonIoIooft DooIgn-.;po
/.,..... ,.... a A.I . ....
. ..... ..... .1ho.......kOlllco
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Civic Center Summary (Cant.)
Space Needs
Administrative DeDBrtments
1. BuDding & Housing
2. Community Development
3. Planning
4. Engineering
5. Rnance
6. Mayor & Council
7. Administration
8. Management Services
9. City Clerk
10. CKy Atlomey
11. Personnel
12. Parks & Recreation
13. Shared Areas
, Suggested Contingency SF:
Total Net Square Feet:
Public Lobbies, Building Structure,
r I. Rms., Etc. (17% of R. Net):
Grand Total Admin. Dept. SF:
Grand Total SF Pe, 1,000 Pop.:
G. Totw SF Per Total Admin. StJJff:
Other DeDBrtments/Anencles
, Police Heaclquarters
, Fire Station #1
, CredK Union
, Legislative Services
, County Hea~h Department
Grand Total Civic Center SF:
Parking Needs
Visitor Parking: Entire Civic Center
Stall Parking:
City Admin.: - Cily Vehicle,
- Stall PellOnal Vehicle,
Police: - Cily Vehicle,
- Staff PellOnal Vehicles
Fire SIn. #1: - Cily Vehicles
- Stall PellOnal Vehicle,
Legislalive: - Stall Personal Vehicle,
G.~"d Total Parking Needs:
(
",., '-,-'-,,--..
',-.'.-,'.'-, ..-....,..
..._....,-.-...-.-,.,..
..0.. _...._....
n___' .........
,.......".......-..
.,..'.-.--'.--,......
....;-.:.::::-::/::.:::~:;:2
,.-,;-,.;.".,-:"., -.,.
....,-.,'-......-.'-.-:..,..;.,.-,.;-,.
.;2.990
3.940
7.080
11,995
4.080
2.545
3.140
!::~
)::;:~::
,,10,710
~,380.
.07,270
. -",:.;.:.:.:.; %::unr~: \:=:':}:'::::=::
... .... "'<.:,' ......'.. ..... .... '::':':':::<::':::":;:;'::/':';::'.
.'8;90,5.jQ;~p11;430
:"':';:{:::,}':'.",::':'..:'::.:, ":.' ..:,:::.:.:,::..;:::~:~::~::' -':.;,:.;.:,.:
....~~~.
.,.., ".,., '" ..,. .,.....
61,200 io'n.300
. :494' .U8
:"::::::'::\' ,
...........:. ,. :304
.,.',.,'.......'...,........ .,,'....,'.....:,.:.,,'..,'.,'.'.
.:,.:,;:":,,.:.::::::::;::~::;:::t\ :;:':;:':;:::::;:;:-::::;::;:;::::I:. .::t~:::i::\:t:::{\?::i:~'
. '::'~:. :::,:::>::,},::::::::::.: ." ,.........':::.:.:::;:::::.:~:::. . ,:::::}::::'::::::::,::):::,:::::.
.49.350' 49:350'~9,350
10'~~g1~,g~g1.~.g~g
.~.08g '. ~.~:~g~.~8g
':::',:-':,::"::.::;;::,::::" :::"::"::":"';":":':"""': "":":;':"',:,:::,,:'"
.:',::"":',:,',:::':':":: ::""",,::":.:"::.,.:::.:.:,:;, :.:::":".."",,
126,990 137p90 144,490
115
.....54
.220
110
......25
......::..:.0
.. .......24
.. .: 25
573
.,,',",..,'.,',.,.,....
..,;:"........--'....
'::;/:}:;e::{;~Mr
........;...',.:.'.;..:;
'.:::",:;'::,:/::::::::;::::::::::;::"
.::::::::',:':::::,::;:-::::':':-:':::::"
.::",..:...:",:",;.::::",::::'
,:::;,,:;}::::,:.::;:):):\::.
i~ 2,315
..2,955
!l~i
f:;:g:g
,i~;~~~
....3.550
t':i~!~Jg
.,'.'" ,
\52,295
:,.:...','"....".,.:...:';.:.;..-..,'.
as
40
175
80
:2~
.22
25
447
100
. 47
..2~~
......::.......~~
..23
....25
.520
J~ - /lU
..::::,,:::<;;:;;:.::.;,;::bF
..........:,.:,,".,.;.,
.-,,',..:,..:....
:,;.:,'.:,:,,:",:'
'3.265
4.040
:7,305
12.135
>4.255
. ./2,545
(3.140
$.725
~
10.7;10
:~,911)
'1~.s1l>>
~:::?}...:::'::>'At::.
11,990
::...~.
.'i:'{::':.M
'.':;.1P
"'--",",""""..'
..,......'................,..,..,.
.....,'....--'...--..
...,.,.,.',........,.,....,.......,
.",.,...,..'.......,...
.,.,.............
....',.,.,....',..,.
.'...........,...........,.....
...,.,.,'--...,......
.....,..,............
...,.."",...,:,......,.,,.
50;180
~Z'~g
.8,080
.....0
CUrr8nt:
2,670
1.900
3,860
6,890
2,600
1,700
2,600
'4,060 '1nc:I.2,400SFIn_Bldg.
1,260
1,550
2,580
2.010
'8,885 'lnc:I.l,1ISSFIn_Bldg.
042,565 oInc:l.S,5I5SFIn_Bldg.
8,490
51,D55 '70,I05I_1llll1llllOl*!.
412
271
'46,595
7,850
360
6,080
3,120
. 120 66
. .... ....60
.........~
>.30
......0
:...25
25
...625
o
3
25
333
'NatInc:l.S,5I5SF__.
10.ooo.__oIzo.
Nato.-: utllIllOCl.....,."L
Tolle_oII.lillt.
Nollnc:I.llltrIdnG_
40
126
76
,
_01__._.
-lndudecIln 121 above.
~_...Illtlion.
::::.-::.;;:.(::::::::~~;~~.a=
. ... . 'Tho Sp.sIook 0ItI0lI
..
.SUBURBAN" SCHEME
I 1. FACILITIES ALTERNATE
A. City Hall
I New CalstnlCtion (1 story addition) $
11,095 Sf @ $115/SF .. 1,275,9J)
Extens lve Rerode ling $
8, n5 Sf iii $75/Sf .. 658,100
I Mil'D' Rerode lil!9 $ 206,:nJ
5,895 Sf @ $35/SF ..
Furniture, Fixtures ~ipn!l1t (FF&E)
21 staff @ $3, staff $ 63,axl
I Slbtota 1: ~ l.L\UJ~
I B. Public Services Facility
New CalstnlCtion C1 story addition)
10,255 Sf @ $UW $ 1,179,:nJ
I Extensive Rerode ling
9,465 Sf @ $75ISf $ 709,9J)
Minor Rerodeli,
20,895 Sf $35/SF $ 731,:nJ
I Furniture Fixtures & Equipn!l1t (fF&E) $
. - 135 Staff @ $3,axl/Staff 4ai,axl
I Slbtota 1: ~ ;s.~t~
(22,845 Sf WO
I , Legislative
Fe. ......el)
C. New City Hall Annex Building
New CalstnlCtion (partial 2-story bldg.)
I 28,925 SF @ $125/SF $ 3,615,625 2,855,625
Fumature, Fixtures & Equipn!l1t (fF&E)
68 Staff @ $3,axl/staff $ 204,axl 168,axl
I Slbtota 1: ~ ~ttsl!:l,~ ;s.u(J.~~
D. Legislative Offices
I 8.lilding Relocation/Interim Storage!
M:lving Cost
initial allCW111Ce, assures stable
I structure $ " 250,axl
Extensive Rerode 1
6,axl Sf @ $18J/SF $ III 486,400
I Slbtota 1: $ III IJb,4W
E. Police Secured Subterranean
I parkin~ Structure
cne leve be low 21de
126 Spaces $8,OOO/Space $ 1,512,axl
I F. Parking Structure
( TIIO leve 1s above grade $ 2,872,lXXl
359 spaces @ $8,lXXl/Space
I
I /It -)f) 'f .'
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.(
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I /
I
I
.SUBURBAN" SCHEME (CONTINUED)
2. DEMOLITION
A. Buildings
City Hall (2,BXl SF " $2/SF)
Health Bldg.. (3,120 SF @ $1.5O/SF)
PIb lic Services Bldg. 0,350 SF "
$2ISF)
B. Sitework
141,150 SF " $.5OISF .
Slbtota 1
3. SURFACE PARKING
A. Visitor Parking & Link to
Parking Structure
45,425 SF @ $5/SF . $
4. MISCELLANEOUS SITE IMPROVEMENTS
A. Pavings, Hardscape, Etc.
(not utilities, curb, gutter,
and perimeter sidewalks)
~ . 15,lXXl SF @ $12/SF $
5. LANDSCAPE
A. Planting & Irrigation on Grade
4O,lXXl SF @ $5/SF $
B. Planting & Irrigation on North
Parking Structure
15,lXXl SF @ $2OISF
6. LAND ~QUISITION (ALLOWANCE)
SUBTOTAL:
CONTINGENCY (10S OF ALL ABOVE COSTS)
ALTERNATE
$ 5,600
$ 4,700
$ 2,700
$ 70,500
'$ 83,500
227,100
18),lXXl
axl,lXXl
$ 3Xl,lXXl
$ 5OO,lXXl
$ 14,923,025
$ 1,492,~
14,863,425
1,486,343
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST (JAN. 1990 DOLLARS) $ 16,415,328
16,349,768
) ~ -IDS
I~
1 ~.
-.
I,
,
I'
,
I ;
I:
.-
Ii
I.
,
Ii
I~
,
IJ
1
IJ
1
I.J
J
I
II
I
1 J
IJ
IJ
I.J
A Master Plan
For The
Chula Vista
Civic Center
Solving City Space Needs
Through Year 2010
February 16, 1990
Final Report
Danielson Design G'oup
Michael Fearer & Associates
The Spurlock Office
)b-I;(,
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I.J
y.
Ii
.J
I
I
1.;1
\'
I.J
1.1
-
ehu" Vis" CIvic c.nI_ t.t.sr~ Pl.n
SummaI)' of Recommendations
Contents
PAaE
Concept 1
Pedestrian Circulation 3
Parking 4
Sequence of Development 5
Architecture 7
Landscape Architecture 9
Conceptual Building Layout 1 1
Implementation Schedule 16
. Costl 17
illustrative Master Plan 19
The Chula Vista Civic center Master Plan
Prepared under the direction of the Cfty of Chula VIsta
Planning Department In coordination with the Cfty
Managefs office,
Consultant Design Team
Danielson Design Group
Michael Feerer & Associates
The Spurtock Office
January 1990
I ~-I07
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Master P Ian Description
This report describes the selected Master Plan alternative for the Chula Vista
Civic Center. The selected alternative was initially described along with two other
options in the Final Report dated May 8.1989. That document's detail enabled
the City to evaluate options and determine a direction for the Master Plan. This
report provides additional information to implement the Plan, including planning
guidelines for the site. components of the site plan, sequencing of site
development. building layout. costs and implementation strategies.
The' selected alternative, which was described as '"The Suburban Scheme" in the
evaluation process, achieves the major objectives identified by the Council and
Civic Center Committee.
Co ncept
The Clvlc Center Master Plan expands the existing Civic Center to meet space
needs through the year 2010, while retaining much of the existing suburban.
small town character of the site. The City of Chula Vista has decided to retain the
existing Civic Center as a major anchor of Its historic downtown core area, rather
than to pursue relocating major services further to the east to reflect population
growth east of Interstate 15.
All major City services including police and police parking are projected to remain
on site during this twenty year period. The proposed space expansion is
envisioned to be adequate to accommodate growth of the City to the east into
OIay Ranch and Eastlake. Future expansions beyond the year 2010 may require
relocation of some services to other sites, possibly the establishment of a City
Services Center east of 1-805. or reconsideration of relocating City Hall to a new
Civic Center location.
The selected alternative responds to the existing neighborhood conlext of
downtown Chula Vista. Major vehicle entries for visitor parking are retained on F
Street. which Is a mixed use corridor of ITlllti-family, medium density housing and
some commercial uses. The low-scale single family residential character of
adjacent neighborhoods Is respected In the site planning and design 01 the Civic
Center along Davidson Street. Fig Avenue and Guava Avenue. Proposed
Improvement of the Fourth Avenue edge opposite the Library and Friendship .
Park will remove parking and present a more inviting edge to the Civic Center
through building additions and landscaping. The corner of Fourth Avenue and F
Street Is proposed to be a smell plaza providing a strong visual link to the Civic
Center from Downtown along F Street.
) h - )0 r
"-:!:.!
Chu,. VI,,. CIvic c.n,,, MIl..., PI.,
Summary of R~mhtjons
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I -J
I
.
P.g. 2
C,.. VIS" CIvIc Center Ib.r" PI."
Summary 01 RKOffIInMd.rioM
The largest of the Civic Center construction projects. the City Hall Annex, will be
located at the existing police parking lot on the north side of the central courtyard.
Anhough the Annex will be a two story building, its location is relatively hidden
from the major edges of the site and the courtyard, and will therefore retain the
character of the site as a rambling campus of low-scale buildings. Various ideas
were explored to incorporate the existing Legislative Office Building and also to
construct new office space in that area. The direction provided by Council was to
place priority on cost and efficiency of the identffied space required. rather than
on preservation of the current Legislative Office Building. For that reason the
Master Plan illustrates construction of a new two story building over two levels of
subterranean parking. Additions are also Indicated for the existing Public
Services Building facing Fourth Avenue and the Fig Avenue side of the City Hall.
A three level parking structure is proposed at the southwest comer of the Civic
Center site.
) l
) l
) L
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
lS$lend
..- J
; , !
.J
DavidlonSll'Nt
~.t
I.2SL:1
.
~
D
Existing Buildings
Bldg. Expansions
New Building
Total
114,090 SF
14,965 SF
31 500 SF
160.555 SF
Above Ground Parking Structure
r-'
L _ .J Below Ground Parking Structure
. ~.tt:i:.'!...
:. ',',i\...D ...
l~::><-:"{':' I'..
" I I!I :. . .
I bd!:d :.JLJ I I
fSl_
~ 1txT 2DD'E!1\ ,--
Sell.. Nonh
Ib-It?f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
P.g. ,
Chcb VIS" CMc c.nr" Ma"er Plan
Sulntnaty of Rec~'ions
Pedestrian Circulation
The site plan organization of the Civic Center is intended to provide clearly
identifiable pedestrian accessways from parking areas to buildings. and to
provide attractive entries to the Civic Center from downtown and adjacent
neighborhood. In addition, the location of the new Ctty Hall Annex reinforces the
pedestrian use of the central courlyard wtth the location of tts major entry.
o Building Entries: Most buildings in the Civic Center have an entry from the
Courtyard. The Courtyard entry will serve as the major access for both staff
and visitors. Existing street entries will provide an inviting access to
encourage walking to the Civic Center from downtown and the park and
library. The courtyard will serve as a gathering place, and outdoor sitting area
in addttion to being the building entry court.
o Access from Parking: Staff parking will in some cases be more distant from
building entries than at present. The new three story parking structure on F
Street provides most of the parking for the Public Services Building, Ctty Hall,
and the new Ctty Hall Annex. The arcade system will be extended to this
structure to provide covered access to the Public Services Building and Cny
Hall. Inclement weather access to the Annex may require passing through
Cny Hall. The parking structure below the Annex serves the Police Building
and provides direct access by elevator to the building entry. Vlsnor parking,
located along Memorial Way, and in the open parking area adjacent to F
Street, provides direct pedestrian access to the Central Courtyard and
building entries.
o Secondary Circulation: Sidewalks will be provided along all streets and
parking edges. Small walkways traverse the Central Courtyard, and provide
access to garden areas.
) ~
) ~ ) L PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
LSQBnd
c.vidSOn $t1'Nl
~ Primary Building Entry
- Access from Parking or Downtown
181 Garage ElevatorlStair
-- Secondary Circulation
I
J
I
C
!
n,"" -It ---
,"'UI&IU&IIIAU"' '--
PSt,..
U 1lX1' 2WE!1' ,--
- -,
Sea" Nolth
.................]""...
=
~l
J~ - lID
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
1.1
1
I
!
I-~
I
IJ
I'
Paga 4
Chu" Vllta CIvic c.nt.r Mar.,. Plan
Su/nIMr)' o. Rec<<n1Ml1tYrions
Parking
The Master Plan creates two parking structures and adds 304 add~ional parking
spaces to the s~e. The relationship between the construction of new facilities
and providing additional parking is Indicated in the Sequence section. The three
story above-grade structure (F Street Structure) should be completed early In the
expansion process to accommodate existing parking deficiencies as well as allow
for temporary relocation of existing parking which Is removed for construction.
. The F Street Structure will be used by staff working In the Public Services
Building and C~y Hall as well as the new C~y Hall Annex. The parking
structure below the Annex will be used primarily by the Police Department
and is thus referred to as the Police Structure.
. The surface parking area on Memorial Way will remain to serve Vlsnors. The
existing parking along the front of the Police Building will be relocated to the
Police Structure, and the staff vehicle parking at the comer of Fourth Avenue
and F Street will be relocated to the F Street Structure.
. The existing visftor parking area accened from F Street will be expanded to
provide more visnor parking and a vehicular link between the surface parking
area and the F Street Structure. This will reinforce the clarity of the circulation
system of the Civic Center in that F street Is the major visnor access to the
Civic Center as a whole. if the surface parking area is full, visnor parking win be
accessible in the parking structure wfthout exiting back onto the street.
. Additional street parking is located along Fig Street and is intended to serve
as stall parking and short-term delivery parking for City Hall.
PARKING
Leoend
1<> I Above Ground Structure
(70;'
L:.;;..J Below Ground Struc1ure
Surface Parking
) L
) ~
) ~
~
i
.
1
1
.
SpacesProvided
384
99
30
23
100
.."Ii
675
Location
A StaffNisitor
B Visitor
C Visitor
D Police
E Police
F StaffNisitor
To1aI
,
,
j
I
j
Fit,."
r-
'~E9\
Non'"
..
-
Sea.
J,-)J)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sequence of Development
The development schedule as described in this section and on page 16 is a
"best case" scenario and depends on the smooth execution 01 all phases 01
development. As work proceeds it is possible that unlorseen lactors will lorce
alleration ot the schedule.
a F STREET STAFF PARKING STRUCTURE
Acquire property to expand the west parking area on F Street. Construct the
three level parking structure to compensate lor parking along Fourth Street
that will be removed lor the Public Services Building expansion, as well as
support future parking needs. Expanding surtace parking onto the new
property is an option, although available parking would still lall below
objectives. (333 Existing parking spaces, .111 relocated lor construction,
+384 new spaces in structure)
b. STAFF RELOCATION. CllY HALL I PUBLIC SERVICES"
Relocate stall along the east expansion edge 01 the Public Services Building
who will be most allected by demolition 01 the east wall and construction 01
the building addition. Relocate Council and Administrative stall in existing
City Hall who will be allected by construction 01 the City Hall additions on the
west side 01 the building. (582 Available parking spaces)
c. CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC SERVICES I CllY HALL EXPANSIONS
Remove the existing parking and service areas east 01 the Public Services
Building. Demolish walls adjoining expansion areas.. Construct Public
Services and City Hall expansions. . Re-Iandscape comer at Fourth and F
Streets adjacent to the Public Services Building and. area adjacent to new
City Hall additions. (582 Available parking spaces, .23 relocated for
construction)
d. CITY HALL ANNEX INCLUDING PARKING STRUCTURE
Move police parking to the new parking structure and provide temporary
modifications to the Public Safety Building to accommodate the remote
parking condition. Demolish existing police parking. Move occupants 01 the
former Heallh Services Building and Leglsatlve personnel to temporary
facilities. Demolish the former Heallh Services Building, and either relocate
and store or demolish the Legislative Offices Building. Build the below-grade
parking structure and Its access. Rebuild police access and Sally-Port.
Construct the new City Hall Annex Incorporating the eXisting Legislallve
Building or its facade If determined appropriate. Landscape areas along
Davidson Street and Fig Avenue. (589 Available parking spaces, -66
relocated for construction, +123 new spaces)
e. PARKS AND RECREATION RELOCATION
Move Parks and Recreation Department Into permanent space provided in
the new City Hall Annex.
l. CITY HALL SOUTH WING DEMOLITION
DemoliSh the south wing 01 City Hall (currently occupied by Parks and
Recreation) to allow expansion 01 the visitor parking lot and connection to the
expanded staff parking to the west. (607 Available parking spaces)
)~ -II ~
hg. S
ChuJJ Vlsr. CMc C<<Jter Mls'er PUn
Summary of R<<:ommend,,1ons
P.g. ,
ChulI VI$" CivIc Cent~ Masfer PI."
SumnNry 01 Recomm,nafions
g. LANDSCAPE AND PARKING RECONSTRUCTION
Build new walkways and Civic Center Landscape along F Street at the Police
BUilding. Rebuild and expand the existing visilor parking lot off of F Street at
the Public Services Building. Add more trees and expand the lot to the west.
(583 Available parking spaces, -117 relocated for construction, +147 new
spaces)
h. RECONSTRUCT CENTRAL COURT
Complete the arcade around the courtyard. Relocate trees and reconstruct
walkways, seating, and planting. (645 Available parking spaces, -25
relocated for construction, +30 new spaces - 675 completed spaces)
Temporary staff relocations may be accomplished wilhin existing Cily space In
some cases, or may require lease of space off-sile or the use of temporary
structures on-sile.
.
) l
) l
)
L
SEQUENCE
LAOAnd
Da'tidlon Strut
a. F Street Parking Expansion
b. Staff Relocation - City Hall I
Public Services
c. Construction 01 Public
Services I City Hall Expansion
d. Parks and Recteation
Relocation
.. City Hall Demolition
f. Landscape and Parking
Construction
g. City Hall Annex I Parking
Structure
h. Reconstruct Central Court
j
.
--. I
I
,
j
.1
FStr..t
~ '~EB' ,-
Scalt NDrt"
J4-/L3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lI.g. 7
ChWa Visll CMt: Cent., Ibs'er Plan
SutnlMt)' of Recomtntfttt.tioM
Architecture
City Council and stafl very strongly desire to retain the established "Mission
Character" of the existing Civic Center. Architecture 01 the additions to existing
buildings as well as the new City Hall Annex should defer to the character and
poSition of City Hall as the centerpiece of the complex. proposed new
construction has been carefully located to respect the one-story scale of the
existing structures on the site. New structures should Incorporate the materials
and detailing of existing structures where appropriate.
. Arcades: Retain arcades in the central courtyard and along Memorial Way.
The Memorial Way arcades might be redesigned In the future to provide a
vine trellis on both sides of the parking court if It is deemed necessary to
remove the pear trees.
"-
~
-:"
"-
"" "-.
"
'-
">
'.
}/o-IIY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I "
I
I
11
1
IJ
II
Public Services Building: The Public Services Building is located at the most
important comer of the Civic Center: Fourth Avenue and F Street. The
addition proposed toward the corner, and the removal of parking provide the
opportun~y to create a more inviting approach to the Civic Center from
downtown. The s~e plan suggests the creation of a small plaza and garden
incorporating low walls, seating, planting and Civic Center signage. The
building reorganization allows for the addition of windows facing Fourth
Avenue. Redesign of Chambers w~h a new more prominent roof form,
trellises and vine plantings would improve the building facade on F Street.
. Police Building: Relocation of the parking now on the corner of Fourth
Avenue and Davidson Street to a parking structure provides the opportun~y
to improve the entry to the Police Building. This will also provide a more
attractive arrival to the Civic Center for visitors driving south on Fourth
Avenue. Low walls, planting, seating and Civic Center signage can create a
friendly courtyard In front of the windowless building facade.
. Cfty Hall Add~ions: Additions proposed for the Fig Avenue face of the C~y
Hall should blend unobtrusively wfth the existing archftecture. Provide similar
roof forms, windows facing out to the lawns, and incorporate small courtyards
and patios as building entries.
. Cfty Hail Annex: The C~y Hall Annex will be the only two story building In the
Civic Center, but is sfted so that ft should not overpower the one story C~y
Hall. The principle entry faces the central courtyard, but the building is set
behind the arcade; The arcade will create a step-up In the building facade to
the second story. The asymmetrical shape of the courtyard and the location
of existing large trees also can be used to deemphasize the building's
apparent mass. The character and detailing of the Annex should reinforce
the mission character of the existing complex. This suggests an informal
massing which would provide a counterpoint to the partial symmetry of the
Memorial Way axis. The design should not upstage the arched one-story
entry of the Cfty Hall. Establish a residential-like character for the building on
the north Davidson Street edge. Consider the feasibllfty of Incorporating part
of the facade of the Legislative Offices Building as a one story element.
Frame the view from Guava Avenue to the north of the site Into the central
courtyard with architectural treatment of Police Parking Structure entry and
the east elevation of the building.
. F Street Parking Structure: The entry to the parking structure should be
visible from F Street. but the mass of the structure itselt should be screened
and minimized as much as possible. Depress the lower floor one-halt level to
reduce height. Landscape the edges wfth a vine trellises to create airy green
walls, and plant low branching trees In the setbacks.
!~ -115
Page'
Chula VIS" CivIc c.n,,, ",,,ter Plan
SummIt)' 01 RecommeruMrions
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Landscape Architecture
New landscaping should reinforce the existing campus like character of the Civic
Center. The major potential improvements include relandscaping the Fourth
Avenue edge of the complex to visually tie the Civic Center to the Park and
Library, and landscaping the Davidson Avenue edge when the Clly Hall Annex is
constructed. The overall design of the landscaping can provide a simple
uncomplicated character appropriate for a small town. The views should be more
open to buildings from the edges, arrangements of plants should not be highly
formalized or stylized, but dignilied.
. Edges and Entries: Edges of the slle should present open planes of green
as a park-like setting for the buildings, rather than the current "buller-like"
plantings which screen parking. Along Memorial Way vine trellises with
under plantings of hedges and flowers might be considered if in the future II
is deemed necessary to remove the pear trees. Open up the center island
by using only palms, frame the view into the courtyard and, provide low
signage identilying visitor parking. At the corner of Fourth Avenue and F
Street, create a garden which inviles pedestrians from downtown across to
the Civic Center. Include flowers, vines, possibly water, and terra cotta
paving. Along Fourth Avenue, completely relandscape to emphasize rather
than buller the Civic Center. Frame the view into Memorial Way and repeat
the park landscaping to link to the Library with turf and Eucalyptus trees.
Frame the archllecture of the Police Building Entry and the new addllion to
the Public Services Building. The F Street curb is shown realigned in the
Master Plan to the new width. Planting can help to mlligate the poor siting of
the Public Services Building directly on a narrow sidewalk. Trellises on the
chambers can soften the harsh blank wall. Use a low hedge along the F
Street visilor parking area to screen foreground views of cars while framing
an orchard planting of trees which shade the paving. Along Davidson Street
and Fig Avenue, provide street trees and lawn with foundation plantings of
small trees and shrubs that relate to the scale of the adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
. Central Courtyard: The illustrated design for the central courtyard Increases
the amount of open grassy area and reduces paving. Low steps, planting
and seating are provided at the edges of the courtyard. This treatment
would help to separate the Auto from Pedestrian areas, and to make the
fountain area feel more Intimate and lnvlling. Potentially In the future the
fountain's apparent hieght could be reduced by raising the surface of the
courtyard. Addllional small seating areas could be created near the Clly Hall
Annex. The Coral Trees should be gradually replaced with new multi-trunk
shade trees that are more open and lacey, and have less invasive surface
roots. The tradllion of providing memorials such as trees and plaques in the
Courtyard, as well as throughout the Civic Center should be continued.
. Surface Parking Areas: A parking orchard Is indicated on the Master Plan in
the F Street Parking area. Broad spreading trees such as Evergreen Elm can
provide a shady canopy. Along Fig Avenue. trees can be placed in Islands
between parking spaces to visually narrow the street.
I" "IJ~
PIg. .
ChuI. Vista CMc CMr.,. At.srfr PI.n
$umm.ryofR~*tlonl
I
I (
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I (
I
j
I
!
I
1
I -~
I j
I 1
i
...1
I
I
I
~
!
!
Pig. 1D
Chull Vi,,. Civie Cent., ""st" Plm
s..nm.".., R...."",.ndlllons
. Parking Structures: The subterranean Police Parking Structure (under the
City Hall Annex) is depressed low enough to plant on top along the north
edge ot the building. This will allow the development 01 the "front yard"
character discussed above lor that area. The F Street Parking Structure is
recommended to be covered with a vine trellis, and screened wUh trees on
the west residential edge and the F Street edge.
. Gardens Courts: The Public Services Building, and the rear courts 01 City Hall
provide opportunUies lor small gardens with tables and chairs. Walkway areas
partially enclosed by buildings such as the sUe entry lrom Guava Avenue, the
walkway used primarily by staff Irom the F Street Parking Structure, and the
walkway between the existing City Hall and the City Hall Annex oller
opportunUies lor small seating areas and seasonal plantings.
. Maintenance: No intensive maintenance plantings are recommended lor the
entire site. The comer entries, and the garden courts would benetn Irom
higher maintenance than the street edges and the central courtyard. The
Civic Center plantings should look well tended with low levels 01 maintenance
and should demonstrate effective use 01 low water requiring plants.
1~-/l7
I
1\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I {
I
I
PIg. "
ellul, V,." Civic c.nr.,. ",.,ltI' PI.n
SumnNIl')' 0/ Reeomm~rJons
Conceptual Building Layout
. .
Mlg.Ri!n.
. .
. .
,
. .
. .
.
.'.'""..','.'..t-...'
;""",:
,"'.\ C
:::~:':>,:: .
ijClrk.
&),;il.11 .260
. . . .
17,470 SF
010 20 40
80
~
City Hall Building
Existing Plan
Chula VISta Civic Center
I , - lit
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
P.g. YZ
Chu" Vi.r. CivIc Cenler Mast.,- PI.n
SutMaaIy o( Reommentt.rlons
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
: Mayor
~ & Cncl.
: 2,795 SF
ConI.;
Roo,,!
. .
. .
. .
Admin.
3,520 SF
City
Attrny.
2,745
.
ConI.
Room
Print Mngt. . . .
Shop Services .
~................. 2,680 . . . .
.-................... . . .
. . . . . . . . .
.
23,000 SF
o 10 20 40
. .
....................
Addnlons are proposed for the
Fig Avenue face of the City Hall
and the south wing Is removed.
Cny Hall will contain executive
!unctions for Mayor, Council and
Management
City Hall Building
Proposed Plan
Chula Vista Civic Center
80
~
)IP-or
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I
I
'--
Pag. 13
ClaM VIS" Civic Cent<<, Muter Pl,n
SumtMl)' 01 Rec<<nmend.,ions
lJ
. .
Engineering
6.890 SF
r
.:.~.:
.
Mlg.
....~--
nrnS. ,..,.
IJJ
~ Council
~ ~ Ctwnber t
ClL-/
Bidg. &
Housing
. 2.670 SF
30.360 SF
o 10 20 40
80
~
Public Services Building
existing Plan
Chula Vista Civic Canter
) ~ -)~D
r'E:::JIa
11\111
1
1
Bldg. &
Housing
3,545 SF
Planning
7,665 SF
Mtg.
llmi. - .
Mlg. Roorno/Future
1,700 SF
Finance
4,555 SF
40.600 SF
o 10 20
40
80
~
I ~ - 1"-/
Engineering
12,585 SF
....,--....,-,.,._..'.-,..'...,-,.....'.
..... .,...,.,--..'...-.....-......
.. . ....... "...
. ......-......-..
...........-..........-..._.
. ..........
;"_:::"-'-:"-::-'-'-:';-;-:'-'::':"-'::'::',:::'-;-
.._,..,-.....,-,._............-....
.",. ,..,...-.....,..,...
Patio ..
Cop
"-g. ,..
.Chum VII" Civic C<<It.,lMslB PlltI
SummaIy of R~""tions
Staff
Lounge
An addition with an enlarged
courtyard is proposed for the
east side of the existing buil-
ding. Communtty Development
as weD as Building and Housing
are relocated to the Ctty Hail
Annex
Public Services Building
Proposed Plan
Chula Visla Civic Center
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Data
Processing
4.645 SF
Second Level
12,900 SF
. Personnel
5.175 SF
Parks & Recr.
4,105 SF
First Level
18.600 SF
o 10 20 40
P.g. .,.
Chum ~ra Civic c.n,<< Ib.t., Plan
SummaI)' 01 ReconunendMioM
Legislative
Offices
4.800 SF
Lobby
Below
Mtg. Stefl
Room Lnge. C. Dvlpmnt.
4,320 SF
R.
.. .
[[h
Mtg.
Room
. . . . .
. . . . .
.. .
80
eJ
. .
. .
The Cfty Hall Annex is a new two
story building built over a two
level parking structure. It
contains departments currently
housed in Public Services, City
Hall and the Legislative Ollice
Building.
New City Hall Annex
Proposed Plan
Chula VIsta Civic Canter
. .
. .
J ~___ I ~.~
I'
1 ~
I !Ol
I. ;
~
I :
~
I :
l:!
- ~
I ~
III
,
I. Ie
~
lEI
l(l
I ~
l;1
IN
. il
l!!
l!!
I! t:
l!!
:!!
I. ;
~
11 ;
..
11 . :
I J :
, -
I J
II
i
11
~
IJ
11
II
i I
I i 1 J s lfl I!
fl J- il!l Ij J f fill J I I I
i will ~IH IdU i lUIUl11 i
Q uJ y;:
I~ -};:3
I P.g. 17
I CIxM Yilt.! CivIc e.".W-MUlerPII1l
Summilty 01 RKomm.nd.tiont
\
Costs
I 1. FACILITIES
A. City Hall
I New Construction (1 Story Addttion) $
11,095 SF @$115/SF- 1,275,900
Extensive Remodeling
8.n5 SF @ $75/SF- 658,100
I Minor Remodeling 206,300
5,895 SF @ $35/SF -
Fumtture, Fixtures & Equipment (FF&E)
21 staff @ $3,OOO/staff 63,000
I Subtotal. CitY Hall: 2,203,300
B. Public Services F aciltty
I New Construction (1 Story Addttion)
10,255 SF @ $115/SF 1.179.300
Extensive Remodeling
9,465 SF @ $75/SF 709.900
I Minor Remodeling
20.895 SF @ $35/SF 731 ,300
Fumiture Fixtures & Equipment (FF&E)
135 Staff @ $3,OOO/Staff 405.000
I
Subtotal, Public Services: 3,025,500
I t 22,845 SF
Legislative
(w/o Legislative
Personnel)
I C. New City Hall Annex Building
New Construction (Panial 2.Story Bldg.)
28,925 SF @ $ 125/SF 3,615. 600 2,855.600
Fumiture, FIxtures & Equipment (FF&E)
I 68 Staff @ $3,OOO/staff 204,000 168,000
Subtotal. AMex: 3.819,600 3.023,600
I D. Legislative Offices
Building Relocationllnterlm Storage/
Moving Cost
Initial allowance, assumes stable
I structure 250,000
extensive Remodel
6,000 SF@ $180/SF 1.080.000
I Subtotal. Legislative Offices: 1,330.000
I
I (
I
I /4-)~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IJ
11
I,
,
11
,
,~
I'
E. Police Secured Subterranean
Parking Structure
One level below grade
126 Spaces @ $B.OOO/Space
F. Parking Structure
Two levels above grade
359 Spaces @ $8,OOO/Space
2. DEMOLITION
A. Buildings
City Hall (2,800 SF @ $2ISF)
Heatth Bldg. (3,120 SF@$1.50/SF)
Public Services Bldg. (1,350 SF @ $21SF)
B. Sitework
141,150 SF @ $.50/SF-
Subtotal, Demolition:
,
3. SURFACE PARKING
A. Visitor Parking & Link to Parking Structure
45,425 SF @ $5/SF -
4. MISCELLANEOUS SITE IMPROVEMENTS
A. Pavings. Hardscape, Etc. (not utilities.
curb, gutter, and perimeter sidewalks)
15.000 SF@ $121SF
5. LANDSCAPE
A. Planting & Irrigation on grade
. 91.500 SF @ $5/SF
B. Planting & Irrigation on North
Parking Structure
12.050 SF@$20SF
6. LAND ACOUISITION (ALLOWANCE)
TOTAL: $
CONTINGENCY (10% OF ALL ABOVE COSTS)
GRAND TOTAL (JAN. 1990 DOLLARS) $
I ~ - JJ5
1,008,000
2,872.000
5.600
4,700
2.700
70.500
83.500
227.100
180.000
457,500
241,000
500,000
15,121.500
. 1.512.200
16.633.700
P.g. 11
Chur. Vis" CivIc CMr.,. lobs'.,. PI."
Summa", of Recomrnenchtions
$ 15.655.599 l~f("~("DO
4.,565-;550 1/~/11:::0
$ 17,221,060 1!.1~~~/6('
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-J
~ ~ " ~11~
D = c cg~1
l .
~ .. !i Q
. .. ~ . D !> . "':2
!! j" ~ " -' .3..
~ i ~ c~
u . H~
. ~
~ a = ~
~ 'c '&
D. ~ ;. !i aa
.. S D. R o~
.. ". ~ "
! ~ ~ I "
ffi . I i a
& . ~ I . a
W i~a~ ~ I m I I Q
ei I .~m~~~ I~; ~ ~ ~ ~ i
11111 lil!!i I~lih ! jllll !
r-"
D~l.._l
u o w ~
. .
.
:c
.
"
. !~
r X.,() tot.
l} l:~\~.(.. \ :~'.___:
1J:I1II(QJ 110"'
lAMIA" "JIl
Q.l
~
>~
~=
ZA
u::l
;';.' .' \ \
\ '. '
.-.'" ,I "
". ", \' ""/
'.," r',)/'
/.
ll. ' ) )' \
. L" \
! (,~=] \
I.. "i'/
"n/",;.. _
...
Il
. .
.'
.'3
.:
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
D
~
...
liD
-0'
~
ij
D
ij
)lo-I"~
Calm"
.c-al
m 11)-
0:1-.- C
..>al
"0 0
al LL. m
- -(,)
II) :1_
m .c >
:;: 0(3
<(
~
~., ,
4t~
'" -.
"1l ""
:1
,
, .I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
~V?-
iiitIJ!ii;
~~~~
- f:ic",:,:'J -.
CllY OF
CHUlA VISTA
JII\1 ~,'!)rJ
:.;11 N r 0\.,,1....
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
W:hd;:'""' lI.-~-r; . :~... :-' ': -.:
June 28. 1990
Tom Bandy
Willdan and Associates
6363 Greenwich Drive
Suite 250
San Diego. CA 92122-3939
LAND ACQUISITION COSTS FOR CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION
Tom. as I have indicated at our meetings. I am forwarding the new costs
for the land acquisition and relocation in connection with the Civic
Center expansion. This refers to the land immediately west of the current
employee parking lot. which will be acquired to build the new parking
structure. We have just received an appraisal on the land at $615.000.
In addition. there will be relocation costs of approximately $115.000
that will have to be paid to both the owner and the tenants of the apartment
unit. I believe this letter should suffice for any back-up material
you need for correction to the Civic Center expansion costs.
If you have any questions. please give me a call.
~(~
DCB:mab/4
cc: Marty Chase
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 920101(619) 691-5031
/~ - IJ7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Rev BY:WILLDAN SAN DIEGO
1- 5-8a il2:50PM
425 5'54~ WILLDAN SAN D,~~O;; ~
INTERIM REMODEL-CIVIC CENTER BXPANSION PROJECT
DII' SKARE
RemOdel Credit Union - $9,594 Cost
DIF Share ~ .906 x $9,594 = $8,692
Remodel Public Services Building - $37,392 Cost
DIF Share c .906 X $37,392 ~ $33,877
Remodel city Hall South - $31,000 Cost
DIF Share: .906 X $31,000 = $28.086
Remodel new Com Dev Bldng - $163,863 Cost
DIF Share ~ .906 x $163,863 = $148,460
Remodel Admin Offices - $29,133 Cost
DIF Share = .906 K $29.133 - $26.394
Total DIF Share = $245.509
liD-ll?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.2
POLICE DEPARTMENT EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENTS
Existinl! Condition
The size of the existing police facility at the civic center is 50,180 square feet. This
includes 1,185 square feet used for administrative "shared areas" and 2,400 square
feet used by management services for data processing. As a result, 46,595 square
feet is currently available for police activities.
Needed Improvements
The Chula Vista Civic Center Master Plan, dated May 8, 1989, evaluates the
employee space needs to the year 2010. The summary of space needs in the master
plan lists the police facility requirement at 49,350 square feet by the year 2000 and
50,180 square feet by the year 2010. As the civic center is constructed and
remodeled and the 3,585 square foot "shared" administrative space becomes available
for police use, the police facility will contain the currently needed square footage.
However, as stated in the master plan, "...the current civic center is becoming more
and more of a barrier to successful city operations - increasingly hindering staff pro-
ductivity, efficiency, moral, communication and effective service to the public." This
situation requires the remodeling of areas currently used by police personnel.
In addition to facility remodeling, the police department has identified the following
capital equipment needs necessary to carry out their public safety mission:
A. Communication Consoles
B. Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)
C. Records Management System (RMS)
D. Mobile Digital Terminals (MDT)
E. Capital Equipment and Other Start Up Costs
The implementation of the CAD, RMS, and MDT's will bring the police and fire
department into the 21st century. The proposed system will fully automate and
network the existing manual and semi-automated systems. The resulting benefits will
be: .
. More efficient and effective dispatching;
. Reduction of paperwork;
. Elimination of duplication of effort;
. Staff time efficiencies;
. Ability to retrieve data more quickly and accurately for the public and for
management;
. Expedite dispatch and patrol office inquiries to and from communications
center and decrease overall air traffic.
1993 Public Facilities D1F Update
City of Chula Vista
30
lIP ~ 119
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The installation is proposed to be phased over a three year period. The fIrst year will
include development of the RFP for the full package and implementation of the
CAD. Implementation of the RMS will take place during the second year and
MDT's will be installed in the third year.
Associated with the need to expand and improve police facilities and equipment to
provide for future growth is the need to add additional police personnel and support
staff to provide service to the new developments. Based on the workload model used
by the City to determine patrol staffmg needs, an additional 27 patrol offIcers will
be required to handle the projected increase in calls for service through the year 2005
(see attachment in appendix for explanation). The staff needed to support these new
offIcers was projected using the City's current ratio of 1.9 support staff per peace
offIcer. Therefore, a new line item, "Capital Equipment and Other Start-Up Costs"
has been added to account for the costs of purchasing vehicles and capital items for
the new police staff and other start-up costs associated with the new peace offIcers.
In addition, a new line item, "Remodeling of the Police Basement" has been added
to account for the costs associated with remodeling this space once it is vacated by
Information Services due to the Civic Center Expansion. No costs were included in
the Civic Center project for the remodeling of the basement, and are therefore being
included in this project since it is related to the Police DIP.
Status of Needed Improvements
The Police Station Remodeling project was completed in Spring 1992, which
included the new crime lab, communication center upgrade, offIce improvements, and
installation of the communication consoles. Planning of the RMS, CAD and MDT
systems are underway. The capital equipment and other associated start-up costs for
new police staff will be funded as new staff is added and the remodel of the police
basement will not begin until after Information Services relocates to another building.
Method of Apportionine Costs
The newly remodeled police facility will include a new crime lab, an upgraded
communication center and overall office improvements. The cost of the new crime
lab and half the cost for the main floor remodel represent 30 percent of the cost and
are attributable to existing needs as stated in the Report on Development Impact Fee
for Public Facilities, dated June 28, 1989. These improvements and costs are the
"City's Share".
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
31
l~-I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Upgrading the communication center and equipment will benefit future population.
The proposed square footage increase and remodel of the building meets the needs
of the projected population to the year 200S. The growth related share totaling
$4,392,400 will be financed by new development.
,
1993 Public Facilities DlF Update
City of Chula Vista
32
1~-I;31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO.2
POLICE DEPARTMENT EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENTS
1991 1992
Description Cost Estimate Cost Estimate
1 Police Remodel $ 3,666,998 $ 3,525,769
2 Communication Consoles 300,000 300,000
3 Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) 609,400 779,657
4 Records Management Systems (RMS) 558,022 0'
5 Mobile Digital Terminals (MDT) 451,000 451,000
6 Animal Shelter Expansion' 0 0
7 Police Beat Master Plan 1,500 343
8 Capital Equipment and Other Start-Up 0 1,732,085
Costs ,
9 Remodel of Police Basement 0 158,7593
Subtotal $ 5,586,920 $ 6,947,613
10 Project Staff Services 0 103,993
II Less City's Share (1,100,099) (2,045,005)'
12 City Finance Charges 0 7,577'
13 Excess Capacity of Rolling Stock 103,250 130,395
14 Less DIF fees collected plus interest (268,641) (752,139)
TOTAL $ 4,880,122 $ 4,392,434
USE $ 4,392,400
1992 amount included in CAD at significantly reduced cost
,
Included as part of Corporation Yard project
3
Constructioo: $35/sq ft X 3,585 sq ft =
Architectural Services: $125,500 X .125 ""
Staff ServK:es: $125,500 X .025 =
Contingency: 10 percent =
$125,500
$ 15,6&8
$ 3,138
$ 14.433
$158,759
,
30 percent of Item 1 plWi 64.5% of Items 2, 3 and 5.
,
Loan of City funds needed to cover DIP share of project costs.
1993 Public Facilities DlF Update
City of Chula Vista
33
)~ -13~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
DOCUMENT A TION
Police Department Expansion and Improvements
1. DlF Fund Status - As of June 30, 1992
2. Cost spreadsheet for Police Facility Remodeling
3. Memo to Dawn Herring dated March 12, 1992 Re: Police Remodel Total Cost.
4. CAD cost calculations spreadsheet
5. Staff Memo of September 25, 1990
6. Police Department Remodel - Long Term Impact (Memo March 13, 1990)
7. Police Rolling Stock and Excess Capacity Calculations
8. Capital equipment and fixtures cost memo dated September 16, 1992
Note: The following documentation material is !!Q! paginated.
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
34
I~-I'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-__..
Rev BV:WILLDAN SAN DIEGO
1- 7-93 ;" :09AM
425 6164"
POLICE FACILITY/EQUIPMENT DIF FUND-AS OF 6/30/QJ
A.
OIF Revenues received to date:
B.
DIF Investment Earnings:
Total Revenues
c.
commitments to date:
DIF
com~leteg
Fac lity Remodel:
Ongoing
CAD System:
Staff Services:
Subtotal:
TOTAL:
~
Facility Remodel:
D.
currently planned expenditurQs:
Completion of CAD System purchage
2city ne. flnancea portion Or Dlf shart. DtF witt replY City funds over tim8.
)~- 13~
WILLDAN SAN DIEGO:. 4
1-06.93
$ 731,726
$ 20.413
$ 752,139
$2,457,53S2
$
$
11,205
:alL 9Z7
37,132
$2,494,670
$1,053,231
I
. "'I'~ ~",." ... ~.".,<..t... ~~ . , .... '.", ;-":':":;'~.'. ':.:,:.'".::,:',.,:,:,,:,'-',:,,',"':""""";.'..:.,.....'..f~...l.:....~,'.';,'.,~i.'.r','. ;.....:.;~
- , '" ..4to/~ifi~i..:,: , '.. .' . . ·
. . ~1(~'?4'~.~;,gY",;&", ., '.' ',. ",::':::::'<:?;;./~.X:.": , ". .
I . ':1~<y~~~:'f1W.(;~",.:L.;/.)i);:';:,'. . i..... :,':: .,.', ". '." .' , "
'"'"~ 11 51;SISmUWI!S I J I.'.... .... . I!' .
I . , ' .. '..,
'''i''... r',. il..'...............I!II' ;',', :.".' ..' :.:. .... ' '.
~~\ ~".' ,", .,' ~ '.. .': . .i', I. ....,., " .:.~.\
1\ "".-.' ...,"....',."..,....., ''''.' "'."" .",c; I ,'.,.,.",.... '.'-
. '....."..." .... , . : "". I .
..,<::..I.I;i;;.~;:~$'~.!',. ,)... .I~., ~ I -:::.'<~ii' 'I,';" ',,:, ,,:;' .'
1 . .,";" .-::;~i' .:,"; . ~;.' ',1, I .",1.:';;,: " .
I ',,: >:?II.!O...'..E.'.I.I....tll~I-,.,';k.;l..,. ':';:: .... .
. "c'". ..:;',:'.~'.''; "i':.. ..~. , .'.:~' '.' .,.", ....:_..
-,.' ,'~'~-.:.~..;~'.;>."at :J1l'OJ..t.'.(:t'(.o\.\l"i:'",~,; ')"\',:'J~' .;,.~:l,'" i .}:),' '.I..~ '. ,,'q r;.. to;
I """:'?'':i;''';II.~I;~.USJ...'I.'.'JI'' ....~.. '..",:
'<'::;'~" . ^i,i,;.,)v' ,::....:'.l:'1;-t~,'.',"..4.:,..,
1.:p.\:.:ll.,:..~....l..H...'.,..~...'I' .'":' . ':,:.':cf. "
. :"01 I tit j:'-'~'t~'~i,['~1..._ ....,.: """""'.'':' .
I .., EI JI.5~..~.5.~.J5E...111 .'I! I.'
II . .. f E. .
. I I " . . .
I. . .'I,,5.!.J..~..!~...~I.~f . ...5...~!1~1
t I : ". ' I I i
-",;" 1'0.;;:..... ..... :"11 I
I ...... ';',;.& >:';<',"" .... ...... .
' ,....,
I . ", ~ IllS J,JmmSII;'H1 WU!il!S I J I
... _',""'4." I-II' .. ..... .
III i-/nllllllnll I
I 111!lllilllll""!I.
I li!iiilliiiillllil
i . '.' i I nlllnll..lllulll '. '.' .
I "'.' . "'10' ~,"t.,. '" . ,..' , ,:.".....'....., '/~ :,,:.:,.; ~>.:..'...,...:,. .,:";;:"),:,.,.,.~".:::...,,..,:.....:......,\!....;.~:'::",:,.';:~~""".'
';\ :;::"~~~,,,"\',,::~~,.~, 't., ",'~.;~::':'~ '.";,';',;(,,. 'J' . ~ .... '1'..'" ':,.".:, " .. ,,# '.. .' . " "_' ~ 'L ~ " ;
. I ' -- '''' . ,.. '" .,~ .~) ~;;
I :i~A~~f~':~':;;~~:~:~"~:::N~~~ljM ..UL9 9~~' !.' Lt:9L ! ~HH! "003IO N'I'S N'I'Olli1bg ^~~
;
r--
I
I
i
... ./
,
'. . <>.. . .. ..'," ~!.
'. . " .... ". .~, .
. ~.."~ ,,;..,:~';" I' /":'-, .
. , '... \ ~ ..
:. .' ':,' '~;<, ,>~:~',
II! ,,'
..Ij'lh
IIIII Ii
H lis
I
I
Ii
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I'
1
I
I
I
I
I
I (
I
I
Rev 6Y:WILLOAN SAN OIEGO
.., .~
DAm :
TO :
FROM :
SUBJECT :
3-12-82 1~:~4 ; .. WI!.!.OAN SAN OIEGOi. 2
t Mbt', 10m 'fAN tJ'f
MEM01lANDUM
-
March 12, 1992
DawlI Herring, Budget MOMger
Kevin M. Hardy, Principal ManagemeTU Assistant-\l:
Policot 1Wnodel Total Cost!;
The information available at this time would indicate the total cost of the Police Department
~model was $3,109.480. .
Thi.s total includes expenditures of $3,100.036 plus outstanding encumbrances, throuih 3/05192.
of $8,556. The total amount budgeted was $3.168,786; an unencumbered balance ofS14,286
existed as of 3/05/92.
The CIP Projects included in these totals are:
TITI.E
CIPt FY
PS 102 88
PS l02C 89
PS 1020 90
PS 103C 89
PS 105 88
PS 110 90
PS 113 91
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS CBNTER
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER REMODEL
POLICE CRIME LABRATORY
REHABILITATION OF HVAC SYSTEM. POLICE FACILITY
POLICE BUILDING REMODEL
COMPRESSORfCtm J ER #1, POLICE BUIlDIONG
CIWL.t V1S7'A POUCE DEPAR1JIENl'
) 6 - J~
..
,>C.
. '"
I '"
'" ,<
..
~N ~.
~
.. ~: .'
- ..i:
I i. ;;-
'<
}
"
.1,
~
I ..
"
.
'!.',
...
~'i1'
I ;.~
.. "
.. "
'" 'i
'" .;,
. ~
I t-
.. .}
~N
~ ~;{,
.. '*
-
.. ..~.
I II '!.
.. ,~,
- .. ;f
..
c .. ',~
l!l "'..
.. . '" .l
... '"
I . '"
.. ..i-
~N
... . ~ ~
c.... .. "
..... - '"
1;':
... ,
I ',.
-..... .. t
-. ... ..
'" .
c". 0-.. '..J g - ,T
, '" u "
....... N I - >
I '" s i
...... .. c!J
~N -.J
~ ....
.u. I ~ - .,..
.. . .. r.Q .. '...
- .-
.... . "
." ... ,
I ,0" .. 'J =~ .
..
.'" N ! &. "
...... "'.. !r
. '" tQ
.. . -
I -"N '" ..- .;,
.. ~I ",,"
u- ~N ~
.... ~ Ii
.. .
.. - u'" 0,
1! .,
I ... -
,- ~
ON r= .
... ..'" ~,
. i~
..- ~
l) 2'"
I .. . ... _:J '"
...~ n ~
... 0
~ u
.... ..;,
!: '" ..
'" ~ -. .~-;
....
I i:> ..
;; ili ".
... ::l ... "
: ~ -.Ii
- -...-
... .u '-
f '" .
I c . 'f ..- ,',
':2'. :,,1 .
... ~
.. "'t O.
c r I . .. l.!U
. ....-
'2 1 1 i ...... "0'
I ;; . 1 I I ! It_
,~ - . _ u
- 1f ... .. 1 ..1 .!:- t
\J'l ;:.I .. - .. 1
u . ..tt - .... Ii ..- .
... t- ... .. . ... . I~ U I" r
.. .. .. I i l:"o ..0 -
G: .. 0 0 -- r-: ~. ..a.-. .. It!
.. ... .. .. 1- 0; ! II ..... !! .....
I ... .. ... .. u I I ell ell ..
... ~ . .. ....- c . Ii. . -
Ii .. ~ I- .... . ...-... -.. .. -.. ... ~
t - I I~ 'i I I I 1 .. i -: H ! ..
.. .. .. 11 .:- co
c . ;; ~ --
.. .. .. ... ... ... .. . ..... 8-
.. .. .. ..
I ... ... ... U.- ......
.. a .. . _0" '"
i 0 .. . - . 1"'- u_
.. .. . . - - - ~c
# .. ... ... c - - - - - .';'
I )1, -)37
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I.
,.
Q
'"
-...... -!
...~"::!
~~
:~..
I~i
. ...
....c
.....
...r..
c....
-...
"C"
~ ii~~
_.-...
c
...
..
.
.
CC
.
....
"0
-
..
..
c..
...
..
...
.
..
,
.
...
o.
..:
....
:.
-
...
C ~
..
- ~
.. F
: ~~
\l
'V
,')
~
c:
..
...
;
5
~
'I
..
"-
~:
II' ~=
':: ",.
. >lC
-c... ~t.
-~~
i~l-
&0"
--
....
~
~ ..........
~
~ ..........
d
..
.
i
..
.
..
!
..
C
.
~
.
&0
&0
C
........
t....
.
! ~ r~~~ ~..'l
i ~ ..........1
.. ..
..
!~
- ..
......
cc..
..-::tc
O.UIoU
"~.."
..
&oK
....
C
~,O~Q~J~
:..:..J ~
.
.~
.
~
.
~
.
~
.
'" 0 '-" ''''J ~
'f' ~ N::- '"
'IS'" :r~~ ~
..Ii" ......
~ ~~ ~ o:T..
""'... r-
.....- ..
e~
.. ..
00
f"
t, ~::
1 i ~ e-
~:: c.
t] &i:
.0:1 OZcc
:;5' 11-_
~"ci".~
111.;'%
= A:~:B! ,
.
. - .
. - -.. .
----~
..... J
.
J
.
J
.
J
.........
.........
..........
..... J
.. .. .. .. ..
.
"
......... tilt
~
~
s.
,
....JJ
..
..
tl
I
:= ,!
j
ffi
'"
J;
oJ'<
~
~:9
'" a
~ ~
i!i ...
~~
~ ~
., ..
... s:,
~;
! :
'tI
o ?
2 Z
~ ; z
VI '3 ~
\- ~ ~
ti 0 !
~ ~ ,~
" ..
'2 l.
- '"
.."
...
.-.,
a
<<
"
--
.
':r
~
~
c
'" t-l
z:1 ~.
<< ~;g~
~ ~:~.)
e ~71~
.. '""
S tl?
~ . ~ ~ ~
r 1 .. ()
"'L'8i~
~-~ 2 g :
'< .'. I '"
Q - Q ..~
~. ,~
s ( lI' 1 ~
\i.' U:: -
~ - ,~~ ,..
L. t ~ ~
~~ ~ 1 i
~- z "-
oJ'" OI1J)
C ~ 'J "2
'>!:.. ':> -
~.!: ~ II! ~
~- 0 I-
~~. Z; 11 i"
... ~ ~ \oJ'
~-:- ? <:>
~:;: ~ t ~
.
I J
.
.
..
...
C
~
..
..
~
i
..
...
)~ -/38-
r ~
~ ~
g it ~ .J
~ ~ &
: i ~ ~
'" Jew
~ <II :j co
~ :f. ~ ~
~
i'
..
..
..
...
i
I
....
f
t
<l
"
...
,,-'
~
~
~
~
'::i
.~ ~
<l' $ !
~ I
~ Co
:i ;
~ ....
Q
~ Ii: ~
<II: ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
.. \:) u
.;r ;!"
~
o
~
~
rs
~
,..
>- ..
"- :;
~
-:z '5
;
"!i <
d
.
~ );J
.. ..
is.
" ~
l
~ ~ C
\.0, 1"'1 ~
'" ..
~ ~ k
" ~~
'3
3 '"
~ f ::\
~
...
'"
G
~
~
"
..
'" ;r
;r
'!: ';
Q
~
i
,:
~
'!!
I-
w
'Ji
;3
Q
l;!
,J
~
"
'"
Ii!
,.
..
~
~
!il
~
~
2 ..
Q
'<J
.
'~
f
'.r
,,"
".~
,
~,;
;
",;.
;~
~:
.,;
J
.,
'.
,
"
,
"
~
.'
..
.'
~ .
.:~. .
~-
-
-
to
I~
III
.~~
.;
I:
"
~
I ! r. ject Title:
I "
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
p-
Ii
~ ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I. f -~ ,~2H~/91)
I ,~
I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CIP PROJECT ESTIMATE
Date: -.J2 /-20 jc., I
Proj!!ct No.: p.s. \ 15
17,,3'-1'- SA.Fe:T'i (e;.M""UN\~T\"~
Location: YO,-,,-c. j)c:.p~MD0r i3u,,_o,l\.')~
1'-
PREPARATORY PLANNING
Preliminary Planning
Advanced Planning
Master Planning
Other ~Ff' (C>J.:~..'. :rA~-r
Subtotal
Staff Administration ( %) ~
Environmental Review
Environmental Consultant
Other
Subtotal
Staff Administration ( %)
TOTAL PREPARATORY PLANNING
~AND ACQUISITION
Title Reports
--Appraisals
Hazardous Waste
Relocation Assistance
Litigation Costs
Property Payments
Staff Administration ( %)
Other
TOTAL LAND ACQUISITION
III. DESIGN
Survey
Geotechnical
In-house Design
Consultant Design
Other ~!1r[)L.:of'r- ~ ~f'TL.il\{':.E.
Subtotal ~ 3;S.~c
Design Review ( ~)
Staff Administration ( ~)
..
-' TOTAL DESIGN
4. A-4.k2~
7. ;25
~ 50.'1';0
~/~
.1> 1l~cn>
'b in'lh1
~ ~~;.'tel
Project Manager:
~V'N ~ACOY
IV. CONSTRUCTION
Construction
Grading
Sewer/Utilities
Utility relocation
Streets/drainage
Signals/lighting
Landscaping
Parks
Buildings
Equipment/furniture
Books
Other
Subtotal
City Supplied Materials
Contract Administration
Architect/Engineer ( ~)
Clerk-of-Works ( %)
Inspection ( %)
Staff Administration ( %)
Other I-lAr.o~.r..l:' ~T..,~t;;:
Subtota 1 {, ~m . ';2,
V.
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
SUBTOTAL PROJECT
(Add Total I, II, III l IV)
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
Contingencies ( %) '7.S"1..
Other Agency Permits
Other
TOTAL GENERAL ADMIN:
~
)b -)37'
~ -, ~,);-
~ ~2~ CliO
j. '312.325
.$ 725 '2(,'1..
j, '54. ~(15
i S'I :'R5
$ 77'1 (,57
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I(
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
September 25, 1990
TO:
FROM:
Tom Bandy, Willdan & Associates
Lori Lieberman, Principal Management Assistant ~
SUBJECT: Police Facility Remodeling
The project has experienced a total of $552,100 in change orders to date.
This should be added to the Police Public Facilities Development Impact Fee.
This brings the total cost of the project to $3,666,998.
Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Ll/ak6
cc: Gene Asmus, Assistant City Manager
Dave Byers, Budget Officer
Marty Chase, Assistant Director of Management Services
)t - ) 4D
1\
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I;
I
I
~~
3/13/90
Herring
POLICE DEPARTMENT REMODEL - LONG TERM IMPACT
CURRENT APPROPRIATION
GENERAL CONTRACTOR (SOLTEK)
ASBESTOS MONITORING (DESIGN FOR HEALTH)
ARCHITECT (SHORN AND KAMINSKI)
CONTINGENCY
STAFF TIME
TOTAL APPROPRIATION
CONTINGENCY USAGE
CHANGE ORDERS TO
SOLTEK
SOLTEK
SOLTEK CREDIT
TRAILER RENTAL
TELEPHONE
DATE
28,374
42,062
+ 2,268
5,740
1. 301
75,209
PROPOSED CHANGE ORDERS
TRAILER RENTAL
TELEPHONE
SOLTEK
2,029
31,000
45.000
78,029
CONTINGENCY
CHANGE ORDERS
PROPOSED CHANGE ORDERS
108,222
108,222
<75,209>
<78.029>
<45,016>
ADDITIONAL CONTINGENCY NEEDS
RELATED PROJECTS CURRENTLY
COMMUNICATION CONSOLES
COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH
RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
MOBILE DIGITAL TERMINALS
TOTAL
TOTAL PROPOSED COST
1,918,422
UNFUNDED
300,000' /,/
609,400
558,022 ./>
451. 000 0/
/k - Nl
2,160,555
72,000
40,000
108,222
108.222
2,488,999
45,016
1.918.422
4,452,437
~J... .'
... ~..--..
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11-29-90
DIF: POLICE ROLLING STOCK
Description:
Credits for existing rolling stock and costs
for new rOlling stock are calculated in three
parts:
SECTION A:
A start-up credit is computed, representing the
degree to which the City's existing rolling stock is
servicing new development. This is a one-time
credit.
SECTION B:
An annual credit is computed, representing the
additional EDUs in the coming year which will be
serviced by the City's pre-existing rolling stock.
SECTION C:
The cost of increased rollina stock is computed, repre-
senting the growth which cannot be serviced by pre-
existing capacity.
The general methodology for calculating credits/capital
costs are described in Attachment A. The actual
calculations for FY 90/91 are also shown.
I" - )~"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT A: POLICE ROLLING STOCK
SECTION A. START-UP CREDIT FOR EXISTING EXCESS CAPACITY
(One-Time Calculation)
Al. New EDUs serviced by preexisting stock =
4,597 EDU's
(as detailed in calculation of proportionate City/DIF
shares)
A2. Preexisting EDUs serviced by preexisting stock =
54,870 EDU's
(as detailed in calculation of proportionate City/DIF
shares)
A3. Total EDUs serviced by preexisting rolling stock =
Al + A2 = 59,467
A4. Percent: New EDUs serviced/Total EDUs Serviced =
Al/A3 = 4,567/59,467 =
7.68%
A5. Value of Preexisting Rolling Stock with Excess Capacity=
$1,115,441 (SEE ATTCAHMENT B)
A5. START-UP CREDIT= A4 * A5 =.0768 * $1,115,441 = $ 85,666
SECTION B. ANNUAL CREDIT FOR EXCESS CAPACITY
Bl. Additional 1990/91 EDUs to be serviced by preexisting
stock = 897 EDU's*
* Calculated as follows:
Avg EDU's per year =
Remaining FY 91 increment=
Additional FY 91 EDU's =
1,339
.67
897
(Revenue Projection Table)
(8 months remaining)
(1,339 * .67)
B2. Current EDUs serviced by existing stock = A3 = 59,467
B3. Total EDUs serviced by preexisting rOlling stock =
Bl + B2 = 60,364
)~ - )4-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION B. ANNUAL CREDIT FOR EXCESS CAPACITY (Continued)
B4. Percent: New EDUs serviced/Total EDUs Serviced =
B1/B3 = 897/60,364 =
.0149
B5. 1990 Value of preexisting Stock with continuing
Excess Capacity:
EXAMPLE
a. $1,115,441 = Start-up value (#A4)
b. x 1.058 = San Diego Region CPI for
1989
c.
d.
$1,180,136 =
$ 642,218**=
1990 gross value
Decrease in excess capacity
value
ADJUSTED
VALUE :
$ 537,918
**EXAMPLE: Suppose a $20,000 patrol car must be added to
Division 1040's rolling stock in FY 1990/91
to meet growing service demands. Division
1040 is therefore no longer capable of
serving new EDUs with existing capacity. In
turn, the value of Division 1040's rOll-ing
stock (adjusted for CPI) would be
deleted, as shown above.
FY 1990/91: For FY 1990/91 the actual values are:
a. $1,115,441 = Start-up value (#A4)
b. x 1.058 = San Diego Region CPI for
1989
c.
d.
$1,180,136
- $ 0
= 1990 gross value
= No increases in rolling
stock are budgeted)
ADJUSTED
VALUE :
$1,180,136
B6. 1990/91 CREDIT FOR EXCESS CAPACITY =
B4*B5 = .0149 * 1,180,136 = $ 17,584
I~ - )~lf
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION C. VALUE OF NEW STOCK NECESSIATED BY GROWTH
1. Value of additional stock needed by Police Divisions
to serve new development:
EXAMPLE: Based on the preceding example in Part B, a
patrol car ($20,000) was to be added to
Division 1040 in FY 90-91. In this example,
$20,000 would then be added to the DIF for
this one-time capital expense.
FY 90/91: For FY 90/91 no additional stock is being
added and thus $0 are computed. At this time
a reliable forecast or rolling stock needs
beyond FY 90-91 cannot be made.
SUMMARY CALCULATIONS FOR 1990/91:
A. START-UP CREDIT FOR EXCESS CAPACITY:
B. 1990-91 CREDIT FOR EXCESS CAPACITY:
C. VALUE OF ADDITIONAL ROLLING STOCK
$ 85,666
$ 17,584
$ 0
TOTAL
.
.
$103,250
NOTE: $103,250 TO BE SPREAD ACROSS TOTAL EDU'S
THROUGH 2010.
UPDATE ANNUALLY
;, - )~S
I
I l'\TTACHMENT B: VALUE OF EXISTING POLICE DEPARTMENT ROLLING STOCK
I 1989/90 1990/91
Service Division Replacement Replacement
Department Division # Value Value*
I Police Admin 1011 $9,984 $10,563
Auxilliary Svcs 1020 $103,758 $109,776
I support Svcs 1030 $68,806 $72,797
Patrol 1040 $611,738 $647,219
Investigations 1050 $272,033 $287,811
I Animal Control 1100 $49,122 $51,971
$1,115,441 $1,180,137
I
I
5.8% CPI for San Diego Region in CY 1989
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I )t- N~
I "
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
\
MT~~r~
4-10-91
POLICE DIF. 1990-91 CREDIT FOR EXCESS CAPACITY
B1. Additional 1991/92 EDUs to be serviced by preexisting
stock - 1,339 EDU's* -
B2. CUrrent EDUs serviced by existing stock - A3 - 60,364**
B3. Total EDUs serviced by preexisting rolling stock =
B1 + B2 -61,703
B4. Percent: New EDUs Serviced/Total EDUs Serviced =
B1/B3 - 61,703 - .0217
B5. 1991 Value of preexisting Stock with continuing
Excess Capacity:
a. $1,180,137
b. x 1.06
= 1990 value (Attachment B)
= San Diego Region CPI-1990
c. $1,250,945 = 1991 gross value
d. - $ 0*** =
$1,250,945
B6. 1991/92 CREDIT FOR EXCESS CAPACITY =
B4*B5 = .0217*1,250,945 = $ 27,145
* Reference Public Facilities DIF, dated 12-12-90,
Figure 8, Revenue projection Table, page 16.
** Reference Public Facilities DIF, Project No.2,
Police Rolling Stock Appendix dated 11-29-90,
section B, B3.
**** All divisions continue to have excess capacity to serve
new development.
)b - )~7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Rev BV:WILLOAN SAN OIEGO
6-17-62
7:32
425 6'84~ WILLOAN SAN OIEGO:' 6
~{~
~
01Y Of
CHUlA VISfA
~1;rNE~{~~llim:8E~~NT
september 16, 1992
54 peaoe Officers
Uni!orm: $500jofficer x 54 - $27,000
Apparel (badge, leather): $500/officer x 54 ""
'27,000
Lockers: $125/officer x 54 - $&,750
supplies: $50/officer x 54 - $2,700
Vehicle: One for every three officers = .333
$17,560/vehicle x .333 x 54 - $315,764
Total Peace Officer Costs = $379,214
27 Sworn Staff
Telephone: $150/staft x 27 - $4,050
Supplies: $lDD/staff x 27 = $2,700
Office Furniture (Desk, chair, filing cabinet):
$1,250/staff x 27 "" $33,750
Vehicle: One per staff"" $16.000 x 27 = $432,000
Total Sworn staff costs = $472,500
25 Non-Sworn staff
A. 3 Community Service Officers
Uniform: S40D/officer x 3 - $1,200.
Apparel: SIOO/officer x 3 - $300
Locker: $125/officer x 3 "" $375
Vehicle: One pickup truok per 3 officers
$11,750/vehicle = $11,750
Total community service Officer Co~t = $~3,'31
27E FOURT~ AVENUE I CflULA VIST..... C....L1FORNIA 91Q10 J (619) 691-scm
)h - )4"('
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Rev BV:W;LLDAN SAN DIEGO
9-17-92: 7:33
425 6'84~ WILLDAN SAN DIEGO:' 7
B. , Dispatchers-communication Op~rator. I
NO other co..ts (11.11 communication equipment has
been purcha5ed)
Total Dispatcher cost - $0
C. 13 General statt (1.e. Report Tranl!lcribers,
secretaries, Admin Office Assts, Into system Spec)
oftice Equipment (desk, chair) - $l,lOOjl!ltaff x 13
= $14,JOO
Otflce Equipment (computer, file cabinet) - $5500 x
7 .. $18,500
Telephones: $150jstatt x 13 - $1,'50
Total General statt cost - $5',7'0
Total Ron-SWorn Statt costs. $68,375
DIP COST OP NEW POLICE STAFF BQUIPMENT, BTC.
Eaulpment. .te W:J' % city % DI!' SShare
Peace Officer 50%. 50% $189,1507
Sworn staff 100\ 0% $4H,500
Non-Sworn Staff 100% 0\ S 68.375
TOTaL DIP COSTI $730,482
* Due to qrowth, 27 Peace Officers, 27 Sworn Staff and 25 Non-Sworn
Staff will be needed. Because the city promotes sworn Staft from
peace Officer ranks, an additional 27 Peace Officers must be added,
for a total of 54 Peace Officers. aowever, the DIF will only need
to piek up the cost of the initial 27 Peace Officers. The City's
share will be the cost for the additional 27 Peace Officers hired
since they are beinq added because of the City's promotional policy
reqardinq Sworn staff and not because of growth. See attached melllo
reqardinq calculation of police staffing due to growth.
)~ - ILl?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
December 16, 1992
POLICE DIF
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AND OTHER START UP COSTS-NEW POLICE STAFF
27 Peace Officers (DIF share only)'
A. Academy costs
Per Ed Chew in Personnel, only 80 of 600 recent
applicants for peace officer had Police Academy
training. Per Kevin Hardy in Police, out of the
last 5 hires, 4 were sent to the Academy. We will
therefore assume that 80% of the 27 new peace
officers (represents DIF share only) will require
attendance at the academy.
31 weeks at the police academy (15 wks-class, 2
wks-fie1d, 3 wks-c1ass, 2 wks-field, 4 wks-class, 2
wks-field, 3 wks-class) -Full cost recovery (FCR)
will be charged to cover benefits only. No
overhead or paid time off are included in the FCR.
Salary will be at Step 1 for Academy time and Step
2 for On-the-Job Training time.
Class: Bi-weekly salary (Step 1): $1243.72 x
26.0893 wks = $32,448 $32,448 x 25/52 weeks =
$15,600 x 27 officers = $421,200 x 1.40 FCR x.80 =
$471,744
Field:
26.0893
$3,744 x
$113,219
Bi-weekly salary (Step 1): $1,243.72
weeks = $32,448 $32,448 x 6/52 weeks =
27 officers = $101,088 x 1.40 FCR x .80 =
x
Of the 31 weeks, 6 weeks is spent
a Field Training Officer (FTO).
charged for this time.
in the field with
No costs will be
Police Academy Cost = $8,330/officer x 27 officers
= $224,910 x .80 = $179,928
Total Academy Costs = $764,891
10ue to growth, 27 Peace Officers, 26 Sworn Staff and 25 Non-Sworn Staff will be needed. Because the City
promotes Sworn Staff from Peace Officer ranks, an additional 26 Peace Officers must be added, for a total of
53 Peace Officers. (See attached memo regarding calculation of police staffing due to growth.) The DIF will
only be charged the cost of the initial 27 Peace Officers. The City will pick up the start-up cast for the
additional 26 Peace Officers since they are being added because of the City's promotional policy regarding Sworn
Staff and not because of growth.
difpol.aca
)b -/'5D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B. On-the-job Training costs
12 weeks of patrol with a field training officer
(FTO)
$34,070 x 12/52 weeks = $7,862 x 27 officers x 1.40
FCR = $297,184
Total on-the-job Training Costs = $297,184
C. Capital Equipment, Furnishings and Fixtures Costs
53 Peace Officers2
Psychological testing: $245/test x 2 tests/officer
= $490 x 53 officers = $25,970
Uniform: $500/officer x 53 = $26,500
Apparel (badge, leather): $500/officer x 53 =
$26,500
Lockers: $l25/officer x 53 = $6,625
Supplies: $50/officer x 53 = $2,650
Vehicle: One for every three officers = .333
$17,560/vehicle x .333 x 27 = $157,8823
Total Peace Officer Costs = $206,397
26 Sworn Staff
Telephone: $150/staff x 26 = $3,900
Supplies: $100/staff x 26 = $2,600
Office Furniture (Desk, chair, filing cabinet):
$1,250/staff x 26 = $32,500
Vehicle: One per Investigations staff = 26 x .64 =
17 = $16,000 x 17 = $272,000
Vehicle:One for every three Other staff (agents,
20lf will be charged for the equipment for all 53 officers. Equipment for the 53 officers would still be
needed regardless of the City's promotional policies.
3vehicles will not be needed for the 26 new hires that are replacing the 26 newly promoted Sworn staff
since these Sworn staff were promoted from peace officer ranks and already had vehicles.
difpol.aca
J ~ - )11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
dUpol.aca
sergeants) = 26 x .27 = 7 = $16,000 x 7 x .333 =
$37,296
Vehicle: 2 Motorcycles = $16,856 x 2 = $33,712
Total sworn Staff Costs = $382,008
25 Non-Sworn Staff
A. 3 community Service Officers
Uniform: $400/officer x 3 = $1,200
Apparel: $lOO/officer x 3 = $300
Locker: $125/officer x 3 = $375
Vehicle: One pickup truck per 3 officers
$11,750/vehicle = $11,750
Total community Service Officer Cost = $13,625
B. 9 Dispatchers-Communication Operators I
All communication equipment has been purchased.
Total Dispatcher cost = $0
C. 13 General Staff (Le. Report Transcribers,
Secretaries, Admin Office Assts, Info System Spec)
Office Equipment (desk, chair) = $l,lOO/staff x 13
= $14,300
Office Equipment (computer, file cabinet) = $5500 x
7 = $38,500
Telephones: $150/staff x 13 = $1,950
Total General Staff cost = $54,750
Total Non-Sworn Staff Costs = $68,375
TOTAL CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AND OTHER START UP COSTS
= $1,732,085
~ - 11~
,.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
September 22, 1992
RE:
Police Staffing Needs Associated With New Development
The City uses a workload model to determine its police staffing needs. Using existing
workload factors, new development's impact on police services is calculated as follows:
A. PATROL STAFFING NEEDS
1. Patrol calls for service (CFS) per capita =
.207 1
88,395 2
18,298 CFS
2.233 HRS 3
1,483 HRS 4
2. Projected new development population =
3. Projected patrol CFS = 88,395 * .207 =
4. Patrol time per CFS =
5. Net patrol officer time available for
field activities =
6. Projected field patrol hours generated by
development =
18,298 (CFS) * 2.233 hours/CFS =
40,859 HRS
7. Projected increase in patrol staffing required =
40,859 hours needed/1,483 hours available per
officer = 27.55 PATROL OFFICERS
, As detailed in memo dated 12/26/90 (attached), the CPS rate of .207 CFS per capita represents
a very conservative estimate, compared to the rate west of I-80S (.467) or the rate being used in the fiscal
impact analysis of the Otay Ranch project 7(.268).
2 Buildout citywide population is projected at 204,690. City population as of January, 1986
(following the Montgomery Annexation) was 116,295. Thus, additional population generated by
development is 88,395 (204,690 - 116,295).
3 Includes direct time, e.g. time associated with the call itself, back-up, reports, etc + indirect time,
e.g. time associated with preventive patrol and officer initiated activity.
4 Excludes all paid time off, court time, training, etc.
)h -)13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B. SUPPORT STAFF NEEDED
1. .98 sworn support staff (e.g. investigators, patrol
agents, etc) per patrol officer 5 =
27 * .98 =
1. .92 non-sworn support staff (CSOs, dispatchers,
clerical, etc ) per patrol officer 6
27 * .92 =
C. TOTAL POLICE STAFF NEEDED
Patrol Officers:
Use 27
Sworn Support Staff:
Use 26
Non-Sworn Support Staff: Use 25
c:\wp51 \marty\DIF-PD#l
26.46 SWORN
24.84 NON-SWORN
5 Per Hughes/Heiss study, dated February, 1991, conducted as part of the fiscal impact analysis
for the Gtay Ranch project.
6 Hughes/Heiss study, dated February, 1991.
)~ - 16'/-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.3 CORPORATION YARD RELOCATION
Existinl!: Condition
The existing corporation yard, which is located on City-owned land, is operating at
near capacity according to the Report on Development Impact Fee for Public
Facilities dated June 28, 1989.
Needed Improvements
The required facilities, acreage and the estimated costs are detailed in a City Staff
memo statistical summary dated November 11, 1987 included as documentation.
This summary has been updated by staff (March 31, 1992) in which it was reported
that 30 acres are needed of which 7.3 acres would be kept in reserve.
The original purchase price for the current corporation yard site in western Chula
Vista as detailed in a City Council resolution dated August, 1963, was $128,000.
The initial land cost should then be adjusted for CPI increases, from the date of
purchase through the date the parcel is resold. From August, 1963 through March,
1992 the CPI increase was 366.2 percent. As such, the adjusted "present value" of
the parcel is $596,685 ($128,000 x 3.662 + $128,000). This amount will be applied
toward the total cost of the Corporation Yard. The animal shelter is now included
as part of the Corporation Yard. A portion of the existing shelter property was
purchased in December of 1972 for $8,000 and the rest was purcha~ in February
of 1980 for $13,387. The initial land cost should be adjusted for CPI increases, from
the dates of purchase through the date the parcel is resold. From December 1972
through February 1992, the CPI increase was 299.9 percent, and from February 1980
through February 1992, the CPI increase was 105.9 percent. Therefore, the adjusted
"present value" of the parcel is $59,551.
The difference between the parcels' actual resale value and the parcels' adjusted
"present value" (as computed above), represents the return on the City's original
investments. Since these investments were made by the pre-existing City, any return
above "present value" should accrue to the City's general fund. This return, net of
the cost of any hazardous waste cleanup, will help finance 1) the City share of the
new corporation yard, and 2) contribute toward the City share of other PFDIF
projects. The City share should be updated on an on-going basis, as part of the
annual updating of the Public Facilities DIP.
The estimated cost of the corporation yard is $22,778,952. Included in this total is
$3,823,696 for land, $1,000,000 for design, and $8,899,924 for buildings. New
Growth's share is $12,826,500.
1993 Public Facilities DlF Update
City of Chula Vista
35
lb - 1'5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Status of Needed Improvements
The City recently set aside funds for the purchase of the land for the new corporation
yard. An update of the corporation yard master plan has been completed which may
be revised once the actual site is purchased.
Method of Apportioninl! Costs
Approximately 62 percent, or $13,963,944, of the total cost of the Corporation yard
is attributable to future growth, excluding the Otay Ranch area. $3,099,116 is the
City and Transit share of project costs and reflects the cost of correcting existing
deficiencies. The remaining $5,059,656 is associated with development not included
in this DIF (e.g. the Otay Ranch) and has been excluded.
The yard will be relocated east of Interstate 805 to provide a more central location
when the City is fully developed and because more large parcels of land are available
in the eastern area that would be suitable for a corporation yard. Net revenue
earnings from the sale of the existing corporation yard will be used to offset a portion
of the City's share of public facilities included in this document.
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
36
)k -t~"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT No. 3
CORPORATION YARD RELOCATION
1991
Description Cost Estimate
1 Total Building Area $ 4,669,491
2 Total Outside Storage 1,031,362
3 Total Parking Area 543,598
4 Less proceeds from Sale of Existing Land (535,590)
5 Site Acquisition 4,000,000
Subtotal $ 9,738,861
6 Contingencies, Site Development, Utilities & Landscaping 1,181,260
7 Master Plan (awarded 11-13-90) 68,685
Subtotal $ 10,988,806
8 Excess Capacity of Rolling Stock 224,352
9 5.7% Inflation 0
10 Site Preparation Cost 1,995,000
11 Less DIP Fees Collected Plus interest (437,914)
TOTAL $ 12,770,244
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
37
) t - 157
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT No.3
CORPORATION YARD RIlLOCATlON
Initial Construction 1992 Cost Estimate
1 InfrasllUcture (Utilities) $ 3,004,291
2 Building and Furniture 8,414,824
3 Equipment 1,631,730
4 Vehicles (excludiog tranSit) 595,500
5 Design 1,000,000
6 Project Staff Services 275,578
INITIAL CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $ 14,921,923
7 Cootiogency @ 10% 1,492,192
8 Land 3,823,696
9 Excess Capacity of Rolling Stock 264,834
10 Master Plan 68,685
INITIAL CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $ 20,571,330
PHASED CONSTRUCTION
11 InfrasllUcture 110,040
12 Buildings 485,100
13 Equipment 80,160
14 Vehicles (excluding tranSit) 1,316,750
15 Project Staff Services 14,879
PHASED CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $ 2,006,929
16 I Contiogency @ 10% 200,693
PHASED CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $ 2,207,622
TOTAL 22,778,952
17 I Less Adjusted Value of Existiog Yard (656,236)
SUBTOTAL 22,122,716
18 Less City Share (1,327,659)
19 Less Transit Share (1,771,457)
20 Less Non-DIP Share (5,059,656)1
SUBTOTAL 13,963,944
21 Less DIP Fees Collected Plus Interest (1,137,451)
TOTAL 12,826,493
USE $ 12,826,500
1 NOII.-DIF sbare ,. New anoeutioDS + General Re&ervcs + Put Maintenance Reserves.
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chu/a Vista
38
I~ - 11~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
DOCUMENTATION
Corooration Yard Relocation
1. DlF Fund Status - As of June 30, 1992
2. Adjusted cost spreadsheets.
3. Construction Cost Estimate dated December 9. 1991.
4. Letter dated November 11, 1987, subject: Projected Costs for New Operations
Center.
5. Corporation Yard Rolling Stock Calculations.
6. Analysis of Vehicle and Communication Equipment Replacement Needs, May, 1984.
page 38
7. Agreement dated August 30, 1963 for the purchase of the existing yard site.
8. Corporation Yard Value calculations based on CPI.
Note: The following documentation material is .ill!! paginated.
1993 Public Facilities DlF Update
City of Chula Vista
39
\
)~ - )51'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Rev BY;WiL"DAN SAN DiEeo
1- 7-83 :11:10AM
CORPaRA~ION YARD OIF FUND-AS OF 6/30/92
A.
DlF ~evenuae received to date:
B.
DlF Investment earnings to date:
Tot a! Revenues
c. commitments to date:
DIF
Onaoinq
Corporation yard master plan:
Vehicles;
Equipmen.t:
staff Services:
TOTAL;
~
No expend1tures as of 6/30/92
D. Currently planned expenditures:
Purchase Of new site
J' -J Id:)
42~ O1U4" W.""~l\li ~l\li ~.~~v,.. ,
1-06-93
~1,064,OOO
s
73.451
$1.137,451
$ 68.695
40,898
17,564
18.013
$ 145,170
$ 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;!;l
Ii
,
,~
..
~
,I
! S
~
..
co
... ,
~ '
~
...
co
...
~
~
..
~
i
~
.
"
...
~
!!!~
~'2
'5
..
.. ..
C!;IC
0" ","
- -
- "',
-
~~giii~8~
'!J.' -;;, '3.' :(' 'Go' 9,' i.
0.. ..0.. ..., 0.. '^ 0.. N
5- .., -
..
..
..
if
0:
.
~
;I
..
~
11
u
.. ~ ..
,~ Ii ~
:s .!- 'E
'5 it 3
.. ... ~
~
i
'^
'Ii
~
~
'i
..
~
~
.., ~
3 u
~ II
!l -
..
~
..
..
..
..
.5
..
.. ~
u Ii. II
i 'j 'f
> Q'Q.
~
'$,'
..
..
u
';
..
..
co
..
..
..
~
co
~
00
~
:;j
'"
S!.
~
.
;;
..
~
o
~
co
$
g'
N
N
~
fj.'
.,
-
~
~
;;
.
.
ii
-
-
..
..
'~
~
~
~
~,
51
",'
. on
:a~
;!' ~'
N
g
~:
;;
~i
~!..
..
..
~
I
u
...
II
~
co
1
...
~
_ Iii
0-
GO ...
.. ..
.. ..
.. ~
u ..
" ..
... '"
..
'"
'"
-
...
'^
..
N
..
~
..
o
"
..
..
..
.c:
...
fi:
~
N
N
..
I
'"
'i
..
~
,I
~
I:
.8
~
o .. ..
~ ..
i i!
i'Z c
,_ I:
U II
'; i
Iii u ..
..
'"
'"
~ ~ ~
5 !l ..
.. ..
... ... '-
f :8 ~
-8 .. Ii
,- ~ ~
S ,- ';; ~
u Iii 5 '-
'- a: U It
I~Nt
>- . .. -
- '" ~
~ ~ i 1,
:> co ..
u ._ .... ill
" a 0 ...
,:: .. S
. J:: _ .-
~ ~
a . f :I
... a; . ..
.. .:: II i
! rif
-- "" 'z.-8
~ J S B
'll Iii '.
Il !I - .x
.c: ... ,
~... L_
'6 ~ ~ l!
It . to --
... ~ I 0
C> l! ..
.. IV: ..
1:
on
~
~
'"
~
",'
;;
..
~
..
o
u
..
~
o
...
)J -) ~ (
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l)!
Ii
...
N
-
"
~
.!
~~
...
co
~
:g
U
~
U
...
...
co
'"
...
co
...
~
'"
::>
...
~
::
,(
...
~
':;
..
"
~
..
.c
...
~
~
11
u
~
~
,,;
N
..
~ ~
;1;'"
.,.~
:i Iii
-.. ;:
- -
..
-
co
'"
'"
i~
~. !J!'
. ..
- -
..
-
;::
'"
co'
\:I
ell
;!
,.,
;!
'"
;;
,.
~
'u
-
"
.. ~
~
1l
u
~
!>>::.;.
~
..
';(
...
~ ~
:a:a
~~
... ...
- -
w
~
'0'
~
...
"
~
.. "I
.c ..
'" ..
.. ...
,.
~
'u... N
;j
~
o
~
...
~ ~
i~
..0 4'''
N ..
N '"
. e
;;
-
~ ~
....,.,
~l1;
~~
- '"
. ..
;; -
-
8
-
" ~
... ;: .;.
'i ... ...
~:a!
.....~~
... ...
- -
"
~
.. "I
'" ..
'" ..
,. ell ...
~
u":r.i
ai
~ ~
'" -
:8:::
i. l1;'
'" -
e
~ ~
'" -
:8:::
i. l1;'
'" -
..
-
&
"'.
'"
,.,
'"
..
-
~
..
...
l!'
~
~
.. '2
... .. ~
.. "
- ~
o .~ ..
!l ~ c:i
.. f _
> 8. I
w ~ _
Ii 8 ~
..
"
ct_r.i
u
~ ~
....N
li!~
R' ~.
"''''
. ..
N _
..
-
~ ~
.... N
<5~
~~.
.;l
\:1-
-
~
~ ::
w ~
::a:a
,~~ ~
..,~~
i
1_.0
in
.. ...
co
ii
Ii :e'
~~
- -
ii
a ~..
....
- -
~
.;. .;.
~ ~
f.:a:a
E~~
"... ...
.. --
"
'"
.. : I
1::
...
/J -/~J..
i~
'" ,.,
,., -
ee
N~
::3':;
N" ,.,....
~~
.
.
.
..
~ ~
~
"
~
"
'" ~ ~
I
~
"
'Ii i 1
E .. ...
..
~
:'...r.i
:a:a
~~
... ...
- -
.:
~
,.;
~
-
'"
..
.....
~
~
0:
..
",'
li!
~
~
~
,.,
g
~
.,.
:;
~.
-
-
:;
0:
.....
'"
~
'll
~
~
'0
u
E
...
...
co
"
"
.c
~
.,j'"
: 1
l5 l5
~ w
.. ..
~ ~
~~
o
u ..
.c
" ~
.c
w _
o
..
~
~
N'
;;
-
o
w
.. ..-
'" ..
:1 j g .c
6 sz 'Z ~
1ft ! ~ -s
i~j~i~i
u i! u
~".c
ld a ... ~ 1::
'o"'!: CD
c.. l.. CD II .
~t.~~
... . L l..
~_gt;8.=
o 0 ..
.... u _ l..
~'Zi.~
+00 i ~ l! a
s lIS -; ... ~ .
~ .. ~
t;l~i!
~ ~
- -
o -=
'll
::; l5
!l: ,-
.. ~
..
~ .. .c
'" ~ ~
o ca IIIll
.. .. ,.
i -s ~
: i ..
o 0 ..
~ -
!l .. ...
l ~ Q
... ..
~ .c
i i ...
Il rn
ct I
;;
~
..
.c
'"
...
Q
..
>
~ ..
81 ~
..
~ !' ~
: :g .~
~ j 'Ii
I 0
.~ ~..:
" .!l t
~ : 1
c.. ..,-;;
.. ~
~ t; 1 i
.. 0 0
lIE,.ll
It. ~
tl : u 11
w
..
z
.
. .
I
I
'-
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
L
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1-
I
~
t
,
:2
<II
W
..
'"
W
<II
ill
i
<
<II
W
...
Z
W
c::;
~
w
"
w
~
..
<II
W
il
I!
!
~ ..
o "
..
.. >-
..
..
"
..
,(
w
~~NN'-''''
~~NNNtrI
~
,~
W ..
" CO
.. "
!:
; g ~
t'Z'U
lE ,,_
U
.. l!' '1- ,::
f .. !II
0" li
w" ..
en Q. U ....
~
~
O!i
..
W ..
.. "
o J:
... <II
~
o .
W
15 l:
'Z '0
.. ..
o ..
..
>-
l!' ~
..... 'jj
..
';( 't
w"
w
'"
:.~ 1
O'j;( Z
ow
~
~
~
..
: ~ f
Ceil
:> w
cr l;
<II ..
..
~
..
..
~
~
.-
"
If,
"
W
il
u
..
..
..
"'180
~o;:
N" ,.: R;"
:25!",
..il'..
W
II
...
CS!:l!~
"'''''''
~. ",'.0
CI5!3~
",' ",' ",'
.. ~ ..
..
..
W
o
....
~~~
'4''4'~
~ ~ ~
<II <II <II
"''''g
~g...
~..,.....~"
!l:~~
liS",,,,
l(l.ill......
'" :e
~ in!
"".. NO,
..
I
<II
~~~
_... c:_-
"'N'"
'" '"
l!'
W
..
';(
W
..
.. r
I ~
<II <IIw
W <II
c::; l!''''
z ,_ l!'
w 'a'-
~"O-'"
- i 's ~
w.....J IllD Dr.
W
"
)6
-/k3
....
I:!
8
t/
co
~
",'
~
",'
;;
>-
,~
,~
~
..
" ..
u
~J
J! l!'
::~
II '5
'c CD
<
..
'"
"!
~
<II
...
'"
...
'"
;:!
...
,.:
o
:g
'"
..
!
~
..
..
..
..
'"
~
",'
'"
III
lEl8:$
..,...V"I..~..
'" ~ ~
~ ~ '"
~ '" ~
......
~
",'
III
~.
!~~
g~~
",'N'"
..~..
..
ra
.;
'"
~ ~~.
0:016
"'... '"
~
<II
~ ~ ~
<II <II <II
~~~
rtJ" tI'I'" N"
'" '"
5j
",'
;:;;
<II
~"l!
w "
<II ""
W
'"
:
..
~
..
..
..
..
..
..
i.. II r
l!. ~
<II W
<II
,~ ,~~
III 'a'-
lE"l! -...
~~i:
"
..
8
8
~
15
W
..
8.
..
J:
W
"0
~l
>- 15
15 .-
'_ W
W "
" ..
8.~
..
o ..
... J:
W
..
J: ~
W 0
..
W
l:
~
..
..
..
co
"
W
il
u
..
..
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .. 8~"'S: . f:::5!!li ~ '"
1) - I:!", ~. co_... ;;;
... o"":!'" -.. .,.'~-' ~ oJ
I ~ "'$ - ;:: ~,.,~ :a
tet Nan '"
.. - .'
..
I "'S!'" 8 - '" co Sl
~'" ~ :os:a
.. N 0" o",^ N' ~..~ ... .:
o-,.,.....N N co
~ . ,;
0
... G
G
I ~ ..
~ G
ieieieie Ie ~~~ Ii
'S ~ ............... - . o CI o. ~
CD i!l "," '^ ",'" trio. ~. .... ..... .... G
"
I " !:l!:l!:l!:l NNN ~
- --
G
.. G
G .:
CD 1
g
~
I :8....,. ..
!;! "'~o.N ~ ~ - .. G
;!: ~I NS~ I!: G ..
, I
c p.....~.. i '^ ,; .: oQ'" .4 i ~
G .. 5l
... IC",_~ '" ,.,-- ..
N ~ - ."'- .. G
0 .. ..
- ... - . 8-
I 0
~ co
G Iii -
.. NNNN co ~~y( t& - -
G ..... -.....- :s 0...
.c ~ IIlOCOCOtO - -- -
... i!l i~'~~ ~ ~~.~ ~ .. ~
I G 0 Ii
" ~
.. ~
G Iii . . . . ,,;,,;,.," I II 'i
.. NNNN -
G ----- C U
CD ...
.. ._ G l!'
G I to:
I ~ .. ~ .. .. ~ ~~~ 8 ~
.. ~ ~ ~ Ii
G
IE ";0"'; - 111 u
w . . - . :!
<II G ~ - - - ~
c ~ '_ u
CD G ~
'" C G
I ,. .. ~
.. ! I !!
<II 'Ii
... i
~ ~ .. .8
" .:! G
~. ~ ~ II ._ ~ . <l 0
w G ~ - ~ .. ! ~ ..
I '" r:: " U G ~ 1 ~
::! .- " ~ & II
.. .. .. ~ ~ .. .. ..
<II .- i ~ G " . U II U
! ! ,..! c ~
... a- ,. ;; ~ C G .. G
= !; ~ II J
" "'.. ~ ~ .: G 1 ~ ~ . l!' l; .. G
I <II !I l'u K .. ~
... '"1'- - IE .- II ~ " -
,; 8 .~ :;.~ .. .. .. It", 0 ~ .. c
... " .. ~ .- ... ~ c: ::
.. ~ c .. .. ~ .. U ~
~ -= .!: i .. 'c .. .. . .. p .. G Ii
III ... . .. c " ... " '"
'S .. ~ ~ ~
" ~ " c . 0
w CD ~ .... . . ,.
I 16 -)~V
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1_,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-
I
..
~
..
.c w
'" ..
o
>-...
w
U
w
~ !l
0'"
....
S!
II-
'"
:2
~ ..
a i
~
>- u
W 0(
U
..
.. if
.. ..
.. ~
.. u
0(
..
>- ~
W ..
'_ .c
... '"
~
~
'"
~
w
'"
::!
'"
..
....
...
,:
~
w
'"
....
s
.,
II
~
l!:"''''
:o!:J~
",',.; N'
N_<<>
C>__
......
~
lil'
'"
..
~ii~
"':0
o
~
o
'"
~~~
":0
~~~
- --
...
'"
~
....
N
..
..
..
::
~
u
0(
~
~
II
: i
.. l! '-
i,:::
~ ~ ..
u W ..
0( C
.- l!'
~ ~ .-
~ W
..... ..
CIl c.. ._
.. .. ~
.. ... w
..
~
:.!
~
!l
W
!l
...
~~!
N to 11'1"
"'''''''
~~...
<i~~
N"'O
~~~
:5!tt'lC
~~~
i-~
II
U
.. 8.
r .. en
.t r f
.. .. ..
~ ..
i~:::
~i~
.. W ..
~ .. .c
C .: I:
.2 L :a
W W W
co ._ ....
}~ ~ ~
~ ~
.... ....
~
'"
t
~
...
~
i
w
'"
::5
f!
0(
w
~
'"
..
....
...
~
0(
s
....
I~ -I ~S
I
I
~.'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
N
.,.
~
'"
*
~
';; f
ii ~
~ '"
~
=
'"
i
~
'"
~
~
'"
'"
<C
:
'"
..
~
u
;:
~
'"
~
';
..
..
..
..
.c
...
o
~
C
::l
~
11
u
..
..
..
..
~
'"
"~l!' ~
".... ..
-... -
:!! 'S ; !
:g .. ... ~
u ~ ~
~
...
....
~
~!H~~~
........co...-,,;
.. -
..
~
N N
~~
_.. .4
.,.'"
- '"
....
~~
...
...
;;
18
';I.'
::l
..
~
11
u
i
"C
t
'"
~
..
~
..
co
11 i~ i
~!!.....>....
~ff:JIa-. =
~......... "'t1 0
~
0'"
l;;~
,.....1/'1...
"'..
..
""'ill
~~-
,; ..' .,.'
g ~ lit
. ..
;;
o
o
o
~
;;
'"
ill
Ii
-
ii
-
~ ..
~
i! 8
II ._ lU .,
... .... ... .
2 a = ~
..g u z ~
'"
'^
~
~
"
..... II ~
~ II as
!2_" n i
" N
"
;; = ;;
"
"
"
" ...
II Ie
" .
II !2_
"
.
u ;;
.
"
S
"l
~
]
l!'
~
II
co
~
..
~
..
.c
'"
.;
~
i!l co
" ..
..
:I ~
~
..
j"Z
"~ ~
~ ~
~ 11
co
~ 0
.. ~
~
;;1
~ 8
1!-8
..
. ~
.. .c
~ ~
..
8 1!
..
: c
~ ..
.. Q.
.c
.. ~
I ~.
..
~ I
Ii C
~ ~ !
! l! ~
~ ~ ..
a l! ii
~ :-
'S I 'u
.. .. ~
~ ~
.. ..
.c 0 _
.. "
..
~ ..
! U c
b j .~
~
"!
..
~
...
;;
~
o
~
! "i :;
~ ~ ~
..
. 0
. . "
)i -)~~
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
;;
I
S!
~
'"
~
'"
~
>-
~
'"
..
:!
i
'"
..
~
..
>-
u
'"
~
~
'"
"
'"
~
'S
..
g~
~ ~.
NN
u
Ii
~
~
"
U
..
u
.!
u
..
'" ..
c: u
~ .!
u
~ ..
.. '"
U
.. ~
..
" ..
6
..
..
::>
u
..
1
...
~
~ill
0.
'"
'"
0#
~
!3
;8
'"
..
~
..
~
~
i
!
~
u
c:
.. '-
ll' ..
.. "
~ ...
u ~
.. ..
......
:. il
... ..
..
..
..
..
u
Ii
~
..
...
.
~~
'" ~
i
...
~
..
u
..
!
~ I
:.1
u '"
..
I':
~ ~
i;
i~
'" ..
..
.. II
u ....
o
>-
'"
'"
'"
"''''
le'"
.. ~
ill '2
. u
~ !!l
i
~
I:
..
..
~ i
ili-
Ii!
u u
.. c:
" ,-
J~
.. ~
II ::
....
. il
.. ..
..
..
.. !!l
: a:
l
!
'2
u
!!l
i
~
N
'"
..
'"
~
i
!
!
i
i
'"
..
u
o
>-
)6
..
:z
~
"
iE
.. ~
.. 2 8-
~ t;;;
; E i
.. ~ 0
u ... ....
8..= l!-
.. I Iii
... ..
~ .. ...
.. ... ~
Q.~8.
'28._
.. ~ ~
~ 10.-
~ u
Q. .-
l ~
..
~ 'fl.; '2
:; c Z ...
. ._ II.. ~
':i~ ~~:
." !!l :I ~
j i E ..
i:l !.~
- ll''' ~ ~
:at= ~..
u II 'li ri ~ '2
.. ~!l
!!L ~ Iii li : .
16'8.';;",11=
.. ".
tia'i:i.oi't
. ~ )( ..... ...
~~:I.~.~
::.!~E~~
u ~ ~ u
... ...)(
... w t.. ... OJ
~
o
u
..
~
Ii
u
..
1
...
~
~
..
u
..
o
u
~
~
o
u
u
..
..
~
~
..
~
~
..
..
ll'
u
Ii
u
~
..
...
)~7
I
I
.'-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I '"
<>
w
w
z
w
~
I u
%
~
<>
w
~
<
I ...
u
~
z
<
,- ;;:
..
I w
~ <> <> <> <> <> <> '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
~ '" ... '" '" '" '" '" g '" '" '" '" '" IC '" ...
0 '" N ... <>;. ... '" '" '" '" '" ... '" ... N
:!! .... - .... N ..: '" ~ .... '" i!i N oj >= .,; ~ N
.. 'S 0- >0 '" '" ~ ~ ;;; 0:
~ N N N ...
.. .. ..
0 .. ..
U
.. '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
~ '" '" g g '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
0 ... '" '" '" '" '" '" "'. ....
~ ",' reo '!J' .... ",'
" ~ '" l5: '" i!i ~
.. ;! '" ~ N
.. ...
" ..
...
~ '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
i .. g '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" g '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
0 '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" :<l '" '" '" g '" '" '" '" '" '" IC
~ u ... '" '" ... '" '" '" '" '" '" ... ... ..... ... '" '" '" '" .... '"
u l ~. .... '!J' ",' .... ",' ~. .... .,; '!J.' .... ",' ~. ~.
" " ~ '" i!i - ~ ~ i!i >= ~
'0 U N N N - ~ - N
~ ;l
... 'jj
>
~
i :: N - ~ - ... - ... - - N N - ... N .... ... ~ - N N N
'" N - >0
z "
~ ~ !l ...
~ ~
~ " ~
~ ~ i < ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <
N ~ " " ~ < N ~ " ~ ~ 0 0 ~
... ... " ~ ... " ~ ~ ~ '"
- " !l 0 '0 ~ 0 - " " !l ~ .. ~
~ !l :c E ~ ~ ~ !l !l E ~ " 'E 8
c ~ ... .. ~ ~ " ... ~ ~
~ .. ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ il g. ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ u w " < w ~
> ~ ~ ... 0 t 0 ~ ~ ~ ... 0 0 ~ " ~ on
w " " ~ ~ w '" , c " '5 .. ~ ~ .. ~ u '" ~
~ on ... a. ';;; ~ .. !l u ~ Ul ~ " '" ~ ~ .. u ~ ! ~ 6 .. ~ ~
< u c " ~ .. .. < i u c .. ~ ~ .. .. .. .. ... i
% .. ~ ~ .. ~ ~ .. % a: , .. ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ::>
~ ... ... > on ~ <> ~ .. ~ ~ ... ... on > on ~ <> ~ .. ~ ... on .. ~ on +
)IP -/b~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Animal Shelter Properties - Present Value
Purchase CPI Present
CPI Price Increase Value
CPI as of 12/72 122.3 8,000 2.999 $31,993
CPI as of 2/80 237.6 13,387 1.059 $27,558
CPI as of 2/92 489.1
$59,551
Corporation Yard Property - Present Value
Purchase CPI Present
CPI Price Increase Value
lA CPI as of 8/63* 92.2 128,000 3.662 $596,685
lA CPI as of 3/92 429.8
~QI:..~1JS-
-4t;{g5'/.;l~
* Historical CPI figures not available for San Diego region. As Such,
data is based on lA CPI figures. For consistency, updated CPI figures
for Corporation Yard also use lA data.
/6 -)Ie,?
I
I
I
I
II
\
I
I
-
,
.
'~
'E
.>.. .1
s ~
.-
-
e~ II
1ij
e
Q .-
\I U ~
d- ~-
, :> ~ ~
f\j ~Ue
:sse
o'iS ~
'OS"g
~ ~.S'
._ c ....
uu~
._-- .-"'..-..------,..-
- --""-=..--'--".........---
88888 8
g~gg~ g'.
o ~ N t"'l_0\ C!>
,.; ~:i ."...,..: c_
:- 4Ii"t M. N -
'.-. 4Ii"t...";;,
8 8 8 8 8
8 ~ ~ d ~
....
- - '" ..
.".. i .".. ri rJ
.. i
.~ ,..... ... t;;
~
;.;)
.~
..
'{. ]
.:l ..
~ .~ loll
~ ~
.j '~.g e1t
~ ~l~@l~
~t @l@l i .~:g
,:: DODO"';W..!! ....
c: c: .... ... - !I
'" :e:e@llo's ~
. :1 .. 0 oa oQ
0.. c.. eo _ c: :s
"l~.ll~ ~ l .~
.33 lo>e a
ae ..tt!!l.~~ ~..
IZllZllllUo
I ~~.~JJ,~.. ~
J!
8888888
~.,;~. d"';"'; ...~.
MOl ....\0-
"'... "'....
;it~8sf~ ~
0).... .~~t; ~
;; ~ . ...
. .~
;:.,'
~
oS.
8
fZ
...
t
'"
ti
~ ?
6 ~.
~ \:.
t; ~
8 e
~ 1
E .t:
~ J!
"
.. "
12j 1
. (I] S ',S
oll .5 "
8 i e '"
._ .. ~ e..
-""j;JJ' -1
.~ i oll ~ II
.!! oll 8 - ~
~ .. II ~ oll
< 8 ! ..-
.:l't.!! ~ ~ g
~ r'l · .- ~ 8
~ ..::t~?U
c: Q _ U -
" .- 'U .- - !!I
"-:.:: "0 ._ r! .il II
.....'Siieii.a
.~ .till >1-><
i
8 - .
.... f
:s I
<
otll) is
.S
;!2 .~ -
j ~ l. .~
c e
I 8 - ""
- @l j 8
..... .~ J
~ ....
l- I
.S 8
. S
::t 'I ....
~ IS 1
U
~ t.
88
~.~
"IS'V;
~~
-
...
1
\.~f
ll. -
]~i
.;j 11
~ _ ~ i!
~I':t
<l! S.:S8
!
lit - }7b
.-
,
. \
~~ 0: \
1r\
~
~,...L
. , ...
~ 0
"""- N
.------
'/-r:
~ .,
~I
'J
{
.~
.!
. .~
_ii~
-~..
'"
8
d
~.
-
l<l.
-
...
"'"
~ .
+1
. ~~.
~<.
~i
e
J 11
I ~ l-
. ~ 0 .'II!
'S" .~
....
ltl
::t
-
~
-
.5
l!
.
i!
~
~li .~
@l'~
... L.! ~
i:~ B
'giS ~
u:j
::5
',-
.fo
"8
. III
I:l
,l!
-
.g
- -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHULA VISTA CORPORATION YARD
Furniture Budiet - Initial ConstNc:tion
December 9. J991
D~p.a,rtmentl Work
plvuaon Private station Desk/File
Public Works Adm. 5 3
Sewer 1 3
Streets 1 4
Tree Maint. 1 4
Traffic Signal J
Traffic Si~ 1 1
Buildin~ ervices 4 1
Purchasing 1
Parks 1 2
Equip. Maint. 4 2
COmmunications 1
Transit 5 3
Animal Control 1 5
27 14 14
Office ~e
I d~vate ffices
~/vyork Stations
Desk/File
Ie - Waitmg Area
~ Conference Room
f" Work Area
Crew Room. small
I Crew Room. large
Conference Room. large
J.unchn'ra.inin,. tarle
I Sub-total
~:~~. Delive~ fo~:eight @ 10%
I TOTALFU~REBUDGET
I
I i,
I
I
Hn.
27
14
14
4
4
2
4
2
1
1
...
.. ".
.'.:: R:\1.'I:\TERI'IA:\
. .',. ..' ,. ,".
,""",lIlnt~rl"Il,,;'I'l.
A.Nt .tln~l\.Ri
"'TfRI\ 'It DE o;l{;'
l R~'" rL"'\'\I~C
W"
8.lttni
Conference
Work
Area Crew
1
1
1
1
4
JJriit Cost
@ 3,500 ..
@ 3,800 ..
@ 1,550"
@ 1,125 ..
@ 6,350 ..
@ 2,400 ..
@ 5,500 ..
@ 18,900 ..
@ 10,750 ..
CW 52.500 ..
.~-_........
.~.~
I~ -/7'
'":".~,-~..!.",
1
1
1
1
4
Ql&l
94,500
53,200
21,700
4,500
25,400
4,800
22,000
37,800
10,750
52.500
$327,150
32,715
35.987
$395,852
-,. ....
1
1
1
1 1
1
2 4
RNI.lI~LA'\. INC.
f'hilipH.c.n.dPrt,"'~hllf'ct
Rim_rei t. WIn Luh..., 4rrllilf'ct
ParrickM.Mck.rl~."rchillf(1
Rk'hard C Shifffl'. ArthitKt
261 SO\,..PfH FJGUERQ\. SUITE :po
I..OS ANtiElES. CAUfORNtA GI2
T1.L: 2'\.l)VI 'OXl MX: 2UQO.I6I'
A MEMBER OF THE
R~L ~'U11E." ('OIIUIOIlATION
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
...
.. '.
., '..
...
CHULA VISTA CORPORATION YARD
Furniture Budget. Initial Construction
December 9, 1991
Furniture Assumption~
Private Offices
Inexpensive wood or metal/laminate desk, credenza, 2
drawer file, bookcase, desk chair, 2 guest chairs
($3,500.00)
65" high panels, work surface, 2 overhead bins, 2
drawer lateral file, desk chair, 1 side chair ($3,800.00)
36 x 72 desk, desk chair, 3 drawer lateral file
($1,550.00)
Work Stations
Desk/File
.
Waiting Area
4 upholstered chairs, coffee table, phone table
($1,125.00). .
Average 200 s.f. each, 8' wood table, 8 upholstered
chairs (56,350.00)
1 laminate table, 2 stack chairs, 2 file cabinets
(52,400.00)
Average 240 s.f., 2 tables, 24 stack chairs (55,500.00)
Average 840 s.f., 6 tables, 84 stack chairs (518,900.00)
12' wood table, 15 upholstered chairs (510,750.00)
SO training tables, 175 stack chairs (552,500.00)
Conference Room
'ork Area
Crew Room. small
Crew Room. large
Conference Room. large
Lunch/Training Room
'"
), - )7~
I ., ,
..'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.' ..
November 11, 1987
/.f)
~
TO:
VIA:
FR0l4:
SUBJECT:
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works/City Engineer .
Cliff Swanson, Deputy Public Works Director/operati~
Gregg Hanson, Building Maintenance Superintendent ~~
Projected Costs for New Operations Center
This is a report to provide projected construction costs for the Chula Vista
Public Works Operations Center based upon the conceptual and preliminary
drawings provided by Tierra Planning and Design in San Juan Capistrano. The
proposed costs in this report are based upon the following criteria:
1. 1987 construction costs
2. Costs based upon MINIMAL site development
3. Property costs are not included
4. A 15 acre site (9 acres developed/6 acre reserve)
The enclosed cost estimates are derived from actual construction costs from
the cities of Irvine, Long Beach, Coronado and National City along with square
foot prices from estimating manuals for building and construction of similar
type facilities.
Project Scope
This report addresses the following:
Streets/Sewers/Parks Work Bldgs.
Building Maintenance Shops
Traffic Signal/Communications Bldg.
Vehicle Maintenance Shops
Transit Bus Repair Facility
Central Stores and Parking Meter Bldgs.
Outside Storage and Parking into the 21st century
Deta 11 s
Admi Iii strative Office = 15,280 sq. ft.!i ncl udes 7,600 sq. ft. admini strative
offices; 7,680 sq. ft. locker rooms; conference room; men/women showers;
assembly-training rooms; rest rooms; and storage
Functional Buildings = 4,825 sq. ft. inclUding paint storage, tool storage,
tree mai ntenance equipment, traffic si gn shops and storage, pestici de and
fertilizers, etc.
Parks Work Buildings = 3,625 sq. ft. equipment repair and storage rooms,
chemical storage, etc.
/~ -/73
I..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:--.;, ,
,.' .
Projected Costs for
New Operations Center
,..2-
November 11, 1987
Building Maintenance Shops = 6,216 sq. ft. carpenter, plumbing, electrical,
paint, HVAC, shops and storage
Traffic/Communicati on Buil ding = 2,800 sq. ft. incl udes computer room, sol i d
state repair room, repair and storage rooms, vehicle prep room, screen room,
offices and storage
Vehicle Repair Shop/Garage = 26,000 + sq. ft. including 20 work bays, welding
shop, parts storage rooms, locker rooms, offices, lunch room, hydraulic lifts,
tool room, 1 ube racks, ai r compressor, emergency generator, fuel di spensing
station, and clerk work station
Transit Bus Repair Shops E 7,000 sq. ft adjacent to but separate from the City
shops/including 4 bays, office, tool storage, tire storage, driver lounge, HAZ
MAT storage
Central Stores/Parking Meter Shops = 6,550 sq. ft. enclosed buildings with
loading, dock, counter access to central garage
Outsi de Storage Buil di ngs/Carport type for storage of cement sacks, gl ass
beads, park maintenance equipment, HAZ Waste (enclosed building), street,
parks nursery, sewer and tree maintenance equipment
Uncovered Storage Areas = 65,000 sq. ft. incl udes space for emulsi on tank,
chips, concrete bins for bulk storage, roll off dumpsters, pipe racks,
scaffold storage, light pole storage, surplus vehicle storage, waiting and
ready lines for equipment repair shop, bus wash rack and large equipment
storage
Vehi~le and Equipment Parking/Employee and Visitor Parking Off Street E
228,000 sq. ft. asphalt, striped
Also included in this estimate are the following items: internal roads,
circulation areas for large trucks and buses, fencing, gates, security
lighting, limited landscaping, storm drainage, fire water loop, sewer lines,
communication systems, security system, sidewalks, curb and gutter,
underground utilities from the property line, MINIMAL GRADING and Engineering
based upon the assumption of a relatively level building site, core samples,
compaction, asphalt lots and survey on 9 developed acres. NOT included in
this estimate are: land cost, design fees, project management, new equipment,
tools, furniture, site development fees for the 6 acres in reserve and
inflation factors for construction delayed into the future.
Costs
Based upon current labor and materials costs, case history of similar
construction in this area, and engineering reference manuals, I estimate that
the conceptual PW Operations Yard costs will range from $6.2 to $7.1 million.
The attached sheet addresses the cost breakdown.
WPC 0053S
)~ -)7Lf
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
>
a:
<(
:E
:i
:J
en
..J
<
o
-
....
en
-
....
~
en
'"
c.
>,
....
o
o
...
.
'"
'"
...
.
...
.....
I
o
o
...
.
o
o
..,
.
."
Cl:)
'"
.... ......
o.
o I
.....;0
: 0
er ..,
III .
'"
.. Cl:)
'" Cl:)
0.
o
o .....
..,
....
....
'" '"
'" C
"'.. ~
C '" ...
..c.~
.. ~
..... :>
III .Q
....0
IIl0 C
o . 0
UN C.
..... :>
....
01'"
00 C
"'0 ~
...
C
'"
C.
'"
...
..
..
,.' -..
'"
'"
en
.
..,
.
"'...
"N
..
:>E
ero
"'..
...
.....
.....
.
~ ~
<
A
.: ..: .: ...: .: ..: .: ..:.: ~..:..:..:.:.:~
................
0~~0000800000000
~NNOOO" ~O"NOOOO
N~~N~O~ ~~~~~O~"
.........- ....
~~"~NO~~ ~~ NN~
.... NN.. "N
c
a:
~
w
U
~
Z
W
~
Z
-
<
:E
~
u
W
o
Z
<
Z
W
III~
,.cd 0<
09 z::E 0
aID ~ 0 ~~~ ~
00 % ~ I:!:!zo e
'd ~~ ~ g i~~ 0
(!J9 %1= III ~ ccolllt:..1
9 0< (!J 00::E~(!J <
IDID ~~ ~ :J~dli:~~l!:
~~ ~ldS~ I~~~~~~
lE~dlllo9SE;~' I I I I I I
O~9~OID~0%WWWWWWW
IIlIn <::>>011l1ll0(!J(!J(!J(!J(!J(!JeJ
~~ID~~~=~m~~~~~~~
<ru~"'S2%~"'ti:ieeeeeee
~~O~00ID0::E0000000
en eni ~ ~ 0 III t: ~ I III III W III III 111111
Z en ~eJen~ eeeeeee
~ ~~Ii:~~~ =~~~~~~~
c...c <= ~;I:;):;):;):;):;):;)
ceno. (!J",Oo.ooooooo
.J
';t..
oog
..~
Clut.Cl
~~~
~~N
N
~~
<==
w<c
=W(!J
c~~
d=~
ge=
IDen~
..1..1..1
~~~
eee
)Ic -175
o
o
o
.
o
N
'"
.....
I
o
o
o
.
o
N
...
o
o
o
.
....
o
'=>
.
'"
.....
I
o
o
o
.
....
o
..,
.
'"
~.....
..
....
o
....
.Q
:>
III
cScScS
cvCVCQ
....('1)0
. . ,
cocotn
...
w
o
<
wa:
OW
<>
o
ffiu<
>ww
o>a:
ua:<
WWW
~U)t::
_ W ,^
f/) a: VI
-I-IU)
<<U)
~~o
ooa:
~~o
.....
"'c
....:>
.... 0 0
::J s...-a 0
en c:nc: 0 c::
So. ra .. 0
..cu 0_
~"O .. M _
s..C::In .... -
:3:::1E . -
U GI ~ E
..... .....
.. en", I ....
c:nc:>, 0 .
c::_ en 0 ,...
~.... 0
So...c::: c: .. 0
cu c:no 0 +'
GJ__ M
c::_+J Ch CbI
._ ra .
I:n>'U \C
c....~
cu_ c:: .... ....
..:>
.:> E
"'uE
C"'o
_cnu _
"C. ..
ra -ol!S +J
..'" 0
c:nc:: >. ~
~....
.. c.._
+.Ira~
cu:>
"'IIlU
E-ocucn
c.CU')ClJ
0.. ~
__ "u
'" IIlC
> ... C1I GJ
cu en..... en
-oC+JC
~~~
cuu_+'
+,'c_ c::
_GJ+'Q
vt'+-::SU
III
:>
~
0.
.=
'"
.....
Cl:)
.....
....
....
.....
....
....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11-29-90
DIF: CORPORATION YARD ROLLING STOCK
Description:
Credits for existing rolling stock and costs
for new rolling stock are calculated in three
parts:
SECTION A
A start-up credit is computed, representing the
degree to which the City's existing rolling stock is
servicing new development. This is a one-time
credit.
SECTION B
An annual credit is computed, representing the
additional EDUs in the coming year which will be
serviced by the City's pre-existing rolling stock.
SECTION C
The cost of increased rollinq stock is computed, repre-
senting the growth which cannot be serviced by pre-
existing capacity.
The general methodology for calculating credits/capital
costs are described in Attachment A. The actual
calculations for FY 90/91 are also shown.
It - 17~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT A: CORPORATION YARD ROLLING STOCK
SECTION A. START-UP CREDIT FOR EXISTING EXCESS CAPACITY
(One-Time Calculation)
A1. New EDUs serviced by preexisting stock =
4,597 EDU's
(as detailed in calculation of proportionate City/DIF
shares)
A2. preexisting EDUs serviced by preexisting stock =
54,870 EDU's
(as detailed in calculation of proportionate city/DIF
shares)
A3. Total EDUs serviced by preexisting rolling stock =
Al + A2 = 59,467
A4. Percent: New EDUs serviced/Total EDUs Serviced =
A1/A3 = 4,567/59,467 =
7.68%
A5. Value of Preexisting Rolling Stock with Excess Capacity=
$2,150,121 (SEE ATTCAHMENT B)
A6. START-UP CREDIT= A4 * A5 =.0768 * $2,150,121 = $ 165,129
SECTION B. ANNUAL CREDIT FOR EXCESS CAPACITY
B1. Additional 1990/91 EDUs to be serviced by preexisting
stock = 897 EDU's*
* Calculated as follows:
Avg EDU's per year =
Remaining FY 91 increment=
Additional FY 91 EDU's =
1,339
.67
897
(Revenue Projection Table)
(8 motnhs remaining)
(1,339 * .67)
B2. Current EDUs serviced by existing stock = A3 = 59,467
B3. Total EDUs serviced by preexisting rolling stock =
B1 + B2 =60,364
Ii - /71
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
B. ANNUAL CREDIT FOR EXCESS CAPACITY (Continued)
B4. Percent: New EDUs serviced/Total EDUs Serviced =
B1/B3 = 897/60,364 =
.0149
B5. 1990 Value of Preexisting Stock with Continuing
Excess capacity:
EXAMPLE:
a. $2,150,121 = Start-up value (#A4)
b. x 1.058 = San Diego Region CPI for
1989
c.
d.
$2,274,828 =
$ 514,871**=
1990 gross value
Decrease in excess capacity
value
ADJUSTED
VALUE: $1,945,236
**EXAMPLE: suppose additional Park Maintenance equipment
must be added to Division 1520's rolling
stock in FY 1990/91 to meet growing service
demands. Division 1520 is therefore no
longer capable of serving new EDUs with
existing capacity. In turn, the value of
Division 1520's rolling stock (adjusted for
CPI) would be deleted, as shown above.
FY 1990/91: For FY 1990/91 the actual values are:
a. $2,150,121 = Start-up value (#A4)
b. x 1.058 = San Diego Region CPI for
1989
ADJUSTED
VALUE :
= 1990 gross value
= Pick-up truck and gang mower
are being added (valued at
$33,000). Thus, Division 1520
can no longer supply service
with pre-existing capacity and
no future credits are given.
c.
d.
$2,274,828
- $ 514,871
$1,759,957
B6. 1990/91 CREDIT FOR EXCESS CAPACITY =
B4*B5 = .0149*1,759,957 = $ 26,223
)/2. - 17~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION C. VALUE OF NEW STOCK NECESSIATED BY GROWTH
1. Value of additional stock needed by PWO/Park Divisions
to serve new development:
FY 90/91: For FY 90/91 the Park Division will add a 3/4
ton pick-up ($15,000) and qanq mower
($18,000) to meet new service demands. As
such, $33,000 are added to the DIF to cover
the cost of qrowth related capital equipment.
No additional Public Works ro11inq stock is
to be added. At this time a reliable
forecast of Public Works/Parks rolling stock
needs beyond FY 90-91 cannot be made.
SUMMARY CALCULATIONS FOR 1990/91:
TOTAL
$165,129
$ 26,223
$ 33,000
$224,352
A.
B.
C.
START-UP
1990-91
VALUE OF
CREDIT FOR EXCESS CAPACITY:
CREDIT FOR EXCESS CAPACITY:
ADDITIONAL ROLLING STOCK :
.
.
NOTE: $224,352 TO BE SPREAD ACROSS TOTAL EDU'S
THROUGH 2010.
UPDATE ANNUALLY
/6 -/77
1\
I.
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.'
A-TfAcH-M~))T 5
4-10-91
CORPORATION YARD. 1990-91 CREDIT FOR EXCESS CAPACITY
B1. Additional 1991/92 EDUs to be serviced by preexisting
stock - 1,339 EDU's*
B2. CUrrent EDUs serviced by existing stock - A3 - 60,364**
B3. Total EDUs serviced by preexisting rolling stock ..
B1 + B2 =61,703
B4. Percent: New EDUs serviced/Total EDUs Serviced -
B1/B3 .. 61,703 - .0217
B5. 1991 Value of Preexisting Stock with Continuing
Excess Capacity:
a.
b.
$1,759,956*** ..
x 1. 06 ..
1990 value (Attachment B)
San Diego Region CPI-1990
c. $1,865,553 .. 1991 gross value
d. - $ 0**** ..
$1,865,553
B6. 1991/92 CREDIT FOR BXCBSS CAPACITY =
B4*B5 = .0217*1,865,553 = $ 40,482
* Reference Public Facilities DIF, dated 12-12-90,
Figure 8, Revenue Projection Table, page 16.
** Reference Public Facilities DIF, project NO.3,
Corporation Yard Rolling Stock Appendix dated 11-29-90,
Section B, B3.
*** In 1990/91 Parks Division 1520 could no longer supply
excess capacity to service new development (i.e.
additional park vehicles were needed). Thus, no future
credits are given for this division, as shown in
Attachment B.
**** No new divisions are deleted this year due to the
elimination of excess capacity (in 1990/91 the value
of stock in Park Division 1520 was deleted). See
11-29-90 analysis, #b5, referenced in footnote **
above.
/6 - I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I * 5.8% CPI for San Diego Region in CY 1989
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I /6 - I ~/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. RCV BY;WILLDAN SAN DIEaD
A- A-SO 8:51AM :CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~ WILLDAN SAN DIEaO:;13
Analys1s of Y~h1cl~ ano commun1cat1on
Equipment R~plae.mtnt N.ads ,
I
I
I
I
I
jl
II
'I
SUbml tted By:
Jim Thomson, Management Seryfces Dfrector
Gary GDelitz. Principal Admlnistratiye Analyst
Marty ChI.', Principal Administratfve Analyst
policy Analysis .nd program Evaluatton Division
Mlnagenant Service. Department
MIY 1984
..-
Ii - 1<8'~
RCV BY:WILLDAN SAN DIEGO
4- 4-80 8:51AM iCITY OF CHULA VISTA ~ WILLDAN SAN DIEGO;.'4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
&eneral Vehfcl es
SeGans/Statfon Wagons
Sedlnsl PoHce Pursult
Pf d(up Trud(s
(1/4. 1/2, 3/4 Ton)
Vans
(Cal'llO, Pluenver!
Motorcycles: Polfce
(Z wheel, off-road)
Scooter s
Sedens; Police Pursuit (reserve)
sedans: Police Pursuft (canln.)
Sedens: Pollc. Pursuit (Sergeant!
11'11'1 Vlhiells
pu1llptr
Laclclel'
Tel.aquil't
Utility Rescue Truck
Heavy Trucks/EauiPment
Aerial Tower Truck
Asphalt Dlstributor Trllck
Buck e1; Loader
8us
Chipper
COIIIpresrors
(!lO, 160. HI5cfm!
Concrete Mf xe..
OulllP TruCk
(1-1/2 Yard, 4 . 6 Yard)
Exc.v.tor, ~udr.u11c
Fl a tbe/l Truck
Front End Loader
Gtnel'atDrs
Mowers;
Reel (3-Gan9 1
AlItary
Ro 11 er
(Tlndem, Rubber Pneumatic)
Seier
(J.tter, Rodder)
Stump Cutter
Swttper:
Lawn
Street
Tractor
(Backhoe, Turf)
Tra ffl c 5trl per
WPC 031101
-3R-
)6 - 1<63
EXHIBIT X
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT
GUIDELINE
Replacement Gufdeline
8 years or 00.000 miles
2 years or 00,000 ml1es
7 1,arS or 70,onO .il"
7 years or 70,000 ml1es
4 yeers
5 years
4 years or 00,000 miles
4 years or 00,000 miles
4 years or 110,000 miles
20 yea",
26 year.
25 ~al"
10 y.el"
10 years
20 years
10 yearl
10 ,ytarl
10 years
10 years
10 years
10 yell"s
12 years
10,yeal's
10 years
20 YIII'S
6 yelr5
o YOlrs
12 year.
10 years.
10 years
10 years'
7 y@al's
10 years
12 y"I"
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
.
I
I
.
I
I
.
I
J
.
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\'
I
";"\ . "~ .:.:~
".
.'
I
I
I
" -.,'
I
i
,
I
I
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CI TY OF CHULA
VISTA AND PURVIS MARTIN, DEVA S. MARTIN
AND MARION D. REDDING AND HELEN M. REDDING
FOR THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF REAL PROPERTY
This agreement made thi8~ day of August, 1963. by and between
FuaVlS MARTIN, DEVA s. MARTIllT. MARION D. REDDING and HELEN M. REDDING.
~creinafter referred to as VENDORS, and the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, here-
i~~tter referrad to as PURCHASER.
~ITNESSETH as follows:
1. VENDORS agree to s8,11 free of all encumbrances. except for
se~er assessments, and PURCHASER agrees to buy that certain real property
. .
tcscriDed as follows:
, I
\ ,
i
~ll of the southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Quarter
;)(!ction 162 of Subdivision of RANCHO DE LA NACION, in the city of
.::::hula Vista, county of San Diego, State of California, according
t~ Map thereof No. 50S, filad in the office of the county Recnrder
~f said San Diego county, March 13, 1888.
3XCEPTING TKEREFROM, the Easterly 30 feet, the southerly 40 feet
and the Westerly 140 feet.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, that portion conveyed to San Diego and
Arizona Railway Company, by deed dated May 8, 1920, and recorded
in Book 811, page 414 of Deeds, records of Baid San Diego county,
described as follows.
Beginning at a point on the Northerly line of "F" Street, distant
100 feet Easterly from the Easterly line of Bay Boulevard which
point of commencement is on Easterly line of Granteels main line
right of way: thence Easterly along Northerly line of "1"" Street,
279.09 feet: thence Northwesterly along a curve to the right,
having a radius of 439.276 feet, through a central angle of
510251 to a point on said Easterly right of way line distant 260.51
feet Northerly from said Northerly line of 111''' street, thence southerly
along said Easterly right of way line, 260.51 feet to POINT 01'
BEGINNING,
being approximately 6.44 acres.
2. PURCHASER agrees to pay directly to VENDORS as purchase price
for said property the sum of $128,000.00.
3. VENDORS agree to pay all taxes to date of recordation of convey-
ance. The parties recognize that liability for taxes is regulated by
Section 4986, subdivision 2 (a) of the Revenue and Taxation Code and
. /h - I '8',-/-
I ,)'
,
I
I
I
I
I --
I
I
I
I
I _." '"'
-"
1- 0
I
,
1- t
I
I
ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF
CHUlA VISTA. CALIFORNIA. this~d.)' of
August.
1,~
by the following vote. to-wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEN
McMains, McAllister, Menzel, Sm.ith
NAYES: COUNCILMEN
None
ABSENI: COUNCILMEN
DeGraaf
- .,/ "" ,
, j ~ ( . /-'/. . f"
~.....-t;...{. '" "'4,.' t j' / ,.--'.1. '''',' ~
Mayor of the Cit)' of Chula Vista
-l "}/-/..'f"" //1//
ATTEST _[(_,_ _v........, .41(;" _-f' .,(;(-'7
Cit)' Clerk .,
STATE OF CALIFrRNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ...
CITY OF CNULA VISTA )
1. KENNETH P. CAMPBELL. City Clerk of the City of Chul& Vista.
California. DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full J
true and correct copy of
. and
that the same bas not been amended or repealed.
DATED:
City Clerk
;"
-
)~5
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
WASHINGTON D.C. 20212
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR ALL URBAN CONSUMERS
LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH, ANAHEIM METROPOLITAN AREA
ALL ITEMS
I (1967 = 100)
YEAR JAN. ~ MAR. ~ MAY JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. AVG.
I :1946 54.3 54.3 54.4 54.6 54.9 55.6 58.2 59.1 59.5 60.7 63.2 63.2 57.7
:1947 63.5 63.8 64.2 64.5 64.5 64.0 64.4 64.6 66.2 66.1 67.3 68.0 65.1
I 1948 68.7 69.0 68.7 69.5 69.5 69.4 70.0 70.3 70.3 70.7 70.8 71.1 69.8
1949 71.1 70.6 70.5 70.6 70.0 69.6 69.0 69.0 69.0 68.9 69.0 68.5 69.5
1.950 69.1 68.9 69.0 69.1 69.1 69.0 69.4 70.2 70.7 71.3 71.9 72.8 70.1
:1951 74.0 75.2 75.8 75.8 76.0 75.9 76.2 76.2 76.4 76.6 77.4 77.6 76.0
I 1952 77.6 77.8 77.9 78.1 78.1 78.3 78.4 78.3 78.4 78.3 78.5 78.7 78.2
1953 78.7 78.3 78.7 78.8 78.7 78.7 79.0 79.0 79.3 79.3 79.2 79.0 78.9
1954 79.7 79.5 79.3 78.9 79.0 78.9 78.3 78.5 78.7 78.3 78.4 78.7 78.8
11955 78.7 78.2 78.5 78.1 78.7 78.7 79.0 78.7 79.2 79.3 79.3 ..l~.,.3 . 78.8
1956 79.1 79.0 79.2 79.3 79.7 80.0 80.5 80.0 80.4 80.8 81.2 81.4 80.0
1957 81.5 82.1 82.1 82.2 82.4 82.5 82.6 82.7 83.2 83.3 83.8 83.8 82.7
1958 84.4 84.6 85.2 85.6 85.4 85.5 85.7 85.5 85.9 85.9 86.2 86.2 85.5
I 1959 86.2 86.4 86.3 86.3 86.5 86.6 87.0 86.9 87.2 87.6 87.8 87.9 86.9
1960 88.0 87.8 88.2 88.7 88.5 88.4 88.3 88.1 88.5 88.9 89.0 89.4 88.5
1961 89.5 89.6 89.3 89.4 89.4 89.6 89.6 89.4 89.5 89.7 90.0 90.0 89.6
I I 89.9 89.9 90.2 90.4 90.9 91.0 90.8 ~ 91.2 91.2 91.1 91.2 90.6
1. 91.2 91.7 91.6 91.8 91.5 91.3 91.8 2.2 92.3 92.8 92.9 92.4 92.0
1961> 93.2 92.7 93.3 93.5 93.5 93.5 93.5 . 93.5 94.4 94.6 94.7 93.7
I 1965 94.9 95.2 95.4 95.7 95.7 96.0 95.8 94.8 95.9 95.8 95.9 96.3 95.7
1966 95.9 96.4 96.7 97.2 97.1 97.4 97.8 97.4 98.4 98.6 98.9 98.9 97.5
1967 98.5 98.4 98.1 98.9 99.4 99.7 99.9 100.6 101.3 101.1 102.0 102.0 100.0
1968 102.5 102.6 103.0 103.0 102.8 103.7 104.0 104.4 104.4 105.3 105.6 105.6 103.9
I 1969 106.0 106.5 107.7 107.9 107.9 108.8 109.4 109.6 110.2 110.6 110.5 111.5 108.8
1970 111.6 111.9 112.4 113.5 113.8 ,1,13.9 114.9 114.2 115.8 116.2 116.2 116.8 114.3
1971 116.7 116.2 116.9 116.7 118.1 118.7 119.1 119.4 119.9 120.2 119.9 120.0 118.5
I 1972 120.0 120.3 121.1 ,121.2 ,121. 3 121.6 122.7 122.8 123.8 123.9 124.3 124.4 122.3
1973 124.8 125.5 126.4 126.9 127.4 128.5 129.1 130.9 131.2 132.3 133.6 134.1 129.2
1974 135.2 136.2 137.6 139.0 140.3 141. 4 142.9 144.9 147.0 147.1 148.7 150.0 142.5
1975 150.8 152.2 154.2 155.6 156.9 156.7 158.1 158.8 160.4 161.5 162.5 163.7 157.6
I 1976 164.7 163.8 163.9 164.1 166.3 167.0 168.8 169.7 170.7 171. 5 172.1 172.8 168.0
:1977 174.8 176.3 176.7 177.9 178.5 179.5 180.4 180.6 181.6 181.6 182.9 184.4 179.6
1978 185.5 186.5 187.4 189.6 191. 5 193.4 194.3 194.9 197.3 197.8 198.1 197.1 192.8
I 1979 199.6 201. 9 203.8 207.8 211.0 212.9 214.7 217.5 220.7 221. 8 224.2 228.0 213.7
1980 232.6 237.6 241. 3 244.6 249.1 250.1 248.7 247.3 249.6 252.6 255.5 258.7 247.3
1981 259.4 261.6 263.3 265.5 267.3 267.9 272.2 274.8 279.3 281. 8 281. 8 282.3 271. 4
I 1982 285.8 285.6 286.6 286.8 287.1 290.1 289.3 289.1 288.2 289.5 288.5 285.3 287.6
1983 285.6 286.8 287.1 289.5 292.0 293.6
I
I
I - 3 -
)j - I <d'~
.
It
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I'.
......
....'"
Cl
"-z
eM
I
I
I
Cl
Ij
I
I
I
I
I
oil
U
M
...
oil
M
...
...
....
oil
o
"'0
e~
....
.......
....'"
...
"--
o
.
""~
"':E:
"''''
"'...
"'M
..
....
...'"
ZU
"'M
:1:'"
......
'"
...'"
.....,
"':I:
a:>
oil
<'l'"
",e
...u
...
...
oil
""
~
'"
I
...
...
u
....
E
M
...
E
S
C
II
..
..
E~
::IX
III I
eM
00.
UU
....
e
..Ill
.QL
.. ..
"'.>:
L
"'0
...:;:
...
...
....
ou
....-
..
.....
......
UU
..-0
.z:C
.....
r.1lI
.....
0"
.QC
..
r...
...'"
3"
l7\
-0"
..X
III
::Ie
..
Ill'"
_L
::>
..
......
...0
-"-
:I:
U
...
'"
..
C)
z
C)
...
I
oil
'"
...
'"
g
c
oil
o
...
).oM
Lo.
..U
::I
e..
...c
......
0"0
...C
..
..
o
-
..
...
or
...
..
Q
....
..
'"
z
:i
U'\1Oa-CO'"
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX--LOS ANGELES
1966-1987
,.....10"""''''"
0-000_
............-
0-0..0,,",00
. -.' . .
tON"'"......o
0"100--
----
OioOIrobU'\N
. . . . .
eo NU'\ 0 '-0
00.00'__
----
..0.... "'''''0 N
. . . . .
ClO_U'\ChO
0"00__
----
""tro"l""NOO
00 .... "" CU"
0'00__
.----
"''10 ""..0 N
,....0,,"0''''-
(7\OOCl_
----
tOG"O,,"C)lt.
,....O'.",.o-~
0'0"100_
---
ocr......,..., 00 Q\
""'C"o",",IO""
0-.0'010.....
---
_,,"tOO'tO
. . . . .
.....o"N,.......,
0\0"100_
---
N 00>0 o-V'l
,....10""''''''''''
0"0-00_
---
0-
...
:l:
U
'"
...
:I:
,........10,...,,,
"OOO"",...N
o-a-oo_
'"
",...,N\I'\\oO
. . . . .
tONO'N,...
_NN""'"
--.......-
0',,".....0,....
. . . . .
10..,..",.0""
NN"''''\Q
-----
o,..,.oo,....U'\
. . . . .
cr-""""ION
_N""""'..o
-----
N.,.."""",'"
O...,N..........
NN..'h7'\O
-----
o-eoNO,,"
. . . . .
0'...,.....,....0
.....N""""'\Q
-----
"'1100'10'010
. . . . .
CP"NO..,.OO
_Nto"'J...,.Ll\
-----
.....,........Olo_
. . . . .
O\NO"NOO
_NNI(fU'\
-----
,......0"'''''''''''
110_10_\00
_NN.",.'"
-----
.... ""ocr'" 001
. . . . .
10.....,....0\00
_NN""''''
-----
""Neo.o~
. . . . .
~_\OCJ"""
_NN""1I"l
-----
o-_<d'~N
\00-..0""""
_NN""1I"l
-----
..'"
.....
"''''
--
......
N....
",..
--
-'"
NN
......
--
"''''
-~
....00
--
....'"
0_
"'..
--
....'"
"'0
"'..
--
......
....
"'00
--
0'"
"'...
"''''
--
....'"
"'..
"''''
--
-'"
........
"'....
--
"'....
....'"
"''''
--
",,,",,,r.n0'0 NJIo')II"lNN eo.....
\oOClON~_ 'lDOr.n~N ""...0
0-0-00_ _NN,..,lI\ \D""
--- ----- --
o-.~""O\Q
""
..,
V'\DON\oO_
0-0-00_
---
'"
...
>-
\00""000-0
\Q\O...o...o"
0-0-0-0"00-
-----
,...CUONIO
. . . . .
\00",""0
_NN""""
-----
_N""..:!'''''
,...,.... " ",...,
0-00-0-0'0-
-----
......
........
"'....
--
"'....
....'"
"''''
--
00........
N....'"
...-....
_NN
-......
........
"'NoIl
_NN
_N'"
.......'"
"'N'"
_NN
.....'"
...._N
...N'"
_NN
~
::>
I
...
...
u
~
........'"
......'"
...N....
_NN
II>
'"
'"
!i
oil
S
u
z
..
..
II<
::>
..."'....
............
...-....
_NN
........'"
..........
...-....
_NN
...
...
..
II<
o
...
)(
'"
Cl
Z
...
.....-
....N..
...-'"
_NN
'"
u
...
II<
...
'"
'"
E
::>
oil
z
..
U
"'0_
--...
"'-....
_NN
"'..'"
. . ,
"'........
..0....
_NN
....'"
........-
..0....
_NN
"'...'"
"'-'"
........
_NN
"'''''''
"''''N
.."''''
__N
,,"'0
..........
"'''''''
---
""..o,,_N ,....
. . . .. .
_,...N\o(IO 0
,....IOO-CN M
NNN"''''' M
_tIl,...__
. . . . .
N"''''''_'-O
lO00o-_N
NNN........,
..0""",,...0 co
. . . ., .
_IO..o_"",M
10000'-_N\M
NNN"""")M
",,,,0,..._
. . . ..
_0-,..._\0
IOIOO"_N
NNN.".....
"'lNIoJ'NIO
. . . . .
O"IO\oOCU,""
,...ooo-_N
NNN""""
to_N\CO"
. . . . .
~O'oll\to""
"lOo-ON
NNN.......,
N ..""1'\.""
. . .. .
NO"""''''_
,...100'0oN
NNN..,..,
0\_\0""'"
. . . . .
....O'.'Hl\o,>
\00\0\0_
NNN""'"
""_0"_
. . ...
,.......N"''''''
"'10""0_
NNN...,.....
'" N
.
N 0
,., '"
,., '"
N""
'0
:!l",
,.,,,,
'" \D
.
~. ~
,., '"
'" I'
,
o \D
M ""
M '"
"'~
,
0""
M""
M'"
MN
, .
P'4""
,., ""
M",
... ~
,
'" '"
N ""
M",
""0 "'100\ co co
. .... .
"'\oOO\Nr.n '-0 Co;)
\010100_ N "':ti
NNN"''''' M t<';I
"'.._....,... N
. .. .. .
""..0,...0..,. co
'lO<<uoo- N
NNN"""" M
..o"'ION_ \0 co
.. . .. . .
_&1\..00,," \D co
1\010000- N C""'l
NNN"""" M c:"')
",..o\O_CI co
,
'"
N
M
0."''''''''''
V\tOtO'~_
NNNN""
_N,"t\,.", \0
to 10 10 to cO co
OloOloO"CI'Oo 0\
----- .....
-~"I' - J 7r7
~
;,<?
I'N
""""
"" +
"'~
'"
.
0\
""
'"
...
.....
...
,.,
P'4
II'l
M
M
,....
<0
'"
P'4
"'_N
N"'o
...-'"
_NN
""'N
. . .
...."'N
...N",
_NN
"'......
. . .
"''''..
...N'"
_NN
~
X
I
M
...
U
~
NO'"
............
"'N'"
_NN
II>
'"
'"
'"
'"
o
%
"'00
"''''N
"'N'"
_NN
...
...
u
...
'"
'"
...
u
Cl
z
...
oil
'"
'"
z
'"
i:5
...."'-
.......0
...-'"
_NN
-..'"
...."'-
...-'"
_NN
'"
C)
...
X
z
...
..
II<
::>
II<
..
...
)(
'"
Cl
Z
...
'"
u
...
'"
...
'"
'"
E
::>
<'l
z
C)
u
0"'....
"'........
...-'"
_NN
N..'"
, . .
_NN
...-'"
_NN
.......
....'"
........
_NN
-.......
, . .
.........
........
_NN
......0
",No
........
_NN
"''''..
on...",
.."'....
__N
""'0
..........
..."''''
---
~
;,<?
0_"'0-.10 T""-""" 0
. . . . .
"'_"^_"" M\O..;:t
,....0'0-0'_ Nr<\ +
NNN...,." MI"'"\.......
0\00-."'_ MD
"'000'0\00'
tOOOo-ON
(\,INN,...,,...,
,
II'lN
N""
,.,'"
"
""..oION_ M ,....
. . . . . .
"'_""""0' \0
tOO"O"oo~.N <t
NNN"'"I'1/M "',
O'100"'OM,,":
~Na:NC-;;a:i N
100000"oNN ..::r
NNN,.,,..,Mt"'I
o-....,...N,..... co..::r
. . . . . . .
N_-.o""",,\OO
ooo-.O"o_N .:::r
NNN,..,,..,Mtr\
\000,....._0' I.t\ 00
. . . . . .
CON...,lI"lOO M co
,...0-0-.0_ N t"'I
NNN"'I,..,M ,.....,
"""ON,..,OO CON
. . . . . . .
\0"",..,0'" M\O
r--o-Ooo_ N""'"
NNN"'I"" Mf"l"t
","00_""_ lnf"l"\
. . " .. "
_""N,..,..:r ~\O
r--Oooo.c_ NJ"f\
NNN"""" Mt"'I
,.....0___ ,.....r-
. . . . .
QQN""",Nr---.
,....0-0-0_ NJ"f\
NNNJo'1Jo'1Mf"l"t
_""No-N
N'<>
o~
N..,
,.,..,
0\101010_
...oaoO"o-_
NNNNf"")
U"'lN-.oO'tOO
",,,,
-:M
NM
,.,M
...0000,....0-
...oC'otOC7'oQ
NNNN,..,
ON_O_or:t,; N
.....0 .
V\ 0-0 0-. 0'0 N....-4
~~~~~ tv") ~
r--:~c:a:"": ~ ~
NO"IlO,....o 0 f"oo
...0110100-0 N N
NNNN'" M M
_N"""""'\O ,.....
00 0000 IOCIO co co
o-o-OoC7'oO" (T\ 0\
_____...-1 .....
\
<
-,
.._.._-~-----'_.
I
1,-
I
I~
o
I~
Vl
.....
I :
cr
w
I~
o
z
I:
c.:>
ct
0..
13
'"
I~
o
cr
I ~
o
I ~
w
.J
I ~
Vl
cr
I ~
ct
I :
...
ct
I ~
z
If-
.
I g
I
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX -- LOS ANGELES
**Commencing Rith Jan.1988 the CPI official reference base changed
from 1967 =100 to 1982/84 =100. For the convenience of users,
data Rill also continue to be made available on the 1967 base.
ALT. URBAN INDEX WAGE EARNERS INDEX
l.ll..6..1 '1982/84 l.ll..6..1 1982/84
1988 Jan. 351. 2 118.9 342.7 115.9
Feb. 353.7 119.7 344.7 116.6
Mar. 356.3 120.6 347.1 117.5
Apr. 357.7 121.1 348.6 118.0
May 360.4 122.0 351. 4 118.9
June 360.5 122.0 351. 2 118.9
July 360.9 122.1 351. 7 119.0
Aug. 362.3 122.6 353.2 119.5
Sept. 364.4 123.4 355.5 120.3
Oct. 366.4 124.0 357.6 121.0
Nov. 366.5 124.1 357.4 120.9
Dec. 367.1 124.2 357.9 121.1
Yearly Average +4.8% +4.7%
1989 Jan. 368.2 124.6 358.9 121. 4
Feb. 370.7 125.5 361.4 122.3
Mar. 372.8 126.2 363.2 122.9
Apr. 375.8 127.2 366.4 124.0
May 378.9 128.3 369.5 125.0
June 380.1 128.7 370.4 125.3
July 381. 2 129.0 371.4 125.7
Aug. 380.9 128.9 371.0 125.5
Sept. 384.3 130.1 373.8 126.5
Oct. 384.2 130.0 373.8 126.5
Nov. ~4.1 130.0 373.5 126.4
Dec. :>.tl~ 130.6 375.3 127.0
+5.2% +4.9%
1990 Jan. 390.3 132.1 379.7 128.5
FEB. 394.8 133.6 383.6 129.8
+6.5% +6.1%
A recorded message providing the latest San Diego, Los Angeles
and U.S. CPI information is available by calling (619) 557-6538
or (213) 252-752)l<?J" ;;11_
Further information about national and city CPI averages is
available from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics at the
following number: (213) 252-7521 (9-11:30 A.M., 1:30-4 P.M.).
rev. 3/90
-11-
)~ -/~
I
I "
~...
I
:J...
I ~'~:~{
'.~ ~ .'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RC~ BY:~ILLDAN SAN DIEGO
. . ~,t~~~ :~.:.\ .;. . .~" '" . "~
, ,,~, :.:',:" :"~.,.' . " fl':.::'" .
! ~~t.., .....~ . . 'I. .'t",
i'~.::';~;'~" "\'~:" : '.':';:~!l(',' "':. :,',:
..'.t._'1 27 1092' r .
"~~~"""~~"Z'~ "\'
$;.~dr. '.}d.Ji~O.J~ll~S'
{A:~~?~,:"7:'~' ~~ ~';$". "~'::.: .\:.~;"~;:>:.~\:.
.' ~:: . . ",
Q-11-92
16:43
425
6164- ~ILLDAN SAN DIEGO;.'6
,~~T~! ~
:\"':::' .".. ".:.:?~~/\.:' ....,,:..
." ,':-'," ",- .;.
:-'f,
'. ..' ,.'
"
"."" .'
;..;
,>'
" .~.
.:.~ :: ",
..(.,
.'..
"
",-
RE:
ADJUSTMENT IN CORPORATION YARD LNro VALUE BASaD ON <:PI
. ....... 't",:...." ~h~;:, ::~~.
. .;/ ~, "; 1\(?::~',':
..CPlas of'.~'r"'. '..
::,.':.,"_'. '.:':' ~. . -. :~~~4i~};'~~~"',,'
. or :;.~... '!f,'~9,~~.';/ "~ i . ,,-
. .:~,~ :.,,~~"':'\::':':.. .," .
j,:
;".,: j:'. ";.~;' ~ > .
,i,.
, ,.'.
!,~~I,Ju.;;'~:;"r~ .', ~..~'~. ".. ~J.~.,'.
, '~"':!:<l~~'~"'!"'''II"'!.i.,~' "l~,;~. ,); ,i}
;', ' . \"" '"" t "..: \i.:' .~.~~,
:". ..:....~.J.L..
.7,'1{~ :.:'.1;:..:
..92.21.
~:' ,
':;~n:_>~"J
(~~+.
~'..
~. , I
'.,'
,".
',.r:
429.8
I"..,;;:.
" .
r'.
IN:reuein ~ -(429.8.92.2) ..
.' , '. ;'.' -. .,,~ \.. ~. ,
337.6/92.2
.. 3.662
. , . ~ \,
'. .:: ~. ..:~:~<; t'~,?,..
, ".'~',;.
.....,
Inaease in vai\lll .. purchase price + wrease in CPI -
~1.2~,09.0 ~ 3.~2 .~ $168,685
Present value 9' parcel .. 0fiSinal price + value 1Daease ..
$128,400 + $468,685 .. $596,685
. ~ .' . " ,..'~ .. ~ .
;-"~~~i\i!J;;fJr~1;;::'\~."',:\;.. ";,,. .... /\'~I"';:i'.L:""
.~ .'.. ... '" ....,,';-..:..,.'.,...~...:.:.....~..:~~'...:,~..:):..:.:~..f>
-..',- ", ~'~Ji~.':' ':~;"~"~~"~l\L')". .. . ~ ~ U/"'.;,,~ ','fd;:: ...~;.;::,'>:; f.'~:
:':;.:~;<;,;,;:!':'.;::~';:~):;;~~;}:;~';;;;.;~., ; .;, .... '!.,.' :-?~.~;',',': : ,,;:~';: .,'::~~'" ". .... ,"'~,~;;~;:;:"
, :~:::';tS:/;i;;~;k~'~J.~~,h;7t,~:: ';,!l,~~~~. '~!\'!:i.:~'.;~:,:~;!;;;~;~J~t_!t~}ii~,::~:~ ",.,1 ,:, '\..1": t'; .r. :;d i~::",
..:~!m~;~I~~:~,i~" .~~:,:,';\.",. ~"':';:"."::1~:' ""::'..,,.. "".'~Y(:'\ "
. ,. - <..- . '-:".,,: 'r l:al,t., ~~~ntnf<..';:/ .... '..... - ,;',l.......t. \ I, t -;~.i"..~.w.i'\.~.lt.. tl'i'~, \~~~"I.~"p';~~::\... "n~;;.~~..u...l:'.>'::,. l~~.}\ \~.~~,;.~;\y.
. ~x;:..\:r'ti~~""~...:..q..:'~.:....'~'.~'i,.~..~~);1.:.,..' .'. ,'. ",. "'.' .."..<t..)..... .:..~,..,_.... . ,'.. 'I"~
...Z'...._."t..~....-'.~''''\,..~.J~....,.n... ...lJ> .....:.. ;'::'...,~ :r'~"""':"'lf~:':\~' ::::,,'{'.' f:I,~I'r ~,..., . ~;'.'1'-tl ." ""~~"':". .'....1
., :.t';~):::~~~:,:~:~'''';~'!;;J:I:~~;:~ .t~t;'.';..~ '".. ".", t.;; :.'. . v ~~,::: ~::;;.\. ::~:.::~r.,';~:,,~ .',:,\'1:'.1.~':"~~:';::'".'~;~~J . '.' :).'h.....:, <~..'
;,.:;:~~.i~f;i~i{t11~F:.; .' '.';1": '.' +~
....~
C'.',
I Hbrorlcl1 cpr /l8Ilm art not available (or the s.n DIleo rqion. ,. t\lch, cIau if but" 011 IA
CPl8pres. 'or collSimnQ'. updated CPI tiJ',UU 11'0 u.. LA clara.
','
.~. ...... .'~ '. .
::~fff1?l;f<i~jY~~i?,~I;: ·
..
"
::.:,.'
':,\".
. ~,,,
.-,:. ,.'
. '- ~')-,
. .~)~...\~ :."
'. '.'
.,
)6 - )~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.4 LmRARIEs
Existinl!: Condition
Threshold and Service Standard
The Chula Vista Public Library Master Plan dated March 13, 1987, recommends .8
gross square feet (GSp) per capita of furnished library as a standard. However, on
April 30, 1987, the City Council approved a range of .5 to .7 GSF. The City's
Growth Management Program stipulates that the threshold standard for library space
is a population ratio of 500 square feet (gross) of library per 1,000 population (.5
GSF per capita). The Growth Management Program goes on to establish a service
standard of 600 square feet per 1,000 population (.6 GSF per capita). The proposed
library facilities are therefore designed to achieve an average of .6 square feet per
capita at buildout.
Needed Improvements
Based on a population of 204,690 at buildout and a service standard of .6 square feet
per capita, the citywide need for library facilities is 122,814 square feet. This total
square footage is allocated among the following library facilities:
Main Library: 55,000 Square Feet
Montgomery/Otay: 37.032 Square Feet
Subtotal 92,032 Square Feet
Sweetwater-Bonita!
Eastern Territories: 30.782 Square Feet
Total 122,814 Square Feet
Status of Needed Improvements
1. Montgomery/Otay Library
The Montgomery/Otay Library is currently in the design stage.
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
40
I~ - ) CO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. Eastern Territories Library
An experimental joint City/School District library for the Eastern Territories
will begin operation at EastLake High School in Calendar Year 1993. If
successful, this venture would benefit both high school students and the public
by providing a single facility with both school and City amenities to serve a
greater clientele.
Method of ADDortioninl! Costs
1. Pre-Existinl! City Deficiencv
Using the baseline January, 1986 population of 116,295 (following the
Montgomery annexation) and the threshold minimum of .5 square feet per
capita, a minimum of 58,148 square feet (116,295 X .5) was required in 1986.
The pre-existing library capacity was 57,329, calculated as follows:
Main:
Castle Park:
Woodlawn:
Total
55,000 square feet
1,720 square feet
609 square feet
57,329 square feet
Thus, in 1986 the City was 819 square feet below the minimum threshold level
(58,148 - 57,329). Upon construction of the Montgomery/Otay library, it is
anticipated that the Castle Park and Woodlawn branches will be closed. This
closure would increase the pre-existing City deficiency to 3,148 square feet
(819 + 1,720 + 609 = 3,148). As such, the frrst 3,148 square feet for the
Montgomery/Otay facility will be funded at a 100% City share to make up for
the pre-existing deficiency.
2. DIF Share
Total Reauirement.
In order to meet the threshold minimum of .5 square feet per capita, the
required library capacity to be financed through the Public Facilities DIF on a
city wide basis is 44,197 square feet, calculated as follows:
Population Increase =
(204,690 - 116,295)
88,395
Threshold square footage = X .5
44,197 square feet
1993 Public Facilities D1F Update
City 01 Chu/a Vista
41
)~ - )11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Allocation.
There are two major reasons why new development's share of the cost of
library facilities should be considered on a city-wide basis regardless of a
library's location. First, each EOU is buying a library svstem that consists of
many interdependent services, with each facility designed and administered to
function as a part of the larger system of libraries. Secondly, the adopted
service standard of .6 GSF per capita is met on a city-wide not area-specific
basis. As such, the DIF share of new library facilities is broken down as
follows:
Sweetwater-Bonita!
Eastern Territories:
30,782 square feetl
Montgomery/Otay
13.415 square feef
Total
44,197 square feet
3. Mont2omerv/Otav Librarv
The City will meet its pre-existing deficiency with the first 3,148 square feet
of the Montgomery/Otay Library. An additional 13,415 square feet of the
facility is allocated as part of the overall capacity to be financed by new
development. The remaining 20,469 square feet required for the facility
(37,032 - 3,148 - 13,415 = 20,469) will be financed by the City through the
use of State of California grant funds and other, non-general fund sources.
4. Eastern Territories Library
The square footage for the Sweetwater-Bonita/Eastern Territories includes
10,000-11,000 square feet as part of the joint City-School District library in
EastLake I. If after the joint experiment it is determined that a joint facility is
not cost effective, funds will be added to the OIF to construct a separate
EastLake facility in accordance with the needs expressed in the existing or
future Library Master Plan.
To meet the citywide goal of .6 square feet. per capita at buildout. 30.782 IqtWC fed. of library capacity is requited for the Sweetwater.
Bonila/Eastem Territories e.g. 122.814 sq ft (total buUdoutsquare footage) - ~S.OOOsq ft (Main Libnry} - 37.032 (MooIgomerylOtay)= 30,782
sq ft remaining.
OIF requirement... 44,197 total square feet. 44.197. 30,782 (Sweetwater.B~tem Territories libraries) = 13.41S remaining
square feet.
2
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
42
!@ - JfJ..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5. Summary
At buildout, the planned library capacity will be 122,814 square feet, allocated
as follows:
City Share DIF Share Total
Facility Square Feet Square Feet Square Feet
Main Library 55, {)()() 55, {)()()
Sweetwater-Bonita! 30,782 30,782
Eastern Terr.
Montgornery/Otay 23.6171 13.415 37 .032
Total 78,617 44,197 122,814
1 Ioctudes 3,148 pre-existing deficteocy plus 20.469 supplemental square feet
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chala Vista
43
)J, - Jf3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO.4
SWEETWATER-BoNITAlEASTERN TERRITORffiS LIBRARIES
1991 1992
Description Cost Estimate Cost Estimate
1 Land Acquisition $ 952,000 $ 718,7401
2 Design 0 351,173
3 Construction, Furniture 8,593,000 4,756,315
4 Books 800,000 2,792,498
5 Project Staff Services 0 144,817
TOTAL $ 10,376,600 $ 8,763,543
PROJECT No. \I (CONT'D)
MONTGOMERY/OTAY LmRARY
1991 1992
Description Cost Estimate Cost Estimate
1 Project Master Plan . $ 0 $ 129,480
2 Land Acquisition (6.1 acres) 0 2,285,000
3 Design 0 650,320
4 Construction, Furniture 3,656,000 8,807,990
5 Books 214,200 3,319,440
6 Project Staff Services 0 268,180
SUBToTAL 3,870,200 15,460,410
7 Less City Share (63.8%)2 0 9,863,742
TOTAL $ 3,870,200 $ 5,596,668
City credit for providing 3.3 acres of City Community Partr: land for coastructloo of a Ubnry site in Sweetwater.Booita. based OD CUI'I'alt PAD
fee of $217,800/acre.
2
DIF share of cost = 23.617 sq ft/37,032 sq ft = 63.8%
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
44
/; -J'1t.[
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT No.4 (CONT'D)
AUTOMATED LIBRARY SYSTEM
1991 1992
Description Cost Estimate Cost F.:stimate
1 System $ 352,956 $ 595,000
2 Financial Charge 0 126,733
3 Project Staff Services 0 51,732
SUBToTAL 352,956 773,465
4 Less City Share (62.3%) 0 481,869
TOTAL $ 352,956 $ 291,596
PROJECT NO.4 (CONT'D)
LIBRARY SYSTEM COST SUMMARY
1992
Description Cost Estimate
1 Sweetwater-Bonita/Eastern Ter- $ 8,763,543
ritories Library
2 Montgomery/Otay Library 15,460,410
3 Automated Library System 773,465
4 Library Master Plan 30,900
Subtotal 25,028,318
5 Less City Share (10,345,611)'
6 Less DIP fees collected plus (1,141,466)
interest
TOTAL $ 13,541,241
USE $ 13,541,200
1 Less City share: $9,863.742 (or MoolgomeryJOtay Ubrary plus $481,869 for Library AutomItion System.
1993 Public Facilities DlF Update
City of Chuta Vista
45
IJ -)q~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
DOCUMENTATION
Libraries
1. DlF Fund Status - As of June 30, 1992
2. Memos to Dawn Herring dated April 8, April 14, and January 21, 1992 re: Update
of Library Projects.
3. Letter dated December 19, 1989 from Rosemary Lane, Library Director.
4. Attachment "A", Council Conference Agenda Statement.
5. Attachment "B", Growth Management Oversight Committee.
6. Attachment "C", CIP Project Estimate.
7. Replacement of Automation System (Memo 3-16-90)
8. Letter to Willdan Associates dated 3-16-90 Re: Master Plan Fee
Note: The following documentation material is .!!21 paginated.
1993 Public Facilities DlF Update
City of Chula Vista
46
)IP - )r~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-------
Rev BY:WILLDAN SAN DIEGO
,- 7-93 :11 :'OAM
D.
LIBRARY DIF FUND-AS OF 6/30/92
A.
DIF Revenues received to date,
B.
DIF Investment earnings to date,
Total Revenues
C.
Commitments to date:
D..U:
Comoleted
Automation systom.
OnaoiU9
Montgomery Library:
Staff servia..,,;
subtotal,
TOTAL!
gj,.ty
COlnJ:lloted
Automation ayetem.
Onaoina
Montgomery Library:
TOTAL I
425 6164"
WILLOAN ~AN Ul~~Ui' ij
1-06-93
$ 1,016,366
$
12!l.oao
$ 1,141,466
$ 291,596:
$ !l,596,668
7.175
$ !l,603,843
$ 5,895,439
$
481,869
$ 9,863,142
$10,345,611
Currontly planned expenditures:
Design/Construction or Montgomery library
Intorim library at East1ake Hiqh SchOOl
3C1tY f'nanCed OlF ,hare, which will be ~id back by t~. DIF over t;~e_
/b
)17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
Rev BY:WILLDAN SAN CIEGO
4-15-82 10:28
425 5'B4~ WILLDAN SAN DIEGO:' 2
DATE:
April 14, 199:2
Dawn Herring, Budge~ Manager
d6
TO:
FROM: David Palmer, Assie~an~ Library Director
SUBJECT: 1992 public Facili~y DIP Update
one more question has come up over the DIF Vpda~e. Why i8 the 1~96
population of 116,295 used instead of a more up-to-date figure?
For instance, using the Pebruary population estimate of 140,650 x
.6 equals 54,390 square feet. This results in a ourrent defioienoy
ot 27,061 square feet instead of the oited defioienoy of 12,448.
I realize that Which ever population figure is used, the new South
cnula vista Library will bring the library eystem into oonformanoe
with tne Master Plan goals tor the immediate future.
16 - JW
Rev B~:WILLDAN SAN D:eGO
4-15-92 10:30
425 6'B4~ WILLDAN SAN DIEGO;' 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
,ff.''''.+~ ..
DA.TE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBjECT: 199~ public Facili~y DIF Update
April B, 1992
Dawn Herring. sudget Manager
David palmer, Assistant Library
Director~
I have reviewed ~be Library portion of the 1992 Public Pacility DIF
upda~e and have noted the following:
1.
The 20,000 square feet of Supplemental Facilities found
in the existing doo~ment haa been eliminated from the
1992 version. However, the entire 35,000 square feet of
new library in South Chula viata is now refooted and I
am assuming that this increase now includes ~he
supplemental square footage. Also, ehould the document
reflec~ the foct tha~ DIF will only pay 36.8% of the
Mont9om.ry/O~ay Library?
I found one error in the figures. On page 39, Number 4,
the grant amount should read $6,747,529.
Due to my miaunderat:cmdinq, I led the ooneultant to
believe that the Library 5ystem Bquipmen~ seo~ion was no
lonqe. neceS1Sary. That is not the eaee. We need ~o
carry thi5 item forward because of the need to use DIP
to pay the dlllbt eervice on t.he Inlex/HP eyatem. The
latest CIP Detail shee~ is at~aehed to this memo.
2.
3.
Please let me know if I can be of any further aosistance.
Ih - 19i
I .
.-' .~ .
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
Rev B~:WILLDAN SAN DIE~O ; 4-15-82 ; 10:31
f
..
..
~
...
,
..
~
~
N
...
.1 u ~ ~ 11.
- 1-''10''
..~~~ ~.
.. --'IG' ::r
. !." ..
;. nt";' 'i...
.. .....
o ..... 1-
.. ,,;;'.1 .
~ :.rap: ;.~
a ! . It... fo!-
r ~;~i ja
f r .~f' I~'!i
. 40 It I
.." -
i c;.i it
fit _.... eo'1 :;...
:. =::!'~ ;.~
i f';.l 'f
I .....: l
!.:J: 1-.
f if:;f :
- .:=: 1--. "I
I r -
I :-=: :I
'" rt, l
.... ~"l 1
! 1 ~ If' ..
f ;.~.i "lit
.....c a.. "'1..
, -'0
!l. -I;ll"l J."
-..... ..
-;e.. r
r ~:'j; ~
~ tE..~ lI'
:; f'iI'"i ii:' ~
='-Ilflt ·
_. rt. a ;
. ~..:. r-
~ =-ar1 c
::I i:::l f
) i~" i
:uf i
425 C154" WILLDAN SAN DIE~O;' 4
!' ~ R P =
o......c
~ lo!
I i tl
!! ,,="
l'i ~ ~
...
! i
:;;
...
.
!
"
It
<
~ ~
..
~ I
, ~;;;
#- 0 ~... Ill'
IJI~
H~!
.
[~ :is
; ~ ~~~
=1
.
~ r;;;
.....Ill
iili!l18
.
.
.. II p. n
..
Hi~-~ H II
.!) + I
~r~ii Hil
. I
C ";;~ [ C ~ ;
; ~~I G;~
. .
H~"~ H i
. +
rr""" rri
+
16 - Job
Is;
:; I ..
.. ,
... ..
...
..
..
l
,.
..
~
U,
:;1;;:
. ..
i~
i.J
..
+1 ;
i =
..
..
..
.
Iii ;
.....
1=
!li~
I~I
.. !!'
..
..
,.
;"
..
..
....
0"
c.
...
.
.."
..
.
"',.
".
"e
.
..
o.
II
."'
...
.
:\,:8
f~'"
i~'"
i ~
I S.
v,'
(l.
~
~
go=;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FROM:
January 21, 1992
Dawn Herring, Budget Officer
David Palmer, Assistant Library
if#
\ v
Director -
DATE:
TO:
SUBJECT: Update of Library Public Facilities Development Impact
Fee Projects
Below are 1992 cost estimates for the three Library Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee Projects. As requested,
the costs to purchase and staff time necessary to process the
foundation book collections have been included. The volume count
represents total shelf capacity. However, each building will
ultimately be able to absorb one third more volumes, due to the
fact that libraries normally find that one-third of their
collections are check-out any any given moment. The final third
portion of the collection will be acquired over a period of time
through the operating budget.
MOHTGOMERY/OTAY. 35,000 square feet. This project is only
partially funded through Development Impact Fees. The figures
below represent total costs as outlined in the FY 1993 CIP.
Land Acquisition (6.1 acres) and
relocation costs
$ 129,480
$ 2,285,000
Master Planning
Construction (including site
development, architecture,
engineering, and interior
design fees, construction
costs, project management
fees, contingency, etc.)
$ 7,768,810
Equipment and Furnishings
Books (128,000 volumes plus
staff time to select,
order, catalog and
process collection)
Staff Administration
$ 1,917,210
$ 3,319,450
$
40,440
TOTAL $15,460,390
lie - ~D J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Library public Facilities
Development Impact Fee Update
January 21, 1991
Page 2
SWEETWATER/BONITA. 29,000 square feet. This project is 100%
funded through Development Impact Fees. Figures below represent
total costs as outlined in the FY 1993 CIP.
Master Planning
Land Acquisition (5.2 acres)
Construction (including site
development, architecture,
engineering, and interior
design fees, construction
costs, project management
fees, contingency, etc.)
Equipment and Furnishings
Books (99,000 volumes plus
staff time to select,
order, catalog and
process cOllection)
staff Administration
$ 19,500"""'-
$ 0
$ 6,612,910 '"
$ 1,783,230 .,/
$ 2,650,000 .....
$
87,800
TOTAL
$11,153,440
)6 - Jt;J.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Library Public Facilities
Development Impact Fee Update
January 21, 1992
Page 3
EASTERN TERRITORIES. 17,000 square feet.
funded through Development Impact Fees.
current cost estimates for this project.
included in the FY 1993 CIP.
Master planning
Land Acquisitions (1-3 acres)
Construction (including site
development, architecture,
engineering, and interior
design fees, construction
costs, project management
fees, contingency, etc)
Equipment and Furnishings
Books (58,000 volumes plus
staff time to select,
order, catalog and
process collection)
staff Administration
TOTAL
)~ -JQ3
This project is 100%
The figures below are
This project is not
$ 11,400 V-
o
$ 4,211,370 r
$ 960,000./
$ 1,525,000 v'
$ 51,000
$ 6,758,770
I
c "'I -.. "' " ... ~ - - - ""oO""
." U d - - ~ - - . j--
.... . -.. ... Z - oO'"
I -'--'t ..... ... = .. ...
.. -..:> . - ., .. c:....
co .. .n ... ..- ... .. .... .. ~.. ~
.. - .,.,..-- .. - .. - .. .... " ... ."
.. ::::o'~ - .... Z . .. 0 .. . ., .. .. ..
~ ... . -. ~ .. :> :> .. &.-3 - ..
.... .. -.:> .. . ! .. .. .. ~
- .. ... ...... -. .... .. ., .. .. . ."
I 00 -<.; ~ &... ~ . ., :> . ., .. ...
~ ... Z - c n . .. ~
- .... On ." .. n ... .. .. ..
.... 00 10..0 rt n . l"l ~ .. C 0 ..
.. co C =r-' .... .. .. .. t- -. ., ~
.. ~.~~ .... .. .. .. ~.. ..
.... .. 0" .. .. .. -. ! ..
00 ... "WI;;' a. 0 '"' ..w; ~ . :!. .. ... .
N ... .. ... ... -
I - igj I .:> .. .. .. 0 .
II ,. il. .. :> :>
N .. ., ., :!. ......
N . 0 ::-&. . i....
-..;: - ::. oil c ,
... io.. .. ., -
.. on ! "~N
.. .,- n . ! c., ..
. .. ..
roD ...
I .. ...
...... .. ..
- ! ., I I I ~;. .. ~~ .,...
:>"'" Ii ...
.... ! .. .. .. .,
.. ( ioO~ - ~...'" .. .
~ 0 co'" .... .,
I "'.. :> :> _ ..... ..VI .. ...
.. .......:> ..
..00 .. 0 -:. ..... ....
.. "'- ... ....00
.. 00." . .. ...... .. ~
.. . c
::i. ~ . . .. '"
N ..
00 n .00 ..
I "'..'"' . c
olt .. .. . ..
hS. . .. ~ i i .... .. .... ~ ..
.. .. ..." . ~
0 0 "'." .,
'! It ... .. .... ...
.. ... N C:..
'" ." rj ;; .. .. .. "'oO
I .. '"' .. ........
.. ., . ... . >>OC_-4 ....
~ .. ,..:lIllI:-'" ..
.. 0 n_ .. .......
.. :> t.... ... .. .. - '"
.. :> .... .... ..
It -ltoO ... .... ..
., ... .. ..
. .. .
I :: -...... ., ., + + ..
... .
a.~~ ., Cc
-ii' . .. :< .. .. .. .. .. .....
.
:>.. .. - ......
..... .. 0
0 It n ..
I :~~ ., . r .. .. tIlt~.....wt i ~ '"'
.... .. .. Zc
.. ." It ..
0000" - <>. ..
~o-It . .. ...
" . ..~
00...... .. ..
..... 00_.
. "'0 .. .. "'c
I . .
. :> n '"' ...
n It ..
"""'- .. n ~ C..
,. + + ."
! 0 .. 0 ."
"1" It ., .. ..
<>. i .. ..
.. n '"
:>. '"' ." ~~
I ., ..
1 ~.a. . .. r .. r ........... i
,.
~g!:. :!. 0 . ..
..
cglt - ... 0
.. .. "
.. . .. ..
I go.. .. ..
"'0 .. .. ..
..
.. ~
c:
+ + ..
.. ."..-
.. ""z r-
~ ~ I i. · .... i " 0"'-
I ..~..
... ","-
Ii .......
..g:~ .......
..
.. .. ......
~......
.. .. .. a.. a
I .. .. ~ ..
.. .. .. "
.. c:
+ + .. ...
..
~ ~ ~ i. · .... i
o~c. ..... 00
I 0--
.........
! ., 00
o~...,. ....
.,....
N .. : .,... 00
.. .. .. ... ...
......
...
I + + .
.. i
I ~ I i. .... i
00~"
I ,.......
I NN
~ ~ ....'0
......
.. 0....
I I~ - JtJV
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c
...
..
...
..
...
...
~
...
N
......
....
......
....
......
......
....
~
..
~
-
...
...
o
...
...
N
-
!
"
..
,..
.
o
"
~
I..
NNO"
<GoO"'"
=:~-:i
....mo...
":t
.......
.... ..
..... .,
..... ..
. . 0
-.."
0" "
OC~
..
o
"
.....
........
00..
...-.,
. . ..
.....0
00"
00"
..
.
..
-
......1
0""
i...r
.Nl!'
.....-
i~~'
I..
,..0_
".
S~I
-.,
-Ii.
...."
~-t
_0_
!"~
-..
.. -
.ll !
c:.
-"I:
. "'.
;;'1.
0_"
"d
.. -
0....
loi
;-11-
a"
;i...
..
~--o
"-
... ...
.........
':o..c~
..
. ;So
".....
.......
...-
II.~
"&.-
!r;
.. ,..
i"~
-..8:;-
"-...
"'ft~...
":to
;l! IT
"'-"
"'''"
=-':!
..
.....
::::t
:ll_
. "
.
..-0-
::;;;:~i
="1 ;"'1-
o. -. ~
"....
-a.g.
".,,,
.- >>0-
oj. c:
&...i'l! .
-.
:.0--'"
~I:;:_~
....-
"'ii" ·
i., -"
.;::g~
.f>>o"'~i
..i!:....
ili!ii
~:~;;i-
-0 n"C
:""'0
..,,.:::IIn'"
:::II:r~O.
__ c:
..~~.
:" ... ="
."'- #
00 .
.... .....:::11...
.. .....
~n.o
_." ,," 0
IT. D.......
;: :It:!....
~;!.:
o
c:':<"''''
....,,-
n -=:.~ !f
0"'0_.
:::II :::lIe..,
..- "'''C
..~.-.
~'-l!:
... .~
...;~Ctt
i":::';''''
_ 0...
r-_....~_
-lTi .
0'., :.::J
"'. :I"
~-<"G.
... . "
. I i~~
. IT,,
..,..
~i!: :t
..,'"
.,0 ~
0.< "'V
,._.....,
0.:::J--
a.-
=,......
. :r... 0
.....0..
I
'"
..
.
a
"
.
&.
...
-
..
~
.
..
-
..
..
..
o
..
~
-
..
"
o
"
.
..
.,
Ii
..
-
o
"
o
.
I
.
...
..
o
o
o
..
...
.
I
...
..
IT
.,
.
.,
...
+
-
o
"
.
..
:t
H
.
..
..
..
,..
.
&.
+
o
.,
.
"
a
..
H
+
H
+
H
+
H
en'" C'I ell
a 0 >>...
en .. "" ~ n
." CD ,.. . ~
'" .. ~ ."
.. = 8
..
~........
!:"!:"~
N'O....-
01..........-
~ .._ ..fa ...
0_0\11
00100
0000
..........
N
~~~:::
..\II......... .......
0....0""
0....00,
0000
.......
N
"'0
o ..
....
:"''Co
.....
o 0
........
- ...
"'N
....
0_
......
....
00
........
-
.
;~
-...
.:...
....
o 0
....-..
........
...
-
.
~
.
..
-
.
II
i
..
:Cc-:-
.
..
o
..
~
-
..
.. .. '"
.. 0 ..
i i ..
., .. a
. ., "
-Ii
~ ..
t-
-!
:!.
.
..
.,
.
..
o
"
- ...
. .,
&.-3
.
~ .,
n .
... ..
c: 0
- .,
~. -<
~:!
o .
" !
"
a
I
i........
-
_ N
. "
OO....OOON-
_....01_
0-....""....
o.:"'ov.
....0-00
00000
.
U"
......
N
.. N _
0"-
..OJ :" !"'
...0"
"'00
000
+
I
~;..
.. -
0"'0
..-..
"-0
_ N
000
+
~
~:......
.....
......
""~:'4
....
.. ...
000
+
~
t........
!"
N
0_
-....
;;l~~
00
+
~ fi
......
+
Hi
......
I~ - rflt6
....
I
..
..
..
.
~~
~.
.....
"'...
....
co
.. .....
""0
~e-""
JDJD~~
....-
..-
"0
....
..
i
i
i
i
i
......
i~;
em'.
....0
- .
.. ..
..
...
-
~
.
~
..
m
~
..-
0".
"I: .
.. -
a~N
I:: '"
.,
...!:
IT
.,
.
.,
...
..
o
"
..
a
I
.,
...
...
..
o
c:
..
,..
..
,..
c:
.-
e
.
..
.
~
'"
'"
..
o
..
~
-
~
...
...
..
!i
..
~
..
i
..
..
..
l!
..
..
'"
..."'-
.....
0"'-
~~..
....-
.....~
...-
..
......
~....
...::z:
~ ..
.. '"
.. c
.. -
.. ..
...
lil
..-...
O-N
. IT'''
i ~ ~
.,...
.,... ...
... ...
-
.
i
.
..
..
...
..
..
-
..
.
...
..
..
0"
eo
.....
.
..
..
..
.
c
..
-
..~
...
..e
0..
II..
:~
.
-
'"
..
..
..
-
I ;JItQ.)HH1Q)Ul >"I ~ - - - n..n
.C .p.Ck:lO"C'< ".
.... c I c < - - . in
-n ..,'" ... "" 1Il III . t:l'" '"' " . - . -...
'" . "'::1 ....... ...'"' t'"' 0 . ....
I _N o " M 0 (tI '"' ... "">"1 '" - cm..
'" 0..... :r"C 51 ... ... ~ > " ~"fI
_N NO _ rtl t'1.. ... ft c .. . .. n :.:= .. ..
-... " ... .. !l
,. """ ... . 0 8 ... 5 " " ..
=\0==1-,"0 .. - .. .. ..... ...
.....NCt"t!Z1"1 ~ .. 0 .. .. " '" ...
..., I " ..... t""I 0 .. .. .. ... . , .... 0: ....
I n .. ... C .
e: " \OOOt'l:ll,.,&. .. 10 r> III " .. ..
...."" 1,.0,) e ::s ::< RI 0 .. . . .. " ... .
...."". ~ tf).. n .. .. - ! ... " III .
... n .... . - 0 "..... ..
" o " ....,,,. .... 0 ,. n 1Il 10
.... .. .. =. .
"" """" 0 0 " .... III 0 ..
I ":l ..."" " ... 1Il 0 - .. ....,
... ...... 0 .. ....
- ..
0 " 0 1Il .... ".... ~, . .. 0: t'"'>t'"'
"" ....>:'< "'Illlll .... .. .. ...e:",
... .......,.(I.Iftl Ill"" .. ... a'...._
to'- 0 e " " .... 0 III ...ON
==,=ftl"C .. ,. ~~N
I " tI) f"t 51 P1 ...n
... III . 0 " III ") .. .. .. .. .. .. r~ .. .. .. .. .. ~I '<....
o ... .... ...... 1Il I III
:t l'O '< CD ........ .., NN N a- w'"
1Il .0 ;:f n .. ". N N_'" "'- NO a-
e:.... .... ....Ill -.:. - _.., a- "'''' ON "'t'"'
...........~(tI .... . . . . . ...
I o ... .., ... III t'"' ..... "'''' '" a-O Oa- ...,a'
... III . .... " "'... W Wa- W 00 OW ... n
"'00 a' W _W"" 00 OW "'..
.... 0....::1 .. ... ...... >>
::t'$l)NQ.) " .. :; . . ...'< ..
III " .... "'... i'.~ . III
"'0: - '< Ill'"
I "" ... "'''''... ....'<
... ........ I'D \0 Ul Ul ~ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... . 1Il ...
0 "..... a'_ C ...... .... .
..... .. .... I a'0 - - - "'... III
.. 1Il """a' ~ "" _'" W "" "'- N..... .... 51 ,.
n .. .... 1Il N....Cf.I ., '" 00'" '" "'''' 0_ .oCC~-4
.... '" ... .. " 0 ::: . . . . . . . n..o -
I '" .... ... a' "" .... W W_ '" W a-O 0..... .c-... "n
0: ... .... < III .. W -"" W W 00 OW lIIlIJllI:.>>
..... " ... n ........ "" 00 "" "" 00 0"" ..-....
10-
.... H- a' n .. .. III "0 ..
...
.... 0 .. .. e: .. .. " ..
" 1Il 1Il " .. ..
I ... III " H1 (tI (I) c: + + 0
Ii < 0 ......... <0
" " 1-h"C 0 -
... e: e: 51 C .. .. .. .. .. ., .. .. .. "" 10",
I-' M :I I'i $I) ""'\ "n
=::Tc..nrt ::> /
C"'RlOO::r..... '"
I ;1. .... " 0 I~ .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. i t"" ..
.."" 0: 1Il " "c
... .. .. - - 0
.... 0 ... "'1Il \.,\ "'- N ... ... - ..
,.
0..... .. '< N'" '" 0 0 .. ".
;:t. 0: III 0 1Il . . 0 . ..>
- " n 1Il < ... a-_ '" '" '" .. :<
I '"" ~ .......... III .. \- "'... ..... "" "" .
"" '" ... ... 51 w'" .., 0 0 ....
WCll ....... . :\.. 0..
.b~ ... " .... " + + ...
". n t'"' ... ..
:-03 .. ...,,"" '" .. ...
.. < '" ..... 0 :.
...
I c: '" = I>> 1-( N ..
" ~ '" Ul .....1-'... I~ .. .. .. .. .. n ....... .. i
1Il a' .. .... 0 - . ..
t. ... CD = Q.. t: "'''' W ... ..
1Il a' " w_ '" W i .
". ; 1Il ,.,.....000 .
0 ...., '" "."'...., "'''' 0 0 .. '"
I 0: 0 ... ... " "'N 0 "" .. ---
JI ..
" ... < 1Il ... ....,"" "" '" 0 '" 10 \...oj
... 0 ..."" D .
" ..., n,< < ... . c
+ +
". 0< '" '" n '" 0 .. ...0_
0 " 0 < 10 "10" ,.
< _nl'1<'<RI I~ .. .. .. .. .. I~ ........ .. i 0 0"'-
I .. ""0 .. '" '" - .....
~ 10"-
""lIl a'..... "'... W W 0 n...
N"''< ... ... N"" '" "" .. .."....
I ... 1Il " . . . 10
\0 o....::r . w... 0 .., i!....
..n
l"..).......J:'-I'D ::1 _'" 0 '" ... z:
'" woo W . 10
I III ..... _>"I .. 0
::r_o\C::r_ 10 c
+ + .. ,.
o,c..O\CRI\O .. '"
-:000 0:> I~ .. .. .. .. .. r~ ....... .. i
.. I t""I'<D t:lt'"'
'r Q) 0\ I"tt \0 ..... I .... .....
\00_0"\0 "'''' W ... g~,
I ... 0'" ... 0 NO '" 0
.. . .. ... . . . .....
'" ...." ... "'0 0 ..... .......
c: I'i Q.. '< ........ 0 N ::T'<
n ~ c: ~ "''''' 0 '"
" :r-(Il _ Q. ::r '"
I ....c::M'\O....l'D + + ..
o III "'''''''' ...
" . "'- ... r .. .. tit .. .. r ........... i ...
I " .. 0 )
i CT' ,",1"1'\\00 '"CI 0:
'<::r'R1NM....
.. .. ..
I III "'... n
... .. .. ..
0 a'.o 51
... ... e: '"
" '" "
.... III III ...
r. ...
I "
< d)~~
..... lIP
n -
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FROM:
Rosemary Lane, Library Director
_ aECiWi.O -
.lll-N 1. 0 1Q9C1
5ao llie\\O
Vli\\~a~ ..~~or..'
DATE:
December 19, 1989
TO:
Jeanette Litton, wildan Associates
SUBJECT: Development Impact Fees
General Discussion:
Jeanette, I spoke to Dave Byers last Friday, December 15th, and he
was unaware that the Council action approved ".5 to .7 square feet
as an adequate planning standard" rather than .8 sq. ft. per capita
as recommended in the Chula vista Public Librarv Master Plan:
Facilitv Plannina to the Year 2010. The Council agenda statement
of April 30, 1987, which recommends .5 to .7 sq. ft., is attached.
(Attachment A) This standard is stated on page 2.
The second standard is the minimum standard cited as a Growth
Management Threshold Standard. The First Annual Growth Management
Report was sent to Council on August 14, 1989 and stated, "we
request that Council note that there is a funding inadequacy and
threshold shortfall in library facilities." My current analysis
of this shortfall is attached. (Attachment B)
A. sweetwater/Bonita Planning Area (Attachment C)
Attached is the Library'S CIP (capital Improvement Project)
estimate. Please note this does not include land acquisition
costs because the City is proceeding with plans to use Parcel
2, (Corner of East H Street and Paseo Ranchero) in El Rancho
del Rey as the site. The site plan for this park land will
be presented for Council approval after mid-January 1990.
In using a 66,620 population estimate in the Sweetwater/Bonita
Planning Area, a 35,000 sq. ft. building as outlined on the
CIP form will fall between the .5 and .6 standard.
B. Eastern Territories Planning Area
The Library has not prepared a CIP estimate sheet, but using
the same standards with an estimated population of 36,217
would result in:
.5 sq. ft. per capita = 18,108 sq. ft.
.6 sq. ft. per capita = 21,730 sq. ft.
.7 sq. ft. per capita = 25,350 sq. ft.
/6 - rJ.t>7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Library is currently planning a 20,000 sq. ft. building.
The cost estimates are:
Land Acquisition
site Development
construction/Landscaping
Book Collection
Contingency Fees
Total
$200,000
348,500
2,540,000
500,000
433.275
$4,021,775
Library development costs east of Highway 805 totals:
Total
6,900,000
4.022.000
10,922,000
Sweetwater/Bonita
Eastern Territories
)~ - Jo~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT A
COUNCIL CONFERENCE AGENDA STATEMENT
Item I
ITEI~ TITLE:
Meeting Date 4/30/87
The Chula Vista Public Library Master Plan: Facility Planning
to the Year 2010
Library Director~
Ci ty Manager fl'
t!
(4/5ths Vo!e: Yes___No~)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Before there was a City of Chula Vista, there was a library. It was made up
of gift books and operated by volunteers on donated money, but it was open to
all. The idea of broad public access to books and knowledge at the local
level was a central theme in nineteenth century America. National City opened
a public library in 1884, yet only a few miles away the residents of an area
known as Chula Vista, flaunting civic pride, opened a library in 1891.
In subsequent years, three publ i c 1 ibrary buil di ngs were erected in Chul a
Vista. The first building, on the site of the present Norman Park Center for
senior citizens, opened in 1917. It was funded by the Carnegie Foundation and
had 4,900 square feet. A second building of 12,800 square feet, located in
the Civic Center, opened in 1955. This building remains a part of the Civic
Center and is now being used for City office space. The third and present
building at 365 F Street with 55,000 square feet, funded by federal Revenue
Sharing funds, opened July 4, 1976.
The pattern of the past persists. As the City grows, the need for a larger
library grows. The present library, well-located in an attractive and busy
buil di ng, cannot conti nue to adequately serve a popul ati on projected to be
189,800 in the year 2010 with some of its users living seven to eight miles
away.
On December 17, 1985, while approving a contract with the San Diego County
Li brary to conti nue to provi de 1 i brary servi ces in the newly annexed
Mont90mery Fi re Di stri ct, Counci 1 requested that the Library proceed wi th the
Library Master Plan as an ancillary element of the General Plan update.
On July 15, 1986 the Council approved a contract with HBW Associates, Inc. and
Michael Feerer Associates to develop a master plan for public library
services. The contract specified: '
1. The evaluation of the adequacies of the present Chula Vista Publ ic
Library and the two San Diego County branches in the recently annexed
area.
2. An analysis of the planned growth of the City with respect to the
need for future facilities.
3. Preparati on of a pl an to accommodate exi sti ng and future demand for
1 ibrary services.
I" - ,)()9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
Page 2, Item 1
Meeting Date 4/30/87
On July 21, 1986 the first Master Plan Committee meeting was held. The
Committee consisted of fifteen members representing the following groups: the
Montgomery Planning Committee, the Chu1a Vista City Elementary School
District, the Sweetwater Union High School District, Southwestern College, the
City Planning Department, the City Management Services Department, the City
Library, the Friends of the Chu1a Vista Public Library, and all members of the
Library Board of Trustees.
The consultants, Richard Waters of HBW Associates and Michael Feerer, chaired
eight scheduled meetings with the Master Plan. Committee presenting sections of
the work plan as these were accomplished. A Master Plan outline was presented
to the Committee on December 5, 1986 and reviewed by the City Manager on
December 10, 1986. The final draft of the report was reviewed by the Master
Plan Committee on January 18, 1987 and by the Library Board of Trustees as a
separate boqy on January 28, 1987.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council
1 . Accept the report and refer to the Montomery P1 anni ng Commi ttee and the
Planning Commission.
2. Approve. 5 to .7 square feet as an adequate p1 anning standard for future
Library services in the City of Chu1a Vista.
BOARDS/CO~~ISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Accept report.
DISCUSSION:
The work program was accomp1 i shed in the foll owi ng three phases from July 21,
1986 to March 9, 1987: Phase I - Library Needs Assessment, Phase II - Plan
for Expanded Library Service tleeds, Phase III - Production of a r~aster Plan.
The Master Plan. as presented, will be useful in the future decision-making
process regarding the expansion of library services in Chu1a Vista. It does
not identify speci fi c si tes, nor gi ve specific bull di ng p1 ans, but presents
acceptable service levels and general locations of buildings in each of the
three planning areas identified:
1. Montgomery/Otay Planning Area
2. Sweetwater/Bonita Planning Area
3. Eastern Territories Planning Area
Rather than develop the traditional central or main library ringed by small
11 0, 000 square feet or less I branches, the p1 an proposes fewer but larger
facilities as more cost and service effective. A past standard of .8 square
)b - ~/O
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
Page 3, Item 1
Meeting Date 4/30/87
feet resul ted in the present buil di ng. The consultant recommends continuing
this standard of excellence. This would result in a full service library
building of 40,000 square feet serving 50,000 citizens in the developed
Montgomery/Otay area with a target opening date of 1990. The small
neighborhood branches presently operated by the San Diego County Library would
be closed when this facility is opened.
The plan recommends a second full service library in the developing
Sweetwater/Bonita area. This library could be built ill two phases to meet
population growth. Phase I has a target date of 1992. Phase II could open in
2002 to meet a 2010 population expected to be 65,000. The completed building
would be 40,000 square feet.
A smaller library of the traditional branch size, 17,000 square feet, is
recommended for the Eastern Territories by 2005 for a population estimated to
be 19,800 in 2010.
Because of practical considerations, the Library would find adequate a .5 to
.7 square foot per population standard. Using the average of .6 square feet
would result in a 20,000 square foot facility in the Montgomery/Otay planning
area: a 39,000 square foot facility in the Sweetwater Bonita planning area and
no permanent facility in the Eastern Territories until after 2010. See page
1.4 in the Master Plan Summary for a chart of different levels of gross square
feet per population
Other San Diego County libraries with currently approved building programs
range from a high of 90,000 square feet per 100,000 population projection (.9
square feet per capital in Carlsbad to a low of 40,000 square feet per 100,000
population (.4 square feet per capital in Oceanside. Chula Vista's 114,000
square feet per projected population of 189,800, (.6 square feet per capita)
is obviously in a mid-range.
All alternatives to new construction will be thoroughly explored such as the
renovati on of exi sti ng buil di ngs, especi ally in the 110ntgomery /Otay area where
the viability of moving the San Diego Country Club Building (23,000 square
feet) and using it as a library is being explored. Also the leasing or
purchasing of existing commercial property will be considered as the area is
already developed.
In the Sweetwater/Bonita area site selection for a future building will be of.
primary importance since it is a developing area.
In the EastLake area the developer has agreed to a five-year rent-free store
space when the proposed village shopping center is constructed. The Library
would plan to use this space until a larger space to serve about 20,000 in the
year 2010 is needed. EastLake has a one acre site for a permanent library
bui 1 di ng.
The Master Plan does not recommend expanding the present library building, but
does makes some suggestions on improving the parking situation. Any suggested
changes to office and storage space in the present building, parking lot, or
)1, . J 1/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
Page 4, Item 1
Meeting Date 4/30/87
stafHng levels would become part of the library's operating or CIP budgets
and go through the regular budget review and Council approval.
Options for joint use wahin the elementary school l;braries of the Chula
Vista City School District, the junior high or senior high school libraries of
the Sweetwater Union High School District or with Southwestern College are not
promi si ng at thi s time. Expansion of school 1 ibrary programs or school
library buildings is not currently being planned by any of the local
educational institutions.
.
Unless otherwise directed, a staff site identification committee (Library,
Planning, Public Works, etc.) will be created to make recommendations to the
City Council and the Library 80ard, and in the case of south Chula Vista, the
Montgomery Planning Committee, on existing buildings and/or building sites for
1 ibrary services in the Montgomery /Otay Planning Area and the Sweetwater/
Bonita Planning Area.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Accepting the Master Plan and forming a site selection committee has no
immediate fiscal impact, but there are long-range fiscal implications. Any
Master Plan recommendati on chosen for impl ementati on will be brought to the
Council on its individual merit for future funding.
WPC 0044L
)~ - &l"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
ATTACHHENT B
DATE: December 15, 1989
TO: Growth Management oversight Committee
FROM: Rosemary Lane, Library Director
SUBJECT: Standards for Chula Vista Public Library services as
expressed in square footage
Present Sauare Footaae
Chula vista Public Library
civic Center Building
55,000 sq. ft.
Castle Park Branch
(Third & Anita)
1,720 sq. ft.
Woodlawn Park Branch
(Woodlawn Community center)
609 sq. ft.
57,329
Pooulation of Chula vista
October 30, 1989
130,631 (unofficial
estimate)
A. "Threshold Standard:
Population ratio: 500 square feet (gross) of library
adequately equipped and staffed facility per 1,000
population."
Threshold sauare footaae needed at 500 sa. ft. oer 1.000
130,631 population
65,316 sq. ft.
Threshold Sauare Footaae Shortaae: -7,987 sq. ft.
B. Librarv Master Plan standard recommended is .8 sa. ft. oer
caoita
130,631 population at .8 sq. ft. 104,504 sq. ft.
Master Plan Shortaae: -47,175 sq. ft.
;, - oV3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C. city council approved standard is .5 to .7 sa. ft. per
capita
130,631 pop. at .5 sq. ft. = 65,316 sq. ft.
130,631 pop. at .6 sq. ft. = 78,378 sq. ft.
130,631 pop. at .7 sq. ft. s 91,441 sq. ft.
citv Council approved shortaae ranae:
.5 sq. ft.
.6 sq. ft.
.7 sq. ft.
-7,987 sq. ft.
-21,049 sq. ft.
-34,112 sq. ft.
Conclusion:
Although expressed as 500 sq. ft. per 1,000, the threshold
standard is equal to .5 sq. ft. per capita approved by Council
when the Librarv Master Plan was accepted on April 30, 1987. The
Library presently is 7,987 square feet below standard.
without using any set standards, a library building of 55,000 sq.
ft. which circulates a million books per year is overtaxed. The
Library at peak use hours cannot provide enough seating, answer
questions promptly or park enough cars. This fact is obvious to
many citizens whether or not they are aware of the standards.
Thresh.mem
/b - Jltf
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project Htle:
Area L ibrarv
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CIP PROJECT ESTIMATE
Date: December 19, 1989
Project No.: LB 906
Locati on:
Sweetwater/Bonita Plannino Area
Parcel 2, Rancho Del Rev
(Corner of H Street and Pas eo Ranchero)
Rosemarv Lane
I. PREPARATORY PLANNING
Preliminary Plannin9
Advanced Planning
11aster Planning
Other
Subtota 1
Staff Administration ( %)
Environmental Review
Environnental Consultant
Other
Subtota 1
Staff Administration ( %)
TOTAL PREPARATORY PLANNING
II. LAUD ACQUISITION
Title Reports
Appraisals
Hazardous Waste
Relocation Assistance
Litigation Costs
Property Payments
Staff Administration ( %)
Other
TOTAL LAND ACQUISITION
III. DESIGN
Survey
Geotechnical
In-house Design
Consultant Design
Other
Subtota 1
Design Review ( %) %)
Staff Administration
TOTAL OESIGtl
WPC 4239H
450,000
29,000
479,000
Project Manager:
IV. CONSTRUCTIml
Construction 522,720
Gradi ng & Site Deve 1 oprnent
Sewer/Util ities
Utility relocation
Streets/drainage
Signals/lighting
Landscaping
Parks
Buildings & Landscaping 4,456,550
Equipment/furniture 713,048
Books 500.000
Other
Subtota 1 6 .192 .318
City Supplied Materials
Contract Administration
Architect/Engineer ( %)
Clerk-of-Works ( %)
Inspection ( %)
Staff Administration (5%) 267,192
Other
Subtota 1 267 .192
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 6,459,510
SUBTOTAL PROJECT 6,938,510
(Add Total I, II. III & IV)
V. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
Contingencies (~%) 693,850
Other Agency Permits
Other
TOTAL GENERAL ADMIN. 693,850
TOT AL PROJ ECT 7,632,360
I~ - o?/5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
3-16-90
DIF PROJECT
Replacement of Library Automation System
The Library's current computer system was purchased in May,
1979. OVer the past 10 years, the system's capacity has
been increased through various hardware and software
upgrades and additional terminals have been brought on-line
to provide access for the Library's growing staff. The
system is now at absolute capacity and vendor support has
deteriorated.
As detailed below, the cost for a m1n1mum replacement
system, based on current circulation volume, is $582,531.
While this baseline system could not accomodate planned
growth, the baseline system does include some upgraded
functions, such as a public access catalog, which are
currently needed. These upgrades are included in the
baseline cost. The comparison system, which is needed to
accomodate expected growth and the planned branch libraries,
is shown in two phases. Phase 1 includes the main system
which is expected to serve City libraries into FY 1994-95.
Phase 2 includes the mid-life hardware and software upgrades
which will be required to fully support growth.
COST COMPLARISON
DESCRIPTION
NO
GROWTH
ANTICIPATED
GROWTH
Hardware: DYNIX system, model
Ultimate/Honeywell 6930, 2 MG
memory, 1 515 MG hard disk,
hi-speed disk controller,
6250 BPI tape drive, 300 LPM
serial printer, power sifter,
60 ports/terminals, . $290,000
Software: Cataloging w/authority
control, circulation, pUblic
access catalog, acquisitions, B&T
interface, serials, media schedu-
ling, OCLC on-line interface,
report generator, external file
access. $ 95,000
Hardware: INLEX system HP 3000,
series 935, 48 MB memory, 6250
BPI tape drive, telecommunications
system, 420 LPM printer, 2 670 MB
~-~~
I
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
add-on disk storage system, 22
PC-XT with 640K and 20 MG hard
drive, 10 deskjet printers,
COST COMPLARISON Continued
DESCRIPTION
Hardware:
15 code readers, 25 OPAC
terminals, 17 other
terminals.
Software: DYNIX system +
bibliographic interface, MARC
load, MARC outlut, mUlti-branch,
module manager, authority load,
OPAC, dial-up catalog, circula-
tion, acquisitions, serials
conversion.
MID-LIFE UPGRADES
Upgrade hardware to HP 949, with
176 MB memory, add disk drive,
add ports, DTC multiplexors and
modems tp support 2 additional
branches. Add 2 branches to
INLEX software.
TOTAL HARDWARE/SOFTWARE
(including tax):
CONTINGENCIES (@ 15%):
FINANCING (7 years @ 8%,
with quarterly payments):
NO
GROWTH
ANTICIPATED
GROWTH
$328,204
$111,733
$178,820
$385,000 $618,757
$ 57.750 $ 92.814
$442,750 $711,571
$139 , 781 $224.651
$582.531 $936,222
************************************************************
DIF FACTOR = ($936,222 - $582,531) = $353,691/$936,222 =
.3777
************************************************************
16 - J./7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~\~
=--~~~
~~~
,,"~~1ii:'
OlY OF
CHULA VISfA
MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
March 16, 1990
Tom Bandy
Wildan Associates
6363 Greenwich Drive, suite 250
San Diego, Ca 92122-3939
RE: DIF: Public Facilities
Tom,
The cost of the library master plan, completed 2-20-87 by
HBW & Associates in conjunction with Micheal Feerer &
Associates was $30,900. This should be added as a City
credit under the library portion of the DIF.
I am attempting to determine the total cost of the civic
center master plan prior to leaving town next week. If you
don't hear from me, please follow up with Dave.
~b
Assistant Director
cc D AiJ 2..
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 92010/(619) 691-5296
Ii - ~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.5
FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM
Existine Condition
Presently, five city based fire stations and one station located in the Bonita -
Sunnyside Fire Protection District comprise the fire suppression network for the City
of Chula Vista. The existing training tower is a wooden structure built in 1973
which has deteriorated significantly from water damage. Access to the training tower
has also been partially restricted by the remodeling of Fire Station #2.
Needed Improvements
The Chula Vista Fire Station Master Plan dated March 23, 1989 calls for the
following improvements as the city grows to buildout:
. A new station in the El Rancho Del Rey development;
. A new station in the Salt Creek development;
. Relocation of Station #3 to the Sunbow II development;
. Improvement of radio communication to the Eastern Territories by installing
a 12-volt radio relay station on high ground;
. Construction of a new fire training facility; and
. A brush rig to be stationed at the Salt Creek Station.
Status of Needed Improvements
The Training Tower is currently under construction and should be completed by the
end of 1992. The expansion of Fire Station No.1 was completed in Fiscal Year
1990/91. The Fire Station Master Plan was completed in 1989 and will be revised
in 1993. Interim Station #6 should be operational in Fiscal Year 1992/93.
Method of Apportionine Costs
Section G of the Fire Master Plan states "...The proposed changes in the City's fire
station network are designed to produce a unified system which will provide adequate
fire coverage to newly developing areas and maintain the city-wide fire threshold
standards established within the general plan.... As such, the costs of the proposed
changes should be financed by a development impact fee assessed to all new
development."
When a fire station responds to a call, that station is dependent upon other stations
for not only the potential need of a second response, but as back-up for the area left
uncovered by the first station.
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
47
I~ - ) /1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
There are no reliable methods for measuring the specific effects on life and property
loss which result from delayed response times, but response times and how to
improve them are the focal point of the master plan. As detailed in the Fire Station
Master Plan, under the pre-existing network, 69 percent of the population was within
a five minute response time; 85 percent were within 6 minutes and 96 percent were
within 7 minutes. Without the implementation of the recommended fire suppression
system, Chula Vista's coverage rates will drop to 51 percent within 5 minutes, 74
percent within 6 minutes, and 91 percent within 7 minutes.
The proposed new stations are required as a direct result of future growth in both
population and acreage. The radio communication tower is needed to cover hilly
areas east of Interstate 805 that interrupt or block less powerful means of emergency
communication.
The training facility needs to be rebuilt and relocated to a more central City location
to meet present needs, and only 35.5 percent of its cost is attributable to future
growth. The training facility will also accommodate a police briefing room for use
by patrol units east of Interstate 805. One hundred percent of the associated police
costs for this room ($85,800) are attributable to future growth.
As a city-wide system, evaluated and designed on a city-wide basis, it is recommend-
ed that all new development east and west of Interstate 805 bear the cost of the
expansion of the existing fire suppression system. New development will finance the
$3,498,100 in growth related costs.
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chu/a Vista
48
)~ - ~()
I
I
PROJECT No.5
FIRB SUPPRESSION SYSTIM
D......._ 1991 Cost EatJmate 1992 Cost Estimate
lA Training Facility . $ 373,398 $ 462,440
1B Land Credit (TraininQ Fac~l 0 435,600
2 Police Briefmg Room2 92,480 85,800
3 Sunbow Fire Station 510.000 533,500
4 Land Credit (Sunbow) 200,000 217,800
5 RDR FU'e Station) 972,935 627.000
6 Land Credi~ 120,000 217,800
7 Permanent Fire StatiOD No. 64 764.278 533,500
8 Land Credit (Station Mi) 200,000 217,800
9 Interim Station No.6 0 790,486
10 Brush Rio &. Fnuinment 208,345 223,345
11 Net Fire Station .1 Exnansion5 80,767 80,767
12 Radio Tower 24,000 44,000
13 Fire Station Master Plan 48.938 48.938
Subtotal $ 3,595.141 $ 4,518,776
14 Proiect Staff Services" 0 165,003
15 Less Preient Value of ExistiD2 Station 137 0 (29,882)
16 Less City's Share' (237,48 [) (579,236)
Subtotal $ 3.357,660 $ 4,074,661
17 I Less DIP fees collected olus interest' (364,996) (576,541)
TOTAL $ 2,992,664 $ 3,498,120
Uss $ 3,498,100
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Prior to the establishment of the Public Facilities DIF (or rue statiODS, Ibe City negotiated Cor a mu.1ti.acre community part within the Raocbo
del Rey development This acreage was obtained by the City . part of aD overall agreement for developmeDt of Rancho del Rey, in exchange
for various project-SpecUIC COIUIideratiODl graDIed by the City. Vader the CWTeDt hbUc Facilities DfF. credits are granted for the value of
property used (or construcdng citywide flCilities. Having procured the aforemeo.tioaed community put acreage (or OOOSideratioD o( equal
value. the City shaD receive the appropriate DIF credit (or providiDg the three acres of oommUDity put land for OODItruction of the RDR. rlfC
station and training facility as part of1be Public: Facilities DIF. Said credit. calculated IS (ollows: 1 acre@ $217,800 per acre = $217,800
for the rlfC statiOllaDd $435.600 (or the lrainiDg facility.
2
To be built in conjUDCoon with Raocbo del Rey Fire Station trainiDg classroom; to be used by patrol units east of Interstate 805. Costs for
video coofereocing ~eot to be added in futwe DIF updaIe.
3
Rancho del Rey Station costs includes purchase of reserve pumper ($50.000_ originally budgeted (or Permanent Station N6 and installation
of undergrowd fuellants (25,()(MJ). R.dR. Station size bu been reduced from three equipmenl bays to two equipment bays.
4
Prior 10 the establisbment oflhe Public Facilities DIFfor rlfC slations, the City negotialed for a mulli-acre community put within the Raocho
del Rey developmenL This acreage was obIaiDed by the City IS part of an overall Igreement fordevelopmeol ofRancbo del Rey, in exchange
for various project-specifIC coosiderations grated by the City. l.Jnder the curreat l'ublk: Facilities DIP, credits are granled for the vIlue of
properly used for constructing citywide facilities. Having procured the aCoraneDliooed community park lCftage for consideralions of equal
value, the City shall receive the appropriate DIF credit: for providing the three acres of community park. land for construction of the RDR. rlfC
station and training facility as part of the Public Facililies DIP. Said credil iI calculated as follows: 1 acre@$217,800peracre=$217,800
(or the fire slation ad $435,600 for the training facUity.
4
Equipmenl and funUshings for Permanent StatioD i6, Sunbow Statioo. and Rancho del Rey Stattoos will be transferred from Interim Station.
existing Station '3, and existing Station"', respectively.
5
Total co&l of Fire Station '1 remodel WIl $438,000. As delai1ed in aD attac:bmeo.l, growth related square footage represented 18.44% of toIal
,osl.
6 Project Staff Services represents 5% of Cbe totalJ of Lines I, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 12.
7 The original purchase price for the cumot. Fire Stalion No.3 site detailed in a City Council report dated Much 24, 1959 was $6,000. The
initial land cost shouJd be adjusted for CPI increases, from the dale of purchase through the date the site is resold. From Much 1959 through
March 1992, the CPI iDcrease was 398.03 perceot. As such. the adjUlted praeot value of the parcel is $29,882 ($6.000 x 3.9803 + $6,(00).
This amount will be applied toward the total cost of the Suobow Fire Station.
8 City Share calcuJated as foHows: Fire Irainiog (lCility based OD ratio of DeW EDU's to pre-existing FDU'. as detailed in BD attachmenl =
64.5% of $462,440 + 64.5% of $435,600 (1aDd value) = $298.274 + $280,962 = $579.236.
9 Includes $224,589 paid by Easll..d.:e, aDd aD $85,000 advuce by McMillin Communities for prior paymenl in conjuDction with the Terra Novl
DevelopmeDL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chala Vista
I
)2 - Ol~'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
DOCUMENTATION
Fire Suppression System
1. DIF Fund Status - As of June 30, 1992
2. Attachment I: Breakdown of fire station and related costs.
3. Fire Station Master Plan Executive Summary dated March 23, 1989.
4. Brush Rig Cost Estimate, October 27, 1989.
5. EastLake Development Company letter of 4-15-92 regarding Interim Station Parcel.
6. Development Share Calculations of Fire Station #1 Expansion, Attachment A, 11-19-
90
Note: The following documentation material is .QQ1 paginated.
1993 Public Facilities DlF Update
City of Chu/a Vista
50
), - dl~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
Rev BV:WILLDAN SAN DIEGO
,- 7-93 :11 :'1AM
425 6184"
FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM DIF FUND-AS OF 6/30/92
A.
DIF Revenues received to date:
B.
DIF Advanced by developer.
c.
Other DIF transfers in.
D.
DIF Inves~~ent earnings to date:
$ 261,417
$ 412,010
$ 22'1,!589
E. Co~~itments to datel
Total Revenues $ 970,093
$ 72.077
.!ill:
Completed
Fire Station *1 Expansion;
Fire Training TOWer.
Fire station Master Plan:
Subtotal.
Onqoing
Interin station #6;
Staff Services I
Subtotal I
TOTAL.
Qfu
Fire Station #1 RemoOel:
Fire Training Tower:
TOTAL.
F. CUrrently planned expenOltures:
Communications tower
$ 80,767
462,440
48.938
$ 592,145
$ 752,359
21. 29Q
$ 773,655
$1,365,800
$
$
357,233
298.274
655,507
...._--~,-
/J - cPB
WILLDAN SAN DIEGO:' 7
1-06-93
~ -
I
I
(/)
I t-
(/)
0
(,)
I Q
w
t-
I s
w
a:
I Q
Z
<C
Z
I 0
-
t-
<C
I t- ..
(/) c
0
W j
a: CIl
-
I I.J... !
! II:
'- -
Z 1::
I :.
~
0
I Q
~
<C
w
a:
I CO
..
--
I t-
Z
w
::E
I ::c
(,)
~
I
<C
I
I
I
~ ~
il~
\
N , 0 ~ 0 8 ..g -t1T ~ 8
E! co.~t: . 8 0 i-.. 0 ....... N E
M 0 ..; ~ ~ 0 I .' . .; Il
~ <;gg,.t: 0 - - I ~l ~ M ti
- ....'" . co ::> !-. - eo
CIloD"lS g ~ ..., ... Il
~.!iso ... V , ~
-", Ltl /" ........ : I
a:~-6N ...... ~ Il
W _ / ..
.... .-N 9
Z ~ I
-eo ,/ 01
- .C
! J:.
Ltl\ ..
co 0 0 8 0 0 Ltl N .... .s
g 8 0 8 N, N - M
;: c . 0 -, - ~ Ltl
8 0 ..; 8 0 oil .; 0 .; Il
CIl.2.t: Ltl - N -. 0 Ltl Ltl J:.
.. . N ~ , Ltl Ltl ..
....19... ... ! ... ... Il
z.... ..
'"
w >0 I 0
Z.!8 \ J:.
< , . ..
~N~ I .!!
a: , ."
W I c
c.. i eo
c
8 8 0 0 0 0 8 01 0' Ltl Ltl 0
..,
?u . 8 0 8 0 ~I Ltl' ell g eo
0 0 ell 1 0 ..,
a:c- 0 0 ..; 0 as ..; 0 -, 01 N M .2
o. N'
...J.- . ~ co - 0 .... N N N' N' co 0 ~
W".t: ... co , co' ell
019 , ",' '"
III .. . I \ c
w o>g . I 1 8
t: :z:eog N
. , I Il
CIl UoD . .. -t!
Z zei> \ I 0
< . E eo
0 I , ...
a: co ,
~ ; eo ."
.E Il
lni Lni N c
0 0 8 g 0 .... > ~
c
8 0 0 N,NI- M ~ 0
0 0 0 _I _e"lt Ltl l:
= 6:: 8 0 ..; 8 0 oi ';\0 ~. E
~ .- Ltl - N - 0' Ltl Ltl 8 u
.. . N ~ Ltl' Ltl .E
o~g '" ",' '" ~
III >0 I ., !l
I '"
ZeoO .. .iij
:loDO I ..
CIl' . .. ."
N~ \ ~ Il
..
, 0
I .u ...
.s ~
...
,
@I , Il ..
Il I .. .e
!I:J:: '"
II I I 0 al
- .. eo . \- z J:.
~ .E.! g c E
eo , .* 0 ~ '"
; 0_ .... ..I 10 t ii ..
~ "- 00 ..
.. - ....co Q; Il' ,- ..,
cJ:: - .EtaI' U I ...._ :l c eo
! '" eo :: .r .-!<.@I ~ i !
EJ:. ...-
., ...'" c . Et;Ltl-: ." ~\~Ii .,
eo o .. 0'" 8...0.t: c 01 eo
'i1~ .- -! '" c Z 0": ..
::; a:: CD C9 . .a =1 'c
c > 01 gg .,- ... ~ eo :ll 8. 0 .. c 8-
Il 0 eo U 'ill
l!l~ Q._ _ en E' .,
'" .fl c ~- C-Q- .. Qj !1Il1.E ."E 8
ii 01 ..'" .. 0 8 Il ." l: 1: -'
2 .iij Ill! 6@1 Il c.. .. ." ;: C'"
> 'C >:3- c c eo.2
.. '" .1:: Cl ~ .- I 0 0
." .. 0 CIl_ u_ CD.QQ)<C& :l ul I U 0 ...~
c c .... " Il ~
~ 0 . N ..; .; .0 ~I 1.0 w." ...
u- - Ltl . .
< .0 - N
. .
I ~ - J~ V
~
"
I
'"
~
i
~
OJ
I N
I
I
(J)
I ....
(J)
0
0
I Q
w
....
I :3
w
a:
Q
I z
c(
z
I 0
- -g
....
~ ::l
C
.~
I (J) ~
w
a: "'
- C
U. 0
I ..,
I B
Ul
~ l!!
Z II:
I 3: -
1::
0 ~
Q
I ~
c(
w
a:
I m
...
I ....
z
w
:!!:
I :t
0
~
I
c(
I
I
I
cog' I
._ 1:: .
. ~ 8-
<= -=
Iii .&... tT
... u "'
~.!!2o
-::J"'Lt)
O:-g.cN
~ E.t::..,j
Z ~
-..
co 0 8 8 0 ~ ~ 8 0 8 g 8 ~
.( 8 0 0
0 .., q .., "t .., -
I-C-= <:$ cD - - ..,j ex) - - ..,j - .:
Ul.8 . .., !.
I-Bll ...
z"'8 E
w> . . ::l
Z .. "f co Q.
<.0 . . . Q.
:::Er.."f ::l
...
0: M u
w ..
lL cO .. .0
C .,
.. 0 -6
o!l ..,
>- .. .c
w "f en .t::
0:6:: .. l!! ~
...J .- . "' C
w.... C II:
0"'" co '0;
ti "' . 0
.., ... E
0>8 C
.. ., .,
... t: ...
CI) :I:!o Ul
~ u, . ., ::l 'i
Zl"lCO M ... u
< .. II: ..
CI) a: ~ "f
Z C ... ..
.2 0 iJ
0 ... C
... 0
S f! Q. .,
0 ::l ..,
... Ul ... .c ..
u ... ...
., Ul
Ul C . ... .. E
= 0-= II: .0 0 .,
~ .- .. ... ...
... . .~ ... II:
O,:!C" . . .. ~
"' .. l"l .., U .. ...
~ >8 l!! C
. . ., .,
~ .. ... ...
::J!O ::l .! ...
Ul' . ~ .. ::l
... u
N"f .E C
::l .. ..
u ... ~
~ ...
E ., 1l
e .. iJ
..
... .c :s:! .,
~ l:! ::l .c
~ ::l 0 ...
Q. ~ ...
..
-~ -! 1l
., ., ~ ...
...-g ., C
C ., .,
!.Eli 'ii .. 'i E E
...
$.c&b 'ii 'ii ... Q. Q.
'ii ., ., 'S 'S
. ., ., ;;
Q."C ., :!: .0 i i
u 0 8 :!: - .,
.,~ .. 0 .. 'ii - 8 :::; ~ ..
~ .- ... 0 'ii "5 .2 ~ l!!
.,= 0 .. a ., E .,
.5 a < C 0 ., ., !::! N ~ ., I.;::
., !!! !!! l! !l ., ~
E 0 ~ - N
E- . - C i .,
- .. .. ., 0
_u., Q. ., ., Q. - 0 > f! ., '5 .c
c i.S: 'S .. .. 0 Q. '6 .. ~ C C C C ...
:8CD~ ., 0 0 C .. 0 ., ., .~ ., ... ...
... .. .c .c j '6 l! 0 ... :i a .. ..
.. > ., w 0 g' l! ~ !i l!! -6 -6
01.. .c l!! .= ., .. .,
., 8 aN ., I.;:: :c :is ... 1: I.;::
C C l!! ... .!! ~ !i .. :l ..
'5 ..'" '5 ... :s ~ i! ., ~ .,
"'5:> I.;:: . . ... .. ., E E E
C C ~ ";;t. .. l!! 0 .. ~ ..
w " IX) w . 8- g ::l 5: ::l ::l
- , . "f N - f! .0 E U - .. .. ..
l!! . l!! , , , . , , , . , , .. ., .. ..
, < 0: < <
II: - II: - N l"l "f .., co ,.. IX) ." 0 -
- - . . . .
u C l"l "f .., co
. . . .
)6 - d;).~
I M
I
I
C/)
I ~
o
I ~
I ~
c
I ~
z
I ~
i!
I ~
I u:
l
I ~
c
I ~
a:
I ~
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
Z
w
:E
::t
o
~
oCt
1:
,.
C
I
!
o
~
Ui
!
II:
lQlll
.5 1:: .
.... 8-
<= ;:
Iii oS"" g
... u
::E.!!2o
-:l"1l)
D:1.cN
~ '~N
Z ~
-..
lQ 8 ~ 8 ~ 8 8 0 8 8 8 8 8 0 0
It) It) ..
.( M ~ 'OJ" It) - - N M N - -
I-C;: .. - - - -
1Il.2 . M
... ..
I-"i
Z1O~
w>
Z..
<'" .
~N'Oj"
a:
w
II.
0 0
~ .. ..
a: C .
..J.2 ;:
w'" .
0"0-
10 ..
o >~
en :r..
u -9 ..
I!! ZMlQ
Iii <
a:
Z
0
~ 0 0
... ..
=6'::
:= .-
... .
o:!CF'
.. ..
III >0
z"8
=>",
Ill' .
N'Oj"
'6 !E I-
.. "iii 8 Z
,. w w
.. ~ ii .. l
C ::t 'is.
.~ II. =>
. .. 5 , .. 5
8 .. .91 1:: u
:is 15. C .. ~ c
.. "iii Q. W Ui W
C .. "iii 01 ,. W .. a:
~ ... .. "iii a
.. .. .. Z ... I!!
E .. ~ tl -g l! a C .. l!
- u ~ .. .. ::t :r
Q. ~ .. - ! l!! .. ... Z E R "
'5 .. 0 ... 0 ~ W Q. ...
Q. C .. )( ~ II:
0- E S s :i ~ .8 l! u w '5 : ..
w .. .. .. ... a: 0" III ~ W
.. .. ... ~ '5 .. .! .. )( w .. a:
U .. .. 'u .~ .. "5 :is 0 it it
C :is 01 01 ... 5 :c ii
's. ~ .. :2 C E u .. .. '" ..J !l ,.
.. .~ ,. g 8- : t: ~ ... ..J
C .. .. .. .~ ,. 0 :: ~ ..- e ~
w o. 0 ii ! .. S :s e 0 8- 0 01 ! : ..
e - .. I;: .. e ... ,. E
.~ e ll: ... ''''OJ"
. . , . cb , , , . . , . ..
N M 'OJ" It) .... co '" 0 - N M ... , . - ,
.... - - - - - - - - N N N N It - N M
ci W
...:
1::
l.
)/; - J~"
I ....
I
I
en
I I-
en
0
CJ
I c
w
l-
I :s
w
a:
c
I z
e(
z
I 0
- 'i
l-
e( '"
l- e
.~
I en I
w
a: ..
- l5
I u.. .~
..
en
~ !
Z it
I 3: -"
1::
0 ~
c
I :Ii::
e(
w
a:
I CO
..
...
I I-
Z
w
::E
I ::I:
CJ
e(
I ~
e(
I
I
I
10" >
,5 1:: . u
.c;gg,ot: e
III
f-'" . l"
en...... .,.
~ u .. III
::ll.!!5O E
-", It) III
a:l"'N
~ '~N e
~ ~ III
>
II 0
..
~
10 U
~ e . '0
1::
en.2 ot: ..
.. . 0.
f-l!ll ..
z.. II
W >~ .f
z.!
'" 0 .
::llN....
a: III
w en
0- III
U
e
.. C
g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It) It) 0 "3 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... ... 0 ... .~
> - III It) It) 10 .... N ... M .... N N .... E l!
w N - M '" ..
a: e . ...
...J.2 ot: .. ..
e :c .
w" . 0
0"'" ..
. ~
1;; .. co . . ..
o >~ 0 0 II
. ..
en J: .. - - J: >
~ U-'jl . . . e
~ ..
ZMIO 0.
en '" E
Z a: ..; ui 0
0 III g> U
S .. :c ...
'" U
III .. 2
... 'f ..
en "0 .2 "0
"3 e
e ' ~ g> ..
= oot: ~
:='~ . '6 III
M '" 0.
O:!~ . .. U E
.. ..
CD >0 ... e .5 '"
. 0.
z..g 0 t ..
::;)... .~
en' . hi '"
N.... ~
e
! 0
.~ 1::
it l!
.. en g,
.e ! 0.
~ '"
it ..
'" .. S
u e
~ ~ "0
. IE III
'" "0
... " !
.. '0 l!
.. ~
... ... e III
... :c III
III .. .. 0. >
III ... ... III .. "'- ~
.. ... - 'f
.. - III III III ... !::! III U
e ... ... ~ ~ ~ '" :is .- III
:c III III e ~ ~ ... III 'j; 'j; ... .- "i
.. ~ '" .. :IE 'iii
~ l!! III .. - '" II
'f - l!! III " g,l!
0 - U -5 ii
~ :g ~ III '0; '0; :is ... ...
.r s III ~ ~ .. .. III .. '!;!
~ '" '" e ~ III III "0 :I "0.
... '" ~ " U 0 "0 "0 'iii IIl- ~ '" '"
e - .. E E-
~ - ~ e e III 'iii ~ " U
0 III III ! .. '> III III III '" '" ~ 8 .. ..
.~ .. ~ 0 '" e " " U :! ...- III III
.. 'I: '" ~ l:! l:! III a: == == == ~"i
en li S .. U '" Qj U '" U co ....
c :i i2 i2 0 0 0 0 E
a: en ...J f- >
! . . . 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . . .
0 - N M
it - N M .... It) 10 ... CO CD - - - - . . . 0 -
... CD CD - -
..: . . . . .
I~ ~~7
I U)
I
I
en
I ~
(,)
I ~
I ~
o
z
ca:
z
o
~
ca:
t-
en
w
a:
u:
I
I
I
I
,
I ~
o
I ~
a:
I ~
...
I ~
::E
I ~
15
I
I
I
'i
::>
c
...
c
o
,g
..
c
o
...
5
en
e
u:
t:
..
lL
-5
Cl)l
.01 .t!
~.5 t: .
~..,oO"
cn:::Q.CO
:!1~iS8
a:..2'"
~"S...C't
z"8 N
- E
..
CI)
~ c .
en.g-=:
f-J!tF
z....
w>8
Z ..
<~
~N.t
a:
w
lL
en
w
t:
en
z
o
i=
~
~
a: c .
.....2-=
w".
050'
III III
0>8
:r..o
U.l? ..
ZMCI)
<
a:
=6.t!
:> .-
>...
050"
.. III
CD >0
z..o
::l~o
Ill' .
N~
..
01
C
:c
III
'E
::>
....
c
o
... -
....,
.. CD
Ill::>
11).5
~ ...
U:6
.u
....-
o
'"
~
...
...
~
~
.~
~
~
..,
~
.:
j
~
CD
c
~:6
..
...
CD-
-"
u:CD
,M
~-
-
I
I
I
I I
I I
1 il
I I
i I
II
8 ~ ~I~I~
M I_IN
I ~l'"
I ,
\ I
I I
, I
I I
I I
I !
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
8 888
CD q ~ CD
N
888
CD ~ ~
-
.
'ii
CD
~ m
CD 'ii
N ~ CD
E CD ii ~
~ ~ ; t ~ ~ j ~ ~
....erQ.15~e -J::.
l ~ j i ~ ~ .~ t .f
& ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ m
~ ~ ~ ~ z < ~ 5 ~
~ ~ ~ ~ m 0 ~ N ~
~ _ _ _ _ N N N N
/b - ~~f('
,*
'0
,_
III I ~
i I a
.. ....\ Ii
~ ;!:'I 'i
~ ~ ~
, ::ll '
~illll~
o
...
U)
o
CD
M
~
...
o
;b
M
N
...
U)
CD
U)
~
en
...
o
...
~
~
U)
...
en
Cl
z
:f
III
Z
a:
::l
....
Z
o
~
en
....
;!:
~
'i;
j
u
!
z
o
~
~
.:.;
;!:
~
Ii:
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
September 8, 1992
RE: Interim Fire Station & Associated Costs
Item Projected Cost
$ 89,931
$ 18,000
$ 80,3851
$ 20,000
$ 18,700
$223,762
$ 50,333
$ 13,554
*Modular Building
*Truck Port
*Site Preparation
*Utilities
*Landscape
*Fire Pumper
*Fire Pumper Equipment
*Fire Fighter Equipment
*Fire Station Furniture, Fixtures,
and Equipment
*City Staff Services
*Consultants
$ 24,713
$ 9,750
$ 19.000
$568,128
$ 56.813 2
$624,941
SUB TOTAL:
*Contingency @ 10%
SUB TOTAL:
Start-up Fire Fighter Training and
Certification Prior To Station Operation
(April 6 - June 5, 1992)
$102,000
Special Assessments, Property Taxes,
Special Taxes Or Association Dues
On Parcel For Interim Station
(for 1993 - 1996)
$ 63,545 3
Estimated Resale Value Of Modular Building
and Truck Port ($0 )
TOTAL:
$790,486
. These items funded by Eastlake's advance payment of fees.
1 Includes preparation and restoration costs associated with the initial site at the northern end of the
lot as well as preparation costs for the new site at the southern end of the parcel.
2 10% contingency used for budget purposes only; 15% contingency permitted in Interim Fire
Station Agreement.
3 See Attachment C for tax and assessment breakdown. Property tax portion increased by 2%
annually to reflect increase in assessed value.
) ~ - &~ 'I
I fD
I
I (/)
I ...
(/)
0
Co)
I c
w
...
s
I
w
a::
c
I z
e:(
z
I 0
-
... ~
e:(
... 'G
I (/) (l
W III
C
a:: C
- "!
U-
I ~
I!!
'- iI:
Z -
I 3: t:
0 ~
c
I ~
e:(
w
a::
I en
..
...
I ...
z
w
:E
I :z::
Co)
e:(
...
I ...
e:(
I
I
I
I ,
0 0 0 0 '"" Ill' N ,...
8 0 0 0 N' N' ~ l')
0 0 0 ~I -' co ,...
c .n N c " v; en .n
""
- co ~ I '" ~ ~
~ ~ N
... ...
I
> I
ibi ,
I
...0
wo I
Ca:
00
oS
ZlJ
<
a:
I
I
I
0 8 8 0 0 0' 0: 0 8
0 0 0 01 81 0
0 0 0 0' '''' "!.
g .n c c ~' " ., .
0' "" N ~
~ III ~ ~ ~, Nt N III
... ~ , Nt N
I ..., ...
I
I
. I
?u N
~
a: .
"'a:
Ww .:.i.
C~ I ~
00 I ..
:%:1- a.
lJ "
Z Ol
C
< ~
a: 0
~
iJ
.5
Ol
-
'iii
"
Ol
..
R
e
! ci- a.
" .. ~
.;!It) 0
.;! -
.l') '"
E ci- ...~- :>
.. ..; ~...;! '1i
I:: I >
a. 8 It) E . I Z ..
.. l')gll I 0 ..
.!! co
III ~ -..~o t3 "i
C ~ ","0 I E
'6 I!Ol~ I ... ::l
- - ~ '" :: a: :>
a; l! g == ., * Iii :I
~ !:2 .. O.;!@J I 0
0 ..
.. ~ " .- .. Iii Z
a. - C ... . '" ~ 0 I!!
I!! C .: ....ot: u ::l ! u
Ol Ol .~ lJ ..
u E E ~ E It) . 0 ... ~
.. a. '" {:..., g::? i ~ ~ :: Ol
!::! o. ~ a.
C l a: .0 '" C
",ot: ..N a. == '" 0 8
'" 0 0 - 1ll00fD .. .. 01 I-
:> .~ C '" '" . c~~ u - C 0
'1i 01 C ~ ~ ... .- .. .. VI
S $ u.!!! .5 a. II -::: C
> 'iii " ~ c
'" ~ Co .. 0 C ~
c! - 0", 0
" .. iii ~ I:: . .5 iJ u '"
C C U'" I-..ot:
.5 0 . .
U - N ..; .t Lti cO ...: cO N
.;. ~
ai .
)6 - ~36
....
I
I
I CI)
...
I CI)
0
u
I c
UJ
...
:3
I UJ
a:
c
I z
ct
z
0 'i
I - '"
... c
..
ct 8
...
I CI) ~
UJ
a: '6
- If
U- Q
I I ,S
c
, ';0
~ ~
Z !
I ~ II:
0 -
C t:
I ~ :.
ct
UJ
a:
m
I ..
....
...
I z
UJ
~
~
I u
<
1=
I ct
I
I
I
0 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 8 ~ 8 0 8 0 0 ....
It) It) Itl 0 0 0 15 It) 0 0 0 0 ~ ....
It) It) ~ .... co It) M "i co .... It) N - M - Itl '" ~
M - - - iii -
- l:l
...
...
?;;
a:~ ,
tilO
ci
01/)
:z:1/)
uS
Zu
<
a:
~
-
II)
N
...
?;;
a:
-'a:
Ww
c~
00
:z:...
u
Z
<
a:
'ii
Gl -
~ ~
...
~ ui
Q.
:€' ..
'ii E
~ 'ii 'l:l 'ii ui I/)
~ 'ii Gl !:2 Gl t: Cl
Gl = i .. Z -'
.. - ii ~ ~
Q 'l:l !::! 1! -
c 'ii c 'ii E - I/)
'ii Gl e
:c Gl ~ N ! i Gl Gl '" Q. Z
Gl E - 'ii l! !E
OJ !::! ..: 0 - t II:
'f E ... !2 Gl .. =
'ii !::! Gl OJ N :1 ~ ::l
... 'ii :: c OJ C Gl
'" Gl ';0 ... t7 Gl - OJ - Gl - ,91 ';0 ~ ... Ii:
Gl J!l Gl
... !::! .&. ';0 ~ ... c - > .. E Q. E -'
OJ ';0 - 0 ~ f
~ ... .&. - :1 c .!!! :s Gl ! Gl "ii Q. :l
... Ql .&. .. ... - '"
... ... :is .. 0 ~ .&. '" 0
OJ OJ . .. Gl m c i ... ... - .. ~ OJ ... OJ - :is e
'6 Gl .~ .. E ~
Gl Ql 'l:l C C 0 - '" l! ~ .!! Q. g' ..
If 'l:l 'l:l 'w .. :s 0 c Gl Gl C -
~ .. -a 'w - '" :i2 '" Q ~ Gl ~ D '" ...
! Gl 'S; C .. .&. ~ t: :i2
Q ... ! .. ... ... .. ~ 'c
c 5: 5: Q. Ql Ql a: '6 ~ 0 ... ... '" ~ c
'c 5: Gl ;! ;! U ;f Iii :i 0 - 0 'c ...
'j! 0 0 0 ~ it > a: u i:2 I/) c ii:
ci . N ..; oj .n cO r.: cci .,; ci
... . N oj .n cO r.: cci -
- M '" - - - - - - - - - - N
U
)J - J31
I a)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I t
I
I
I ;:.
I ffi
:E
:t
I ~
I 5
I
I
I
eI)
t-
el)
o
U
Q
w
5
w
a:
Q
z
<I:
Z
o
~
t-
el)
w
a:
u::
z
3:
o
e
<I:
w
a:
en
0 8 0 8
.. '"
0 ..
0 0 c
o:t II>
o:t .. E
c.
05
. . i
C') o:t
- - CI
. . c
o~
..
Ox
II>
,
I!!
c.
'IS
w CD
~ ..
in "
c ...
w I!!
ii: ..
~ ~
..
Z ~
w 0
C -
Z .. ...
.. ..
~ 0 "~
u ~
...
c u
.!! II
c;;
~ g
c
.. ~
E
I!! (J
u -c:i
oS II>
0 ..
c "
~ ..
.. .D
1!l ...
"iij '5
"6 0
0 ~
~ o:t
u ..
.!!! c
c 0
0 o~
"~ fl
..
tl III
I!! CD
~
III ~ i!
Z ... ~
..
C c (J
~ c ~
..
1S. c
u ..
Z ... t:
0 "
~ ~ u
:IE ... ~
..
:IE .. ...
C ...
C II>
U ~ ~
..
0 c. ~
.. is ..
~
~ II> C
.D CD
.:.i ... ~
'5
~ ~ 05
0 ~ i
~ II> >
~ ..
- g !!
~ Ie ~ ~
c ~ .. ..
~ ~
CD ~ ~
. E
c .. ..
CD 0 C. II> ..
" "ti 05 E E
c;; .,. " "
~ w .. ..
> 0 .. ..
... :;; c( c(
c c
~ 0 .. . .
u a: C') o:t
U - -
I .( iii . .
I
~
..
S
~
J/
c
"
E
E
8
o
:;;
..
a:
t:
:.
)/P - J'3:2.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It
I
I
..
~,
DRAFT
Fire Station Master Plan
Policy Analysis and Program
Evaluation Unit (February, 1989)
Marty Chase, Project Manager
Cheryl Fruchter, Principal Management Analyst
)~ -;l33
REVISED 3/23/89
-- t.:-,.",.,
.~....~t;I~'! ' .,
"0.,.. _
AP,? l07g89
Wlllo;.n ASSIlf,', . ,~;"l I,
'''' ...~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
.. Il
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
PART I. FIRE RESPONSE TIME STANDARDS AND PERFORMANCE
PAGE
i-v
1-3
A. Components of Fire Response Time 4
B. Current Response Time Performance And The Fire Threshold 5
C. The Measures Used To Assess Al ternati ve Fi re Sta ti on Networks 6-7
D. General Methodology: The Computer Model 7-8
E. Coverage Ra tes: The Current Fire Station Network 8-12
PART II. FUTURE COVERAGE IN THE PLANNING AREA
A. Proposed Fire Station Network: Description
B. Proposed Fire Station Network: Overall Coverage Rate
C. Proposed Fire Station Network: Coverage of Special "Risk: Sites
D. Suggested Project Level Guidelines
E. The Scenario #4 Road Network
F. Costs/Benefits Of Expanding Or Decreasing The Proposed Network
(Fire Network Recommendations)
G. Financing Needed Fire Stations
H. Time Table For Fire Station Construction
PART III. RELATED -FIRE SERVICE ISSUES
A. Fire Training Facility
B. Radio Communications
C. Paramedic/Ambulance Coverage
D. Optimal Location For The Bonita Fire Station
J~ - ~3'f
13-16
16-1 9
19-21
22-26
26-27
27-31
32
33
33-38
39-40
40-41
41-42
42-46
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As part of the General P1 an update, the Management Servi ces Department's
Policy Analysis and Program Evaluation Unit (PAPE) has completed a review of
the long term fire coverage needs within the City's Planning Area. The study
illustrates that significant efficiencies can be achieved if fire coverage
needs are planned for on an area-wide basis.
The Planning Area's present fire station network consists of 5 Chu1a Vista
based stations and 1 station located in the Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection
District. First-in automatic aid is provided to the Planning Area from
stations located in National City and San Diego.
Under the proposed network, new fire stations wou1 d be built in the E1 Rancho
del Rey development and in Baldwin's Salt Creek-I development (formerly part
of Eastlake I). The Ci ty' s current Fi re Stati on #4 on Otay Lakes Road wou1 d
be closed in conjunction with the opening of the E1 Rancho del Rey and Salt
Creek-I fire stations. Additionally, the City's current Fire Station #3, on
East Oneida, would be relocated to the Sunbow-II development. Lastly, a fire
station would be located within Baldwin's Otay Ranch property, west of the
Otay Reservoi r. It is proposed that coverage for the Otay Ranch area be
supplemented by coverage from 3 Chula Vista based stations. As detailed in
the report, it is likely that a second fire station based in otay Ranch would
be required to adequately serve that area if joint station location planning
and joint fire coverage did NOT occur.
i
I~ - ~35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
At buildout, it's projected that 98.8't of the Planning Area's dwelling units
would be within a 7 minute fire station response as compared to a current 7
minute coverage rate of 99.3't; 77't of the area's dwelling units would be
within a 5 minute response as compared to a current 5 minute coverage rate of
77.3't. Al so, under the proposed network, the fi rst and second-i n response
times to 29 special sites, identified as having a potentially high risk of
life or property loss, ~ould meet or exceed proposed standards. A preliminary
time tabl e for constructi ng new stati ons and reconmendati ons for fi nanci ng
fire related facilities are provided in the report. The Fire Station Master
Plan should be reviewed should significant changes occur in the City's Sphere
. of Influence or if substantive changes in the circulation network or planned
land uses are contemplated.
In addition to looking at overall coverage rates, the report proposes specific
response time guidelines which would be applied to residential and
industrial/commercial projects during the City's internal project review
process. As detailed in the report, the Fire Department is presently meeting
the fi re servi ce threshol ds whi ch were adopted by Council as part of the
overall growth management program. The proposed project guidelines will
provide an ongoing mechanism to insure that threshol d service 1 evel s are
maintained.
Lastly, several related fire issues are covered in the report. These include
the need for a new fire training facility and the optimal location for the
Bonita fire station.
it
II? -d~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
The key report recolll11endati ons are hi gh1 i ghted below. The reconrnendati ons
relating to Council action are:
RECOMMENDATION 1:
(Station Network)
RECOMMENDATION 7:
(Project
Guidelines)
Adopt in principle the proposed 8 fire station network
for the Planning Area.
Adopt the project guidelines detailed in Table 4 of
this report (page 23). These guidelines will provide
an on-going mechanism to insure that the fire service
threshold will be maintained.
The recommendations for staff action are:
RECOMMENDATION 2.
(Station Network)
RECOMMENDATION 3.
(Station Network)
RECOMMENDATION 4.
(Station Network)
RECOMMENDATION 5.
(Station Network)
RECOMMENDATION 6.
(Station Network)
RECOMMENDATION 8.
(Road Network)
Staff work with the developer to set aside a site
within the Sunbow-II development for the relocation of
Fire Station #3.
Lead Department: Planning
Staff work with the developer to set aside a site
within the Salt Creek-I development for a new fire
stati on. Thi s wou1 d rep1 ace the ori gi nally p1 anned
site in the East1ake I development.
Lead Department: Planning
Staff continue to work with the developer on plans for
the E1 Rancho del Rey fire station.
Lead Department: Planning
Staff work with East1ake to obtain appropriate credits
for the original fire station site in the East1ake-I
Village Center which will not be used.
Lead Department: Planning
Staff assess alternative uses for Fire Station #4 on
Otay Lakes Road, which would be vacated in conjunction
with the opening of fire stations in E1 Rancho del Rey
and Salt Creek-I (including its potential use as a
paramedic site by Hartsons), and for Fire Station #3
on East Oneida, which would be vacated in conjunction
with the proposed relocation to the Sunbow-II
development.
Lead Department: Planning
Staff continue efforts to modify the Scenario #4 road
network to improve access into the Bonita Meadows
Estates development, in order to bring the development.
into compliance with the proposed project guidelines.
Lead Department: Engineering
111
)~ - rP37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
, .
RECOMMENDATION 9.
(Financing)
RECOMMENDATION 10.
(Operation of
Rancho del Rey
& Salt Creek-I
stations)
RECOMMENDATION 11.
(Olympic Center)
RECOMMENDATION 12.
(Financing)
RECOMMENDATION 13.
(Relocation of
Fire station #3)
RECOMMENDATION 14.
(Training
Facil ity)
RECOMMENDATION 15.
(Training
Facil ity)
RECOMMENDATION 16:
(Training
Facil ity
Staff establish a developmental impact fee (DIF) to
cover the costs for modifying the City's fire station
network, as outlined in this report.
Lead Department: Administration
The El Rancho del Rey and Salt Creek-I fire stations
be targeted for operation when Eastlake Greens reaches
40-50% buildout. Based on current time lines, this
,buildout level is expected to occur by FY 1992-93 or
before. The actual bui 1 dout rate will depend on a
variety of external factors such as prevail ing
interest rates, the timing of major roads, and the
water allocation formula which is being developed.
Lead Department: Fi re
Staff insure that sufficient fire protection and
medical treatment capabilities are developed on-site
for the OlYl!1Pic Training Center to mitigate the need
for any interim changes in the Ci ty' s current fi re
stati on network, until such changes are warranted by
development in the nearby Eastlake Greens area.
Lead Department: Planning
Staff develop a financial plan, similar to a multi-year
CIP budget, to prepare for the annual increase in
operati ng expenses associ ated with a si xth fi re
station ($618,000 per year in 1988 dollars).
Lead Department: Administration
The relocation of Fire Station #3 be targeted to
coincide with the earliest of the following events:
the buildout of the Otay Rio Business Park; the
relocation of San Diego's Fire Station #6; or
achi evement of a 50% buil dout 1 evel for the Sunbow
development.
Lead Department: Fire
Construction of a new fire training facility ($321,000)
should be given strong consideration for inclusion in
the City's CIP budget in the near future.
Lead Department: Fire
An appropriate share of the cost for the new fire
training facility be included in the fire developmental
impact fee (DIF) to be established by Administration.
Lead Department: Administration
Staff determine the desirability of jointly using the
fire training classroom as a briefing room for police
units assigned to patrol beats east of I-80S and'
delineate associated space and equipment needs.
Lead Department: Police
iv
16 - J. 56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RECOMMENDATION 17:
Radio Communica-
tions)
RECOMMENDATION 18.
(Radio Com-
munications)
RECOMMENDATION 19.
(Paramedic
Services)
RECOMMENDATION 20.
(Bonita Fire
Station)
Staff work with developers and the City's Senior
Electronics Technician to determine an appropriate
location for a communications tower east of 1-805.
(Thi s faci 1 i ty is needed to improve radi o-radi 0
communi cati ons for both pol ice and fi re servi ce as
development occurs in the eastern territories.
Lead Department: Planning
The cost of the communications tower be included in
the fire developmental impact fee (DIF) to be
established by Administration.
Lead Department: Administration
Staff continue to work with Hartson to assess current
and future paramedic service needs east of 1-805.
Lead Department: Fire
Staff continue to explore possible conditions under
which the City's financial participation in the
construction of a new Boni ta fi re stati on woul d be
desirable. (This station would replace the current
Bonita station. The optimal station site is the
current location on Bonita Road and Acacia.)
Lead Department: Administration
v
/ J - J 37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~u?-
:~~:
.......~~~
~~~~
r"
t ;..:.
CllY OF
CHULA VISfA
(lCT 311989
MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
\~.. i'.' ~ -.
. '
October 27, 1989
Ms. Jenette Litton
Wildan Associates
6363 Greenwich Drive
suite 250
San Diego, California 92122-3939
Attached is the cost breakdown for a fire brush rig and
associated equipment. The total cost is estimated at
between $183,345 - $208,345. The vehicle, which is needed
for offroad fire fighting, would be stationed at the planned
Salt Creek fire station.
Also, I want to alert you to a new DIF-related project that
will be forwarded for your review in the very near future.
The City will be purchasing a new mainframe computer and a
portion of the equipment costs, associated with expanded
capacity and increased processing speed, are directly
related to needs imposed by anticipated growth. The new
mainframe would have a projected 5-year life and the DIF
related portion is anticipated to run between 24-29%
($220,000-$263,000). These figures should be firmed up by
next week. A complete cost breakdown and written
justification will be forwarded at that time.
S;:~Cl
Marty Chase
Assistant Director
cc: Dave Byers
John Pavlicek
Jim Thomson
(
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA)JL1F:!-RN'Jl9lf()16191 691-5296
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
Rev Br:WI""DAN SAN DIEGO
6-26-B2
B:42
425 e'64~ WI""DAN SAN DIEGO:' 2
April 15, 1992
Marty Chase
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avonue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
REI 1992 TAX BILL
Dear Marty,
Per the request of BrUCA Sloan, I have enclo.ed
copies of the 1992 tax bill for Busine.. Center Lot
1 (4.728 acres) and the 1~91/92 Roll Correction for
Assa..mant District 88-1.
The amoun~ paid from ~he ~ax bill for AReessment
District 88-1 was 27,111.92. As indioated on the
1991/92 Roll Correction sheet, the oorrect amount
should have been $30,609.72. Therefore, the total
amount of the tax bill to be prorated between the 1
acre Fire Station aite and the balanoe of Lot 1 i.
$53,343.36. The .onthly aeeeaament billed b~ the
management oompany to E.stLake Development Company
for tot 1 ie $549.00, whioh will need to b.
prorated.
If you have any questions please oall either Bruce
or JIIe.
sincerely,
EAS'l'I..AI<E DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
~"-~....~~,,-
Christina L. Lujan ~
Seoretary
/011
ChaaaUr.AU
)~ - rftlf {
.' ..
,
/
EJ.,.
, . ~., .
E?:1
" -<,...
~~.:t::.W
fASTLAKE
~ENT
9CO Lane Allen...
~llelOO
Chula Visto, CA 0101.4
/619l42H1127
fl'J( C019l42'.leJO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Rev BY:WILLDAN SAN DIEGO
10 10 IJ.J
.. ... d
~ .
... N "t:
., N ""
0- a:<Il
.... """
I!.e> N !<i!I m
* LU~ ru
;' 0 * C;I
t~ 0
... C;I
~I'" ""
ru
IS ~ - .....
I: n.J
-, '" U'l
;8 rr
~ In III
~~ .. ~- 00
w III ;~ In l"-
I '11 l'U
~c 10 tu
!re 0- lr'
i~ .., :
~ ~t: ~
.. _c -0 0
! I- U ru
z .... '"
I .... ~ ... 8
= Z 0-
0 .... ... ...
z .Ee>o- N
::! ll.g "'
.... '0" ru
... .J+oC LII
... U ...
>Lll LII
c....~ w:>c *0
Qc~ ""
r-lI\e III ru
i" NO .UJWH N
. . . "'?i> II'"
""LnC.' C ...
eN.,. ..J.JoO; IV
lI\otlO ~ ...J CI
~ tIIN....... U)_= C>
N NLn ce:z: I!j
~ .Wo-U
II>
8-28-i2 :
425 6184"
WILLDAN SAN DIEGO;' 3
..
i~
i!
:1
!'
;
...
C ~~O~~~N~ ~~-~QO~~
Q "COO~=~M .q~~~~~~
LJ.j 0 ......CCII.O......CSO... --___W'\1Il1l\
J C OOCQOooo -=DO~"""~~
" ......... Ul'\,D..o~\DIoO"'o"p
M~~OOOOg~_w......*.
o 0
~
ClCI ClCICICI::>
li5h
j;=
;l51
"II
00
...
.
'"
N
0-
.,.
N
10
...
.
N
N
0-
....
N
j ~
nU
-
B "'" !
~ N ~ ~
ow .,..
~ .. I~ ... ... ...
II: .,.. 0- .,.. lI'o
~CI;: .. .. 0-
M ., ., <0-
iIl... N I~ w
0'" 10 I
-'.~ W ItI
~1Il > ....
C
&II,." 0
iI ClCc'" 1 ~
... VI
ClIOI~'" i . ~ .. '"
...w >
N..... ..lE: ..1 I'
....J...Jc .~~ s,=
NI- -'
InlheoCl
..ceo: II ~~~ ~Iill d
u\w..u
Ii ~ It)
reoc.
.... -...---. -. -.. --. .-
/6 - :llf~
1;
r :~
r~
:
I
....
cWWUJJ.uWUJI.,
... ...
W IIlIllU~CI~.JIIlZ >
w~ W~H~~~~a_ ~ ~
ClZ.J 1IlIllC~<<cZ"'zc ....>...
.Joe:> uo ...O>IOIUO: .O....J...
<~Q W~~~% ~ ~ Q~w~~
> :z: .J=Lll......~ ... W...~U.JIO:::>
~u ~=~==~'C~~IU ~Cg
~Wlll B~" c% =Z~IO ...~~:
i W~.J a= W'WUIO%ZC"'<
%e>o u ~~Z~QC~ U ~4
~~C>=.J"'~Q~"'>O~IIl="'>~
.~.=~Qc.~ C~g~~ ~4C4
c~~u...w~~ .J%=~C"'C~> ...
cZ~Z ... >4Uall..J~"'4oC~0
~ w ~~uo~~ WE~ ~3 ~~
C"E=EW"'=ZCCC~"'~~~~3
~~wu~.%~~~W~ :E>~~
"'~"'CI~=w8 X ~mll> w....~
~OW=UO:E "'OClMIIl:3c
-~ 4::U
~ 0;
~~:
_II!;;
111I*
:!!-I
r
!
, Iii.
: ~g,,"
; it5... ~ ~
;, ~~~!! I~
I ;>-Rii""j:I'R
'-Iii!;;. '"Ill!
:i;~_ ~ffi
~~:i IiI!
1lll!;111 I
il~
...
c
~ 10
...
i ..
..
i o.
)..
~
"'"
N
...
CO
I'll
.
..
o
..u
1'...
-';I:
.w
h:
!~
l!lW
",g
1101
."
I~
...
W
.,..
...
N
e
co
C
Rev By:wmDAN SAN DIEGO : 6-28-92: 9:U
425 8'84~ W!LLDAN SAN DIEGO:' 4
I
.
I
I
I
M
I
I
-~
. ;~
I :~
I i~
I l~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i ....If-
~ ~< ~
~ I
~~~
i~:&
!I
~
~Ifi
I!
z
a:
I ~
m ~
i JljjlllJllJJJJJJllJjji j
I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~$~~ =
il~~~o~o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
-~=~~ ~ ~~~h~~~N~._~_.~ ~
II>
!\l~~~~8.~8.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~&~~O~O~i~~~~~~i~~i~~
oow_~ ~ N~m~o_oo~.o~~~
-N0~_ ~ .~N~_~~~__~_~_
.
~~~~~8.~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~
~m~~~o~o_~~XQ~~~~~~~~~
~~~~- ~ ~Q~~~~~~~qq~~~
... ... ~ 0 od etI "'., (Q'~ Cll .... .... "" Iff p) ., p) ~ III
~---~ ~ ~_N~ ~W~-~V~T~
,~~~,~~-~.,~~~"'~,~~s~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!~~~!!~!
~~~~m~mim~IIl$l/ll/ll/ll/ll/l~l/ll/l~l/l
"(QmCllm~~"~"_~"'~~~~~(Ql/l"'N
~-_NpW~_~~ ~~N_N~
JJ - J '13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COST:
BRUSH RIG
$175,000 - $200,000
Descriotion
Hose
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
Cab configuration: Seat 4 - Factory or custom crew cab
Power Train: Minimum 300 H.P.
HT=741 Allison Automatic/with
jake break
Detroit Diesel with
output retarder - no
Running Gear: All wheel drive, 3 axle chassis, with
22.5 tires, commonly called a 6X6
Pump: 500 GPM with its own power plant
Water Tank: 1,000 to 1,200 gallon
BRUSH RIG EQUIPMENT
- 1,500 feet 1 1/2 hose 1 single jacket
100' -1" hardline reel
pulaski (..vI /<iJJ;(Ij- d's" en-th,A/4hvn J.oe""J'""i!)
McClouds
round shovels
brush hook
resuscitator
trauma box
hand tool box
5-gallon water cooler
hand hose (pocket) clamps for 1 1/2 hose
rechargeablehandlights
portable radio
mobile radio
grid cards
booster line nozzle
1-1/2" hose line nozzle
$
2,000
350
35
125
100
25
400
90
200
20
1,800
375
1,200
1,000
250
175
200
$ 8,345
,TOTAL COST: BRUSH RIG AND EQUIPMENT = $183,345 - $208,345
REFERENCES
Ernie Warren - 696-3298 - San Diego Repair Facility
Tom - Monte vista - 588-0364
Gene Robison - La Mesa Sheet Metal
It - J If Y-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.1-19-90
ATTACHMENT A: Development Share of Fire station #1 Expansion
1 Total Fire Prevention Space: 1,704
2 % Growth Related: 37.50% *1*
3 Growth Related Square Footage: 639 -Fire
Prevention
4 Total Other Remodeled Space: 4,276
5 % Growth Related: 10.85%
6 Growth Related square Footage: 464 -Other
7 TOTAL GROWTH RELATED SQUARE FOOTAGE: 1,103
8
TOTAL REMODELED SQUARE FOOTAGE:
5,980
9
Overall Percentage Growth Related:
18.44%
o
TOTAL COST OF EXPANSION:
$438,000
*2*
11 City Credit for New Development Share:
*********
$80,767
*********
*1* Extra square footage needed to accommodate 8 versus 5
employees.
*2* CV 89-90 CIP
)1 - /1 "15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.6 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
Existinl! Condition
City Staff currently provides mapping and geographic information processing at a
labor cost of almost $1,500,000 per year. (See City of Chula Vista Geographic
Information Study in the Appendix) As a result of this time consuming task and the
volume of work to be done, mapping and geo-data file updating are generally behind
schedule, base maps are often redundant while varying map scales and features are
unavailable.
Needed Improvements
The Geographic Information Study dated May 19, 1987 identifies how a Geographic
Information System can be used by Planning, Building, Fire, Community Develop-
ment and Public Works Departments. A GIS will map current sewer systems and
transportation facilities, aid project construction, and provide a tool for future
planning and processing land development. This is particularly significant in relation
to growth east of Interstate 805, because the system reduces the labor hours needed
to create new geo-related information.
Status of Needed Improvements
Requests for Proposals for the purchase and installation of the GIS system have been
sent. Selection of a firm should be made by the end of 1992. It is expected that the
hardware and software for the system will be installed and on line by Spring 1993.
One-third of the mapping for the data base should be completed by the end of 1993,
and another one-third by the end of 1994 and the final one-third by the end of 1995.
Method of Apportioninl! Costs
According to the GIS study, the frrst phase of installing and implementing the GIS
will cost $2,400,501. Because of potential changes in technology and the City's
growth rate, it may be necessary to augment or replace this system after the year
2000. New development will finance 35.5 percent of the cost or $605,700.
1993 Public Facilities D1F Update
City of Chula Vista
51
11- ;;.~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO.6
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
1991 1992
Description Cost Estimate Cost Estimate
1 GIS System $ 1,800,000 $ 2,400,501
2 Less City's Share (64.5% plus 100% (1,144,800) (1,600,579)
of Maintenance)
3 Less Other Developer fees collected 0 (50,000)
4 Less DIP fees collected plus interest (64,055) (144,258)
TOTAL $ 591,145 $ 605,664
USE $ 605,700
1993 Public Facilities DlF Update
City of Chula Vista
52
II - ~~?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
DOCUMENTATION
Geol!:raDhic Information System
1. DIF Fund Status - As of June 30, 1992
2. Memo to Dawn Herring dated April 2, 1992 Re: DIF Review.
3. GIS Capital hnprovement Program detail spreadsheet dated December 15, 1991.
4. Excerpts from City of Chula Vista Geographic Information System Study dated May
19, 1987.
Note: The following documentation material is .!!2! paginated.
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
53
IJ - ~f(
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Rev BV:W!LLOAN SAN OlE~O
,- 7-QS :" :"U
425 6'84~ W1LLCAN SAN DIEGO;' 8
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMA'rION SYSTEM DtF FUND-AS OF 6/30/512
A.
DtF Revenues received to da~e:
B.
DIF Investment earnings to date:
Iotal Revenues
$. 128,024
$ 144,258
S 16.234
C. Commitments to date:
JllE
Onaoin~
Staff services:
Equip/supp expensQs:
TOTAL:
:$
$
.em:
Ongoing
Staff services:
$
D. Currently planned expendituros:
Installation of hardware and 50ftware
u - ~47
"--'-..-.'-
42,0:15
:17.072
79,107
52,521
1-06-93
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
MEMORANDUM
April 2, 1992
File # NP-OOl
TO: SiDawn Herring, Budget Manager
Teri Enos, Principal Management Asst.
FROM: Fred Wong, GIS Manager IJ
SUBJECT: DIF Review
I received your memo from Willdan Associates yesterday, and in reviewing it I noticed that the
GIS CIP and DIF funds are from the previous (original) CIP. These numbers are fme except
that they do not include the "General Administrative" cost which covers the staff time, operating
and other administrative costs.
In our previous discussions on the DIF for the GIS project, I understood that these "General
Administrative" cost were to be included in the project so that the General Fund could be
reimbursed for staff and other operating costs related to GIS as part of the initial project
implementation.
Based on that understanding, updated CIP and detail information on the GIS project including
administrative cost was sent to you and Teri (see attached memo dated Jan. 31, 1992). In the
past, the administrative cost was
handled separately. If these costs are
to be reflected in the GIS CIP, then
the total project budget would increase
by $803,201 from the old CIP budget
of $1,597,300 to $2,400,501 (see
Figure 1), and the DIF funds to be
collected would need to be adjusted to
meet the DIF portion of the increase.
GIS Project TotlII ctp (FV 91-94)
PrevloU8 ctp VI Current CIP
0Iy of ..... _
11,000,000
t2.lIOO,OOO . ...........
$2,000.000 ............
11.500,000
'1.000,000 ....
...-..oo.sol.. .
-... ....
..
I know that the DIF, Sewer Fund, and
other project funds are to reimburse
the General Fund for operating and
other administrative costs, and that
basically there are two methods to
accomplish it. One method is to
-
continue to keep the administrative
cost separate from the project, which Figure 1
means that the total DIF and other
project funds required must include not only the budget identified in the CIP, but also the
administrative/operating costs which must be tracked separately. The other method is to include
CI' wi ~ Ad..
-...'
........
_,400
"47,100
........
CIP .. .... ......
__. m
___ IlII
-~.
..- II
_.........1St
....700
_.400
"47,200
....,...
l~ - 010
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
all of the administrative costs in the CIP project, which means the CIP budget by itself reflects
the total DIP and other funding requirements.
Attached is a copy of your memo which I have redlined to show the "General Administrative"
cost as part of the CIP. Please let me know which method we are to use, and if there is
anything else I need to do to ensure that it is accounted for properly in the budget. Thanks.
)~ -~?I
~ , : ~.i, .
.-:'!ll
, I
I ~lI
I l!i
I ~~~
Iii
I ad
..I..
.....
::1=
I :iU
..
..
I :
..
I::
.-
.
I"~
.
..
.'
I ~.
..-
1:=
..-
-
I =
..
I :
I
I
I
I'
o
I:
I
It:Ii''
~tii
I":::..
-.. c
a ..-
_I..
....
.......
.....
.....~a
tfl.
II 0 ..
...=r=
-..-
......1..
-: ~-
.. .-
.;j:
"ii...:
'; z:.f
....
UIi 0
_t_l
'i:i~
~j.~ I:
-e=le
..- .
1..-;
_..:.a:..
......I ..
Ur.. .!
: s.1. J
--.. ..
iil~i~
l~:H::
:: p!;wl
:!fhl
.... . -I.
I~J~!t
.ri...t-
:h!rl
Ii--hl'
.,A. .
-.. i.-
.~ i-I
!; ..t..\!
... :~1
..lJ=
=!l: !!
a . 05
- J"'!"
~ ~ r l"~
&' ;; Ii t..
: ,j;.!;1
· ~ lii}l
\>! Jii.!!
&;r t BI
E ii!fh
~ ll.: h
I -
.
! . . . . . J ...... ...
J . . '.' J. ....... ".
~ ! . . · . ] J 4..... ...
- 1 ~ ~
I! Q g ~ ~ ~ 1:-. '~- .11.1.1.1. ~~
i ~ a- -' C).... '", '" 2""'''''!f''
.. 1'<1"1<\-- -:;1'1.
.. ..... U') M "
~ - .. .. .. .. .. .. ~ ..~....... .....
I ' ~ ~.
i ! ~ ~ ~ S~ M ~ ~~}M ~~~I. ~~
_ ~- ~..... .... .... "t.' 2 W'lW'l It\. Ilt\
.. f!lo~ I'- -
_.. tn....\Vl
I ~ :- .. : .. .. .. ~ ........... ...... ..
'"
.. .. .. .. .. + J..l......... ....
.. ~;f
:~i: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~llct- ~i"'ll.l.!J @I.
0.0 ~':J-:'.......C'I\. ~ D"""''''' CS"""
~ ".2" 0 t'o( ~ ~ I'- .... '" -
f; l('I -,... ~ '-II
c. .. tit .. .... ""'- ............ 4!'....
\1\
-
l
~
:r
1111
~!
':to it~
0'<"
-~=
'td!
~~
.. t
iw-I
.~
--
....
. ~
:; ~ ~!~! ~ ~~,. ~' ll!!~~ i!
!io'lr;:!:~\)'<~ 't .
I ..... J ...... ...
~ ~~
Ii <lot'-
I -.. to- ..
_&: - *,"'c tI\..tt
.: ... '"
. ..I: ....,
,...;:: -
.. i ! I
- .! :
:~-:i
J 1 :
i~lt.
. .... I
-
:
I
..
.
: ..
t I
i !
. .
.. . .
!'"
....:il... .1
~ U ~ ~~
~O,\Qt~o/\
..
:ll
5
..
..
H~ i
II
o
. .:. = ,; .
- - - - ...
/6 - d5~
.I ~
:t
.1, i
~1
· i
l~ g
~ t
~
+ $
I
...
(
I~
'"
r~
..
I.
I
: I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
i
1
1
~~
..
~:Lhi
.. . 'l -
5 t
.. =
i I
- 5 e .J !
... .. ... ...
.. .. ..
c . . 0
o .. .. w
.
~.!
-tII .
..
~ !
't i
t i
c
"
=~
.:!
Be
Is!
....
..-
w'"
I
~
~
.. r
! !
I ~
... ..
! ..
..
.. ..
- ..
t ':
.. -
f -
.. !
..
...
..
..
-
.. ..
ti !
... ..
.. c
~ ~
.. ..J
..
..
t
w
.
...
,;
I.
.
aw
wI.
~ -: i
1"
...
.. ..
..-
It
.w
:1
..
Ii
...
-
..
:&
-Ii
Ei
....
.'
!
..
..
-
.
...
..
...
..
=~:i~
......- '"
I ! ~iH
i= : i ;;
131"-
______ ___ .. ~-J~'
..~f-=
.. ... ..
.......1
efl.!
~ ...:..
,.~t.i
-..,,5
.I:"~ -
..... .. .!: ~=!
~~~; jii1
.... ~_. ~
~#'.O" 0 ~
rv.. - ii\
0''' ~ &..; .
--- ..
.. ....:;.!1...;:
.. ..-
.... t 31
~~~~~
i. :: ~ i
\.Ii 0 d _
.. -:C~ ...
... · J
'I.~.~n! ~ ~~
.....-i . - ,. ., II'
~-,..xt'l
~.,."....15
.. u~.:a"'~
."'''''''.
.~ ...
,," ..J..
.. c _.& . ,
1-".... ...
!'!'j"II".-t :.h~t
"'.,... . ~ r;.&"f.t
- ... - .....~ .. ~ '" II
"'w E i ~ r ,
'l-i~-I;;!
..- ... ... ~.. A: :I
-..."-
. 1I..c Jo III ~
lI'l"i-O
=~ ~ i..""~,,,
~H51 ~ "i ~ ~. .. ~ ;.......... ...... co ;~Hl~
~ ~::t" ~ tt r-- ~' ,. .; s ~ . i ~
.. ,.....:. ...- r.ll'" e:
... - ...) ~ 'a...-
~- ............ ----..- ...... .. :iit...
.. '" --
..' n~'.!'.~.. ~ ~. .~ !tj!.~~~ !~j: 1'~d!~Ii
~~~~h.~~f '" "~l'--- --- ~~hl..
d ~~.- \..~P!!
~ till..........' ..(I)........ ...... .. N'" ".. c:
~ .=r~"i
.. ! ...~' ~ ~ :iH:
! . i I ~! it ~ ~ . ~....
. ~ ~ u -. ! ; ~ Bit ..~ ~ ~
~ . . " ;~ I ~ -... ~ ~
~ .. E : W . ~ Icc=~ y ~
; I - ~ i .. .1.... -. ~
_K 'V Eo: . .. . 'i"" - "'''0
~ , . ~ t ;. 501 ~ I.~ I ~
: . · · ~ u .! ;) "il~s: . _
.. ..:. 5 a 81,..0
! ~ = - ~; ~ : ~. f
I~ - dl~
t.....J
)
,I
~ . "
. .. .. .. .. .... .~.......
WI-
~ ,j
~ ~-~. ~J. !-l ~-, t~ ~~. ~~t!.!.I.!. I.!.]:
~~ Q ""'. ~...."" 0...."""" It\'^
... ~ "" It- " .. ....
_..... N
.. . "', e,
"" .. .. .. .. .. .. - ..,......... ......
~~
~ : ~ .. 1ft !'\ "" u:: !::
!' ~~. ". :.:~. g ij ;1 ~ \i~' .............. . .., ..!
. '-' ~ '-' 0 ... "'2""'.....,. "'I'''^
t- '" ~ N .
, oJ)
.. .. .. .. .... ............ ......
8'\'\":1. \'\.\
'" nun:
tIc: '" . ............. ... "']
... 'q Cl "'111"",,, ""tI'\
:--.: ~ N
..;. ..
.. '\il ..\........ ......
.,;If...... ..
I"
~l c:~ ~i Co! --~
N.... P c.. \I ~
00 C. t/'l c::. "" N
~....... .... ...~. '""
... '. 'It ::! "" '"
0-"" .... ...
-. ~
~
.. .. .. .. ..
-
-
-
..
;12.. ~I~~c:.~ &i ~
-8........ J 0 f'ii.
~;:;;;...".. ~........ ~
..-..0,..' "! \' _
10.....". - 0:;. ~.
cr- ~
..
c ..........
~l'~ ~~ .}. ~!Ji. I.
"J 0 "'....""
o .-....-
't. ...
.~ ~ ~
... -~........
. t
.
-
..
.
c
~
~
,
I
I.
f
I
0":
.' .
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CIP PROJECT ESTIMATE
Date: --,"z/rs-ferl
. .
Project Ho.: ~
.t Title: ~S::LY-.~c.. /IJF"otZMAfic..l ~'!":.-n:"'L-
Location: _~C Ged'/,,-, 1Ju/tX>/t.V;,
I .
I. ~QvIPME"'r ACQLJ/~""'~
I ~lrfl.e i t;OprWAflE.
I
I
I
I
11. M/l,{/JTE.r-J,4,IJC~
I ( ,A1~/JAtJl.E.
I
I
Project Manaller: . ~WQ"'G'
553, COO
lO'J7d,. EQ4J~~ ACQV/SmOl-l 5S3.CCf)
.
I
I
I
TOTAL_ ~6Mie. a:..t'lU60icN ~
I f
.w Z39H
IA....l (10/111)
,
I TOTAL M4IrJTE~E.
III. ~e>}6E ~ V~~~(DIJ
1>A-D.~e. Ct:>fJ(~~/cN.
.
I
-l.4~UJo
-L4<.U:iD,
~,~
V.
IV. 1b!:tfNICk.. MAIIJ~
IEO-lIJ ICAI- MAr IJ'T"aJAIJa!
-92}100
.'
.
-
TOTil.l.. ~r~ kAJ~[r.l' QZ/1DD
SUBTOTAl 'ROJrCT 1.2f7 300
(Add Tota' I. II. III l IV) I
~[NrRAl AOMINISTRATION '
GolJ, Ail.....'.::.. ,vJi> s;r>fFF Sr.>>. '2-0'
CO~.....~ 'OWl-I'll:.- 1.J,rl/l~
I .......1.-.. ""'"' oJ ri4-rT"...J
TOTAL CENERAL ADMIN.
8C'3,"2-.;) I
~
~iGO
'1-,A(>~i ~/)}
)~ - ~5tf
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MEMORANDUM
January 31, 1992
File # NP-001
TO: Dawn Herring, Budget Manager
Teri Enos, Principal Management Asst.
FROM: Fred Wong, GIS Manager
SUBJECT: GIS Budget, CIP and DIP
Attached are three spreadsheets for the GIS project. The first covers CIP Project GG-104, the
Geographic Information System project's costs. The second spreadsheet shows the GIS project
cash flow and the projections for DIP funding. The third spreadsheet shows the budget
appropriations for GG-104, the GIS CIP project. If there are any questions on them, please call
me at x5339.
Notes & Assumptions:
1. Category V of the CIP is "General Administration", which is based on the Full Costs
Recovery factor for staff salaries and operating cost. These funds are for reimbursement
to the General Fund to cover GIS staff and operating budget, and to cover non-GIS staff
time for participating in the project.
2. Because the project costs are all during the early years and the GIS Public Facilities DIP
portion of the funds required are collected over ten years, the DIP portion will require
some financing to cover the cashflow of the project. To meet this cash flow requirement,
the Sewer Fund will advance the funds needed by DIP, and will be reimbursed in the
future years as the DIP funds are collected.
3. The DIP projections are based on information about the future number of building
permits and acres for development from Ken Lee of the Planning Dept.
4. The DIP portion of the project is $873,782, which is 36.4% of the GIS project total costs
($2,400,501). DIP has already collected $126,567; therefore, the DIP funds required
from FY 92-93 to FY 99-00 is $747,215.
To collect $747,215, my estimate of the GIS DIP fee is that it should be set at $65 per
residential permit and $302 per acre of Commercial/Industrial development starting in
FY 92-93.
cc: Susan Cole
Cliff Swanson
I~ - Atf6
I CIty of Chula Vista
I "...."'"
I
I
I
I V.
I
I
I
L
HardwarejSoftware
CIP Project GG-'04
Geographic Information Systems
_Costs
CIP CIP CIP
FY 91-92 FY92-93 FYIl3-94
$303.000 $'25.000 $'25.000
24.500 52,700 70.000
120.000 '53._ 531.000
72.700 10,000 10,000
147.328 333.033 322,840
m,_ '7~ 1.a.. tIIR,itIIf1-_OIk.bIlow .......
..... .... - _~bIlow
II.
MaIntenance
MoppIng 00Illbase ConwnIon
Totals:
III.
IV.
Teohnical Maintenance
I
I
General Admin;
Erv.... FeR
Man-Engr..... FeR
* .Engr. Staff FCR
times 0.82452 times FeR of
(_time)
(1715hns,/208Ohrs.)
2.62295
oquals"'~7487d
'fu..m2-93
$142,170
(GIS_08I_)
$322,840 I. K
Incr. by''''
lor FYIl3-94
.-'/
I
GIS Technical Committee
** Non-Engr. Staff FCR
Hourly
FCR
GIS Houno Est. Budget
'-nga
demos
GiS Houf"l
Intervlewo
.- _marl<
I Duane Bazzel
. Barbara Brookover
Susan Cole
I Roger Daoust
John Hardesty
KovIn Hordy
lraceerna Quilantan
I Brad Romp
AIlsa Rogers
louie VIgnaplono
I
I.
I
I
'$24.99 2.!M308 60.00 ".412.85 20 8 4 8
22.98 2.92998 60.00 4036.34 20 8 4 8
26.60 " ,,9.0??oo 60.00 0.00 20 8 4 8
30.84 0.0??oo 40.00 0.00 20 8 4 8
24.86 2.51102 40.00 2496.96 20 8 4 8
26.60 2._ 40.00 3140.94 20 8 4 8
28.60 0.0??oo 40.00 0.00 20 8 4 8
29." 3.00888 60.00 , ~'-...~10.92 20 8 4 8
21.70 3.37426 40.00 2828.88 20 8 4 8
27.84 1.93887 60.00 3238.69 "", 20 8 4 8
.............liiiii.
Total: 500 :}{:::: ..'.",..--:"
20
20
20
20
20
'.
)J - ~a
I
I ~ II 0 8 !o II II ~ fil":~"l ~ !
i , li "":.." GO
- i
I ~ ~ l!'
"E:
~~
~ II 0 8 !o I I II ~ fil":~"l ~
I i , li ~U) co I~
- i
~ ~ l~
I ~ II 0 8 !o II II ~ fil":~"l ~ ti
i , li "":.tn CD oj
.. - i
~ ~
I ~ II 0 8 !O II II ~ fil":~"l ~ i~
i , li ...... II) co .,j
- i
~ ~ ~ ;
I
<<
~ II 0 8 !o II II ~ fil":~"l ~
i , li ",":10 III)
I - i
~ ~
~ II 0 8 !o II II ~ fil":~"l ~ 'i
~ i , ii .l!!
I "":.It) co i n
- i
~ ~
u. 1 ~~
J:
I I. ~ ; nn~ ~ '" 8 I. &I ~ UU,~~~ ~ ; fil":~"l ~ ~~
:;: i Ii~ . ....._ It) co alJ:ro
ggg~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .tHO I() 5! III ~ Vl - i ~
t5 ~ c ~ ~t"'..
IL IL"i~
;;0 ;;0 0 lS
I w 13 is .~.
a 0
~ ~un ::l ~ i ;~ I innn ::l CD ~ 2t~~~ '" , ; ~j
a: - If.... - '0' ~ "'-Ill:!
gf)j;!~~ l it .~ -~I6.n.,;~u; l ~
0.. 0.. - ! I
~ ~ jJ!~
I rn u. ILIii;
C) is 2i~
~ nn~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ I ~nnn ~ ~ ~ ..
i 1ij -
OJ
I 0; ~t~~~ i ~ -~ -gllflliuf~u; i 0; ! a '"
~ ~ ~
..
. "-""',--,-,',".".,-"",-_._,.,.:.,
II i 0 . II .(1.
; 0 - ;i.:1
I If ~ 1;5~(..i
~ ~ ....0'........................
.................~....;(
I ....,.,...-,.........',--.....--.
l:;-' ~uu 51 ~ '" nnn 51 g ~~~;:: ~ !ii~
-
i~ ":.
il1~~~l ~ ~ ~ g~~~g~ ~ .. - ,.: ~
I- ~
l.l - jj ..
I
.:.; ic! ! t I
~~ ~ 6
I ~ I- ~ ~ ! !
w ~~~ IL C 11
~ !2~~ is z :B J ' ~
1 III Ol n z ~
Ol m~~~~ ~ 10 -' fli
z ~ ~
I w
11. :> is u~ j iii: ~ >
~ d\ll~i 51 .1.1
~ Cl . . IL iii~~~g5
! I~~~~ z !a~~a:
~ is ~H~ II ~ ~u
I ! iiH!\!l z !a!a
~ Q.. t t U)
)~ - &17
I
I
I
I
I ! ~ ~ ! ~ i
.. II ..
~ ~
I g ~ ~. g ~. ~
g 5' 5' "
~ - ~ ..
I!I ~!IU. I I!I nn~ !!
I .
It It ~ If "!i i It Itgg"~ !
~ 1Il
"
I I!I ~ ~ I!I ~ ~
~ g i ~ til i
I J ~ ~ I U ~ J u~u ~
J! Ii ti 1Ii~ i I!"ii"g i
..
I t ~ ~ t ~ ~
.. II 0 II
'i 'i
... ...
I I nu~u~nn i ! ~ ~ ! ~. ~
IIirlri.gligt::ri~206 g .. II 0 II
1;: - -
-
I ~ nUn!~nn l'l ~ ~. . ~ ~ ~ ~
.rlri'.nJl!glf~~ri~21lf ~ 0 II .. II
1;: - - J J
I 11 ~ ~ ~ U l'l II ~nn i
~ if g g~ ~ -. -($.
~11i3-~
c ..
.2
I ~
~ III
gt ~ I!I
I _1; I 1....,-1 II II' hill
.m
0"0
(!) :> iJt1~1~1If
al
D.-
o N ~ih~! Z I ! ~ I
I Ul t;hLlHll!lUU I!~
i5 1;: 1;:
nuu ~ i R Ii URn
I, nUliuu~n
I UUiiiiiiiU
I (
; lit - ~,<{
~ .1
. ~
J
I ~\I
~~i
1 ~l~
, 11
I Iii
.. r ....
c~
::=!
I: lif
..
I:
CC
1=
i;
-
1
.
0..
1=
..-
1=
f
V\
..
I:
..
i
I j
~W
1 ~!
I ':I- it~
7~!
I ~~
l;-I
I ...
--
, ....
I
1......1
1. .. . .I
d....~.1
!~~~~~~~]~
_~Nt'~' ~
i';.9..~'
i ! ~ t-:. ~~ ~ I
:: t Vi N 1'1'1 o~
- .. N .v'\ Jt\ ......
I:::..:......
., " It II II +
..
I.
:H~ ~~! ~ ~ 4 ~
i! ~.-(~~
. .....-......
.
.
l ~ ~ 0 o~M '
N ~ 0
t;~ r,:; ~ ~.... ~
I:ou.;~!~ \n;
I ............
t ! i j
I .. - ·
i · I ! i
. I · .'
i i i j 1
..
~
!
I
-
..
C ..
i
i
I
-
.
.-=:,;.
- - - - ...
........... ... ..
.
.......
... .I
.I
.......
......
.~.g.g.. ~~
!;~21t\1I\1I\ 0"'"
N.. -
.........
..J
unn ~~.
iii""":w\ ~_.
-- -
...........
i..1
......
............ ....
uun Q8.
"'0.0000 ti:o
:82":":"; ~
-'"
.........
f!I..
!!nu ~.
.:..''; '^,,:.,; ff''''_
NN"___ t1\
"'.
......
.....
~ojI )-
iiliiJ ij
~
i
-.
1
-c
~
I
a
~
u.I
I
+ ~
!I ~
: I
~ ~
~ ~
..
..
C
5
..
.
i
~
i
I
/J - J.67
.....c..
.~.cO.
if::;'
tii!ll
. i= : i ;
a,,-
I u_J".
..:ff
.... -
· ....l; a
:) ~fl. i
\Il ~. =:
..
~ ......,..il
-".uS
_ f,:I_c
-. r._ 0
2 ~ .J- u
~ .~J.c
!i:l:
&... .
t" ..
.Hil
"i: i~=
......1, a
....... ..
f;:;~U
Ii --
....0
_~~"iIP
......ca.
i~U.l!&
- ."'~:;
..c~ ~.i
:~,,= -
c--. .~
t..~...i..
z"'I.- "
II: ~rl"
... ~ &
~"I:~u",
U ft:.
. ..1
... ..1.
.. c WI.c: 'I
,-......
~I" ~...
~ .1E."r
r........
. . ..-
..-"" II
iln.r..
.. AOi 111.
ii!l=i
1....1...r
u. I-
....:-= ;
iU~il
rJ~H:
:ah...;
'.:Ii;lj
J::;-f"
i= to.
! i t rrJ
. ---
trtt!=
~_t~_.
f"-" ..
J lir.:
~ . ...
i
..
E
I~
'"
IZ
I
.
-I
,
.
..,
.
I.
.
.
"
"!
t
"
Il
.
.
.
fJ
.
.
.
:.1
..
I.
E=
_c
...
'"
ii
,2
..
....
..-
i:ju
~
~
..
...
..
c
'"
!
w
~
&
-
w
I
..
o
...
c
-
r
;;
-
;;
.
"
..
u
';
u ..
- ..
i. III
. u
t ::
.. !
..
...
...
..
..
..
u
'"
..
o
..
..
~
..
.
..
..
..
i
..
u
...
..
o
..
..
r
~-
Lh
i ~
~
~
-t/I
"\\
.t
t ~
c
..
u
...
..
..
..
..
..
..
.
Z>
.
w
.
...
.;
~
.
aw
w ~
=l
l!"
...
Il.~
~ C
....
~u
.. ..
.w
~l
..
to:
ul
..
..
:&
.c'E
-..
B
..u
..
!
-
..
c
~
...
~
..
..
-
tl
III
...
'"
..
...
.
'"
...
...
-
..
.,. till " .. .. ..
~
..
g:
-
..
a.. .. .. .. .,. ..
..
!
...
; ~'l ~~. !-~ ~, . 0
'""'VI Q ~ "
g:~ " II- ...
- ,
'"
...
..
i
. ...
..
III
!
-
..
c
-
..
~
..
..
..
c
..
~ .. .. .. .. tilt
... ~l
... "
. ~..
~'"
...-
-
~. !,~. ~l 0
~Y- ~
...
.. .. .. ... ..
it (.~ . i "~
N '" P .." ~
00 C, V\ t .....
~~. 't"~' t!"
..
till .. .. .. ..
..
=~h!'l!-~;'i'~i' 0
f::fa~ ~ '! \~
g~~-I - ~
co.
..
c ... till .. .. ..
.
..
...
...
~H~ 11 i ~ 0
...
....
c ".. '" tit ..
... .
* ~ a~~'U'~l' 0
f~ .. .. .. ..
..
..
'"
..
c
!
..
..
'"
!
..
..
I
w
...
o
..
...
..
~
.
~
~
.
.
!
..
..
..
.
&
..
..
..
i
w
.
'"
..
i
E
w
c
..
"
..
~
E
w
c
'.
"
..
w
'~
.e
u
..
..
.
-
-
-
.
-
.
-
-
-
o
..
&
-
w
.
..
..
..
c
i
c
..
~
r
..
..
.
I"
.I
..
~
gggggg
1:100000
......O'..c...,;ftI't."'.
......'"
"'..
-..........
~j
nnn
IOII'\CCCC
..;";c"",",,^,^
"'.,'"
--
.............
~
\.\~\\~
ggcggg
,,",000000
."'oo.-",.~":
000'"
-...
.............
~
nun
~,.".cccc
_..c..e..,.:""...,.:
"'NoO---
"'..
.............
.
o
..
&
t-
............
.
~I
==
'"
..
..
g1215!g
-NOOOO
_..00..,....,:.,;
N'I,HO"'''''''
"'...
..
..
c
;;
..
'"
~
..
c
-
..
!;
t
..
i
I
i
...
- O<~o
)~ - ~lt (
00 OJ
000
000
. .
"'''''''
......
ng~
000
. .
"'''''''
......
~)~j II
ceo N
""'HI"" C
'"
'"
...... ..
-
-
-
ng~
000
"'''''''
---
......
-
.;
.
c
~
o
...
..
~
."
I
,
I
"oc,UP: ~t. GI'!1Z..V/'-. 'BLJIc..Dlr..v..
I
I. E"qvrPMEt.lr AeQ()f~rnC)J
I ~1~AfZE.
I
I
I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CIP PROJECT ESTIMATE
ct tille: ~FD:,1ZM4Hc.. ll-lFOttMArl04 -e;'(ff,."'T!:/.I\
Date: --1Zlrsfetl
, .
Project No.: ~
Project Manager: . ~Q"'~'
IV. TI=L:fl tJ 1CAi.- MAlrJ ~
553,000
~lCAl- MAI,.rr"e;.JA1JCS;
-9~ .., DO
"
,
.
I lOw.. ElOItllPMlWr ACq<JrsmOl-l
IJ "fA-lI\1"l1::!/oJ ~NCE:.
I .A1~E.
I
I
'55?;.rx:D
.
~"',2f:JO
Pn4:J~
V.
TO'fild...~I~kAJ~-f' qt..iDD
.
tyBTOTAl ~ROJtCT ~i 300
(Add lota I. U. JJI 1 IV) I
iENERAl ADMINISTRATtON
, TOTAL MA,IIJ~foJA~e.
II. 'DIr7i'<~~ ~v~FZ~IDf-I
1 'DAD.~e. CDfJr'f!~Ia-J.
1
I
I.
'1 Z39K
....l (10/11)
~~100
TOTAL GENERAL ADMIN.
TcrtAL_~S~ a>tJt'Ub;cN ~
~
~
I.
)~ - ~~ (
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.PLANGRAPHICS,
INC
[J 202 W. Main Street, Suite 200 . Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 . 502.223.1501
0101 E. 9th Avenue. Suite 14B . Anchorage. Alaska 99501 . 907-276-5399
[] 615 Bennington Lane _ Silver Spring, Maryland '20910 . 301-588-8535
02225 Birch Street. Denver, Colorado 80207 . 30~.322.1955
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM.5TUDY
FINAL REPORT
Submitted to:
Jim Thomson, Deputy City Manager
Management Services Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
Sublllitted by:
Maurice E. Foley, Senior Design Analyst
Neil MacGaffey, Research Analyst
PlanGraphics, Inc.
202 West Main Street, Suite 200
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
May 19, 1987
C 1987, PlanGraphlc:s Inc.
Lan..lll.!Io: and nau.u:l1 r...~"u,,:.: j:lanmng and management . (~lI!lraphk informalion ')'stcm dt'sign Inu impJement:llion _ PW[D'3m deyelllpment. coordinahon and man.apmenl
)~ - ~iR~
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
(Ilc.j)
~6t-
C!.Y.
SECTION 1
EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW
This document is the final report of a study conducted by PlanGraphics,
Inc.. of the potential for computerization of the many maps and files of
geographic information used by municipal government. The central conclusion
of the study is that such computerization, in the form of an integrated,
ci1;y-wide Geographic Information System (GIS), looOuld be highly beneficia,l to
the Ci1;y. A GIS in Chula Vista would reduce the current costs and improve
the quality of the City's maps and related records while adding
significantly to their useful ness in Ci ty government.
(In a report of this type which touches upon new technology, it is not
possible to avoid completely terms and references to concepts and devices
with which readers may be unfamiliar. The authors regret any difficulties
of understanding which may result, and encourage readers to make use of the
attached Glossary, which provides definitions of unfamilia~.terms used in
this report, Appendix A which provides samples of typical GIS products, and
Appendices Band C, which describe GIS system equipment and database
cOIIlponents. )
STUDY SCOPE ANO OBJECTIVES
PlanGraphics conducted this study in two phases:
I) Assessment of needs based on interviews with selected members of City
department staffs
Z} Conceptual design of an appropriate GIS on the basis of benefit/cost
analyses of alternatives.
The specific goal s of this study were:
. To assess the City's mapping and geographic information needs and
resources
. To investigate permit tracking and processing as a specific GIS
application
. To identify now-unavailable mapping and geographic data processing
capabilities and resources
. To develop and evaluate alternative conceptual GIS designs meeting
Ci ty needs
. To determine costs and benefits of alternative designs relative to
current manual mapping and record keeping practices
. To recommend a conceptual system design, if the benefit/cost tradeoff
was favorable
. To develop a strategic implementation plan for the recommended GIS
design
1-1
)~ - ~
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NEEDS ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
As a result of its interviews with City staff and contacts with San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG) and Regional Urban Information System
(RUIS), PlanGraphics made the following findings; first, in regard to
mapping arid operations related to geographic data and, second, about permit
tracking.
Happing and Geodata Operations
1) Current annual labor devoted to mapping and geographic information
processing and use is valued at almost $1.5H. Of this total, about
$.5M is associated with making and maintaining maps and geodata
files, and the remaining Sl.DM, with analyzing and using them in a
wide variety of ways.
2) Mapping and geodata operations occupy a substantial portion of the
total labor resources of the Planning Department and the Department
of Public Works Engineering Division. Other City agencies are
involved to lesser extents.
3) Base map production is redundant.
4) The scale, content, and format of current base maps are not
appropriate for some users.
5) Important base maps and geodata files are not routinely updated.
6) The SANDAG and RUIS GIS projects are unlikely to meet the City's
geographic information processing needs. Though these projects are
still devel opi ng, thei r regional focusi s establ i shed, and thei r data
libraries will, accordingly, be maintained at levels more general
than the City needs.
7) City access to up-to-date parcel maps and the related Assessor's
Parcel File is inadequate. .
8) General accessibility of geodata files in hard copy form is limited.
9) Many City departments need map features and map scales currently
unavailable to them.
10) The Police and Fire Department dispatch system would benefit from
more direct access to street name and address updates generated by
other departments.
In light of these findingsL PlanGraphics
geographic information system would
beneficial to the City of Chula Vista.
concluded that implementation of a
be technically and operationally
1-2
J;, po- ~~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
Permit Tracking
1) A permit tracking system would help the city by further stabilizing
the permit revlew process, by improving interdepartmental
cODllllnications, and by setting _a-nd maintaining schedules.
2) An automated tracking system can be effectively implemented on either
the GIS processor or current Burroughs mainframe.
3) An automated system should issue permit documents, but otherwise be
limited to tracking the permitting process, not taking part in it.
4) An automated permit tracking system should perform five basic
functions: establishment of an application file, planning of the
review process, tracking of the review process, permit issue, and
documentation of the permit action.
5) Permit tracking should be coordinated at the City level for maximum"
effectiveness.
6) An automated permit tracking system should be designed to track
selected permit applications singly or in related sets.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
1) PlanGraphics recommends that the City implement an automated GIS, if
it can be shown to be financially feasible. A GIS would support and
coordinate geo-related departmental work, improve efficiency of
mapping efforts, facilitate sharing of geographic information between
departments, and allow computer generation of customized maps and
reports.
2) PlanGraphics recommends that the GIS integrate automated mapping,
computer-aided drafting, and geographic data management capabilities
around a single, multi-purpose database of maps, drawings, and
related data.
3) PlanGraphics recommends that the GIS database include, specifically,
an historical file of permit actions. and the land areas affected by
each. This historical file would support the permitting process.
4) PlanGraphics recommends that the City institute an automated permit
traCking system to support and integrate departmental permit
application processing and to create authoritative records of permit
acti ons.
1-3
/t ~ ~~
I:
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
In fulfillment of the stated objectives, PlanGraphics defined three
alternative system concepts for benefit/cost analysis, all of which could
meet -City needs.
Methodology
Selection of System Alternatives
PlanGraphics considered four aspects of system design in defining the
a 1 ternati ves:
1) Technology
2) Impl ementati on strategy and schedul e
3) Oatabase design and content
4) Costs range.
After evaluating several options in each of these dimensions of system
design, PlanGraphics selected three composite alternative system concepts to
represent Chula Vista's range of options for purposes of benefit/cost
analysis. They can be described succinctly as follows:
1) System AlAIA
Technology: Multiple, linked microcomputer-based workstations, each
capable of independent operation.
Implementation: Single-phase installation, meeting all stated needs
in the shortest possible time.
Database: Direct conversion of minimum necessary data from existing
maps and records.
Cost range: Lower.
2) System B/C/B
Technology: Distributed processing by several linked minicomputers,
each supporting several workstations.
Implementation: Three-phase installation, with initial system sites
in DPW-Engineeering and Planning, secondary establishment of a
"service bureau" to meet other needs, and 1 ater transfer of sites to
all user agencies.
Database: Digitized base maps drawn from new orthophoto coverage of
the City, plus conversion of all existing thematic overlay maps and
transfer of selected geodata files from the Burroughs system.
Cost range: ~~dium.
3) System C/AlC
Technology: Central processing by a single, larger minicomputer
supporting intelligent workstations.
Implementation: Single-phase.
-'
1-4
)J - ~I,r;
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
photogrammetric mapping of planimetry and
conversion of all existing thematic maps and
Database: New digital
topography, pl us full
fil es.
Cost range: Higher.
Analysis of Benefits and Costs
The initial benefitlcost analysis was aimed at two objectives:
the financial feasibility of implementing a GIS in Chula
to find out a favorable trade-off can be projected when
and costs are compared to costs of continued manual
1) To determi ne
Vista, i.e.,
GIS benefits
operations.
2) To provide a cost basis for
be recommended to the City.
defining a particular system concept to
PlanGraphics considered benefits in two categories. The first category is
quantitative benefits, subject to mathematical analysis. Such benefits
include "direct benefits", i.e., all improvements in efficiency of compiling
and maintaining maps and geodata files, and "indirect benefits", i.e., all
improvements in efficiency of tasks using maps and geodata. Qualitiative
benefits constitute a second category, including both improvements in
geo-data products themselves and additional mapping and geodata analysis
capabilities made possible with automation.
Spreadsheets were prepared comparing the costs and quantitative benefits of
each of the alternative systems to costs of current manual operations. Each
comparison was projected through ten years.
Findings
Quantitative Benefits
Study of the spreadsheets supports the following findings:
1) Any of the alternative systems could produce a cumulatively favorable
benefitlcost tradeoff within the ten-year horizon, the
microcomputer-based System AIAIA in the fifth year of operation, the
distributed processing System B/C/B in the seventh year, and the
central processing System C/A/C in the eighth year.
2) Costs of all alternative systems within the first five years of
operation are unacceptably high, exceeding the nominal limit of $1.5
million for that period. System C/A/C is highest in cost at an
estimated $4.4M. System B/C/B is next lower at 53.3M. System AIAIA
is lowest, but still over the limit at 52.1M.
3) labor savings in map, drawing and file compilation, and maintenance
will grow steadily through the ten-year period, possibly reaching as
much as 33% off manual costs in year ten.
1-5
J~ - JIP7
-...,
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4)
use of automated
throughout the
37~ in year ten,
maps, drawings, and files can be
period, rising from about 20~
if full advantage is taken of the
Labor savings in
more substantial
i ni ti ally to about
system.
Qualitative Benefits
Most quantitative benefits will be accompanied by qualitative gains. While
resistant to precise analysis, these qualitative benefits may be more
immediately obvious to system users than dollar and labor hour savings.
Imorovements
,
1) Map quality will improve significantly. Information will be more
consistant and coherent, because all maps will be drawn from a
single, integrated database. The GIS will control cartographic
qualities (lettering, symbols and patterns, line weights and coding)
to a single high standard. Maps will be more appropriate in
formatting, scaling and content, because the GIS will allow custom
map production to fit particular needs without complete redrafting.
2) Drafting quality will also improve. Symbology will be standardized
through use of computerized symbol tables. Hand lettering will be
el imi nated in favor of computeri zed type fonts. Accuracy wi 11 be
increased because dimensions will be automatically calculated on
command. Coherence within drawing sets will be improved, because
common elements will be readily transferable between drawings.
Added Capabilities
1) It will be possible to lntegrate maps and geodata now stored and
handled separately, because the GIS database will accept both graphic
data and textual information related to the graphics. Thus, a GIS
will support efficient compilation and maintenance of authoritative
historical and technical data files which can be accessed and
analyzed automatically by reference to map features.
2) Availability of maps and related data through system terminals will
enable more rapid and effective inter-agency data sharing. Within
the limits of such security as the City may impose, system
participants will be able to view any information in the database on
command, without requiring search or copying effort of any other
, parti ci pant or agency.
3) The GIS will enable ready production of coordinated maps, drawings,
tables, and textual reports to meet particular needs. Users of the
GIS will be able to select map and drawing features by class and
specify the scale and format to be used in plotting the database
content selected. It will also be possible to generate related
textual reports as required, as, for instance, a listing of sewer
system components shown on a map along with their dimensions, dates
1-6
/~ -- J~C{
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
of installation, etc., assuming only that the data in question has
been made part of the GIS database.
41 The polygon processing capabilities of the GIS will enable automated
analysis of interactions between data sets,. both graphically and
quantitatively. For example, given that the database holds maps and
related data on both zoning and property values, users might generate
a map and listing .of all properties of more than a given value within
selected zoned areas. Total areas or cumulative values might also be
reported.
5} A GIS will support integration with City data of publicly available
map and/or data files, such as, for instance, census data from
federal sources or traffic data from SANDAG.
Attention is also invited to Appendix A: Sample GIS Maps and Applications.
The figures in Appendix A highlight and illustrate map products and
applications typical of a municipal GIS. While the data shown is not drawn
from Chula Vista sources, it is generally familiar municipal database
content. All examples have been generated from digital graphic data.
Benefit/Cost Analysis Conclusions
The benefit/cost analysis leads to the following conclusions:
1) Installation of a GIS in Chula Vista municipal government is
financially feasible and would produce significant savings over time
in the form of labor resources made available by reduction in efforts
needed to create and use maps and geodata.
Z} Net quantitative benefits will be greatest from implementation of a
lower cost system, though labor savings will be somewhat limited by
the generally lower capability of systems in that class.
3} Qualitative benefits will be maximized through implementation of more
complex (and more costly) equipment, software, and database.
However, the range of differences in this regard across the full
spectrum of equipment and software is modest, and less complex and
costly systems provide a large measure of the qualitative benefits
available.
4) Only a system in the lower cost range, and below the average cost in
that range, can be implemented within the target cost limit of Sl.SH
over the first five years of operation. Such systems are available,
and can provide the City with both the quantitative and qualitative
benefits described in this study.
1-7
)6 -J.tay
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RECO~IENDED SYSTEM DESIGN OVERVIEW
On the basis of the system alternatives considered and the analysis of
benefits and costs,' PlanGraphics designed a system which it recommends here
to Chula Vista. PlanGraphics ascertained that currently technology can
support the design concept, and conducted a benefit! cost analysis which
indicates that the recommended system can be implemented within cost
guidelines and with net quantitative benefits greater than those of the
lower cost alternative initially considered.
Conceptual Design
PlanGraphics recommends a microcomputer-based system ,and database to be
developed in three stages over three to five years.
, The system will be characterized by microcomputer-powered' graphic query
stations linked by a local area network (LAN) to a single file-serving
processor managing an integrated database. A single plotter will be
installed initially to serve all needs for finished hard copy graphics; a
second will be added as the system matures and the plotting requirement
grows apace. To relieve the load on the single plotter and to provide a
limited local source of hard copy graphics, screen copiers will be installed
at each system site.
Software components, beyond the basic operating system software, will
include programs for the following tasks:
. Computergraphic generation and editing (including computer-aide~
drafting (CAD) and mapping capabilities)
. Database structuring and management
. Plot generation
. Report generation
. Polygon processing
These software modules will provide the system with the fundamental
functionality which the GIS requires. Further engineering design and
analysis applications software will be added as needs are defined.
The database will be minimized initially to concentrate resources on
equipment and software acquisition, and will be up-graded and expanded
geographically as the system matures. The initial base map will be
converted from best exi sti ng map sources, primari ly the ,1"=200' base maps
now in use. In the third phase of system' development (years 3-5),
orthophoto maps at 1"=100' scale wi 11 be made coveri ng all of Chula Vi sta
and its sphere of influence, and planimetric maps will be digitized from
these orthophotos to replace and expand the original GIS base map. Initial
thematic data conversion will include only the existing sewer system and
storm drain system maps, the Zoning Atlas and the General Plan, plus
selected Small-scale thematic overlay maps now commonly displayed by DPW
1-8
I~ - J7t)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
.....--:.-
files will be
Conversion and
Engineering and Planning. No analog or digital geo-data
converted or moved from the Burroughs system initially.
transfer will be undertaken later, as need indicates.
In order to stay within budgetary constraints and yet reap GIS benefits as
. quickly and broadly as possible, PlanGraphics recommends that the system be
centered initially in a "Service Bureau" through which all user agencies
will receive system services during the first phase of development. Such a
service bureau will also serve as a focus for staff training and development
of a truly city-wide, multi-user database. Beginning also in the first
pnase, workstations will be installed, first in DPW-Engineering, then in
Planning, to create, over the course of implementation, system sites capable
of supporting those departments completely. At maturity, the service bureau
will continue to serve all other user agencies and provide systen and
database .management.
. The recommended system will initially support four workstations and will
graw to approximately fifteen workstations at maturity.
Capital Costs
It is estimated that capital costs of the recommended system will range from
SO.95M to $1.2M over the first five years of operation. When costs of
system and database maintenance and system management are added, that figure
rises to $l.4M.
Analysis of Benefits and Costs
Analyzed on the same basis as the previously discussed system alternatives,
the recommended system design can provide 9reater net quantitative benefits
than any of those alternatives. Total Cumulative system costs are estimated
to be approximately $1.4M through year five. In year five alone, the system
can provide labor savings valued at almost $200K after offsetting its entire
annual cost, and at that time cumulative savings can total to almost Sl.lM.
The system can provide a positive annual balance against projected manual
costs in its second year of operation, and a positive cumulative balance in
its fourth year of operation. Total savings over ten years can reach the
$5M range.
The recommended system will provide all the qualitative,benefits identified
in the initial benefit/cost analysis, though on a smaller scale than might a
larger, more complex GIS. The recommended system design will accommodate
one task at a time per workstation; a more complex system might provide for
simultaneous Sharing of larger processors for many tasks at once. The
maximum processing capacity of the recommended system on a given task will
be the capacity of anyone of its microprocessors; the system will not allow
cumulative joining of its individual processors. The volume of database
information which may be involved in any process will also be limited to the
memo~ capacity of the single workstation processor; this will be smaller in
I 1-9
;;, - /).71
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.'
a mi,croprocessor than in a minicomputer or larger processor. The net effect
of these limitations is not to rule out any particular qualitative benefit
of the system, but to reduce the speed of larger processes and to make their
management somewhat more complex in that they may have to be run in
segments. The. recommended system will require more intensive management
overall than might a more highly integrated system. System processes which
a 1 arger system mi ght support automati ca 11y may requi re "hands-on"
management in the recommended system. The database of the recommended
system may also limit qualitative benefits in that, initially, it will not
improve on the accuracy or completeness of current data sources. This will
be remedied when the initial base map is replaced in the third phase of
implementation. It should also be kept in mind that system resources will
be limited initially in order to meet budgetary constraints.
IMPlEMENTATION PLAN
The recommended GIS will be developed in three phases over a five year
period, though impl ementati on can be compl eted withi n three years, if
sufficient resources are made available. The pace of implementation
recommended will hold costs within desired limits, but, in the judgment of
PlanGraphics, is sufficient to maintain momentum through the prolonged
schedule.
Phase I
Steps to be completed during Phase I include:
. Development of system specifications
. Procurement and installation of hardware and software for Service
Bureau and Engineering sites
. Definition of storm and sanitary sewer portions of database
. Development of base and utility map conversion specifications and
plans for in-house conversion of thematic map overlays
. Procurement of data conversion services
. Appointment or hiring and training of a system manager
. Selection and training of workstation operators
. Determination of priorities for Service Bureau products
. Development of special applications
. Planning and implementation, as a pilot project, of a manual permit
tracking project
. Implementation of an automated permit tracking system
Phase II
Phase II implementation corresponds to Year Two of the five year
implementation cycle. The following tasks will be undertaken:
1-10
~ - rJ7~
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Procurement and installation of hardware for the Service Bureau,
DPW-Engineering, and Planning nodes.
. Determination of thematic map overlay portions of the database
. Procurement of data conversion services for the zoning and general
plan maps
. In~house 'conversion of thematic map overlays
. Definition and implementation of .special system applications
. Training of additional workstation operators
Phase II I
Phase III will be implemented during the remalnlng three years of. the five
year implementation period. Tasks will include:
. Procurement and installation of additional equipment and software'
. Determination of additional requirements and, if necessary, modifying
the Implementation Plan
. Development of aerial photography and data capture specifications for
upgrading of the base map file.
. Procurement of aerial photography, mapping and data capture services
to expand and upgrade GIS base mapping
CONCLUSION
The nlmicipal government of the City of Chula Vista can significantly
improve the quality and usefulness of. its maps. and geodata files, while
~.l1arply.reducing the cost of compiling,> maintaining and using them, if it
undertakes to implement a computerized Geographic Information System- along
the lines recommended in this report. PlanGraphics has reached this
conclusion on the basis of its extensive experience with computergraphic
technology as it applies to problems of local and regional government and on
responsibly conservative assessments of the situation in Chula Vista. The
benefits described in this report are there to be had, if Chula Vista
chooses to pursue them.
1-11
J~ - J.73
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.7 MAINFRAME COMPUfER
Existine Condition
The City's current mainframe computer was purchased in July, 1984, and is
becoming obsolete. Capacity will soon be maximized and additional memory cannot
be added.
Needed Improvements
A new Unisys central processing unit can meet the present needs as well as provide
for anticipated growth.
Status of Needed Improvements
The purchase and installation of the basic mainframe computer was completed in
fiscal year 1990/91. Staff is currently researching planned mainframe mid-life
enhancements, which will possibly be purchased by the end of fiscal year 1992/93.
Method of Apportionine Costs
A cost analysis of the present computer needs was conducted in-house under both a
"no growth" and "growth" scenario. The analysis titled "Cost Comparison: Replace-
ment of Mainframe Computer" dated November 1, 1989, calculates the difference
between the City's Share and that share belonging to future development. The cost
shares listed in the report reflect the need for additional memory, storage space and
processing speed to keep pace with anticipated growth. New growth's share is 31.3
percent, or $282,100 of the 1992 cost estimate.
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
54
/6 - J71f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT No. 7
MAINFRAME COMPUTER
1991 1992
Description Cost Estimate Cost Estimate
Unisys Central Processing Units with
1 10MB Memory $ 739,500 $ 625,000
2 Leasing Finance Charges 129,400 133,210
3 Mainframe Mid-Life Enhancements 0 232,600
4 Project Staff Services 0 65,000
5 5% Contingencies 37,000 0
6 7.25% Sales Tax 54,400 0
Subtotal $ 960,300 $ 1,055,810
7 Less City's Share (68.7%) (659,400) (725,341)
8 Less DlF fees collected plus interest (0) (50,186)
9 City Finance Charge 0 1,794
TOTAL $ 300,900 $ 282,077
USE $ 282,100
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
55
/d. . J75
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PuBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN
DOCUMENTATION
Mainframe Computer
1. DlF Fund Status - As of June 30, 1992
2. Memo to Jim Thomson Dated January 21, 1992.
3. CIP project detail dated December 17, 1991.
4. Letter dated November 2, 1989, "Replacement of Mainframe Computer".
5. Cost comparison dated November 1, 1989.
Note: The following documentation material is not paginated.
1993 Public Facilities DIP Update
City of Chula Vista
56
11- ~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Rev 6~:W.LLDAN ~AN U;cijU
1- 'I-~~ .]1; I~A~ ,
MAINFRAME COMPUTER DlF-AS OF 6/30/92
A.
DlF Revenues received to date:
B.
OlF Investment earnings to date:
Total Revenues
C. Commitments to date:
DlF
Conroletlild
Mainframe replacement:
Finance Charqes:
Sub-total:
Onqoina
Mid-life enhancement:
Staff services:
Sub-total:
TOTAL:
Ci.U
COlno] eto.d
Mainframe replacemQht:
Finance Charges:
TOTAL:
D. Currently plann"d exponditures:
Mid-life Qnhanoements installation
'eiey f;M.~wd portfon or DIP .hare. DIF will repay City funda aver ti.e.
)b - rJ-77
4'~ OI04~ W~~~U^~ ~^~ ~~~~VIW ~
1-06-93
$
50,186
$
$
o
50,lSG
$ 195,6254
41.695
$ 237,320
$ 169
16.978
$ 17,147
$ 254,467
$
$
429,375
91. 515
520,890
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0-'" I "'- I
.
".
January 21, 1992
m:
Teri Enos, Principal Management Assistant
Jim Thomson, Deputy City Manager ur
Management and Information Services, CIP for FY 1992-93
DOH:
SUBJECT I
The Xanagement and Information Services Department has three CIP
zequests for your review I
1. Project GG120, Replacement of the City's Mainframe
Computer which was approved in FY 1989-90.
2. Project GG127, Replacement of Equipment in the City's
Word Processing Center.
3. Project GG128, Installing Voice Messaging and Phone
System Upgrades.
~se Projects are discussed in more detail below.
Prefect GG120-Reolacement of Mainframe Comouter.
As noted in the original CIP request, the purchase of major
equipment items have been financed. Repayment of these funds
extends five years from original purchase (through FY96). The
portion needed for the FY93 payment is $148,400.
Mid-life enhancements for a replacement printer and a
storage drive upgrade are anticipated to be $40,100 with
a contingency of $2,000.
Staff time associated with the FY92 and FY93 mid-life
enhancements have been added to the project. This amount
totals $11,600.
Funding of $202,100 is being requested for FY93. Of this amount,
$63,300 (31.33') will be reimbursed by the DIF.
Prefect GGl27-Reolacement of Word processina Eauiament.
Installation of the equipment to replace the City's WANG word
processing equipment is anticipated for the third quarter of
FY92. Conversion of documents from the WANG system to the new
Local Area Network will continue through the first quarter of
FY93. Requested funding for FY93 is $1,900 which will be used
to continue the data conversion.
Ii -J7lr
I.
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
proiect GG128-Phone Svstem Uoarades.
Near the end of the fourth quarter; it will become necessary
to install additional components within the NEAX 2400
Telephone Switch to provide uninterrupted growth capacity.
During 1992-93, twelve monthly payments will be made on the
Voice Processing System anticipated to be purchased late in
the fourth quarter of FY 1991-92. No additional appropriations
will be required since funds previously appropriated and
unspent will be adequate to cover FY 1992-93.
The FY93 costs for three projects are summarized below:
Total
92-93
Appropriations
proiect
Description
92-93
DIFS
GG120
GG127
GG128
Mainframe
Word proc
Phone System
$ 63,300
$ 0
S 38.020
$101,320
$202,100
$ 1,900
S 0*
$204,000*
* For FY 1992-93, no additional funds will need to be appropriated
for the Phone System except for reappropriting DIF funds not
spent yet.
If you need any additional information of these projects, please
contact Louie Vignapiano or Rick Nelson.
C\IICK\CIPOOYER
I ~ - ~79
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
CZ)
'"
c::
ooofl"-
'"
CI al':'
c::~'"
ooof....
"Cl::lC"')
S g''''
'D:t:
II<
C
...
c::
....C"')
'"
ClalN
C::~'"
ooofooof'"
-g i~
'D:t:
Gl
o-f
..
ooof
~
..
U
Gl
o
~
Po
t'
ooof,.l(
~c::
o III
ooofD:
~
Po
.. ""
1lO"" .
Illl....
......'0
U El
Il .. .
. U
Illl
.....'0
"'-a~
.. ..
..:
....
i
III
..
c::
Gl
.~
U
..,~
"'H
t:~
'0 ..
.. "..:
.... 0....
~.;"'~
0....'0"
:~tI'W
.1It:-a
II.. ..
!u:S.
Il ..."
. .. :s
....-a"""
..... 1lO.!l
... c"
. m..... ...
.......
.:::'x,x
...,;........
':::s!i~
'O..,liI~
.~;-
'0>0 ..
..", ..,
I>> II ....Cf'\
"~'O 1l'O..
~~~ .~~...
.u ......""'::;
oS::. N
OO....Q)OOliGJO
...0 '00>0..:0
. .......d lIS \0 fa.! ""' C'\
CO . U .... .
... 0.... 00.... II C'\
........-'=p......c:~\O
Cl).0jJ:J006o100
. "
.... ..
.... ....
...... Il
...... ...
I ..
.'0 '"
....S
~
....
c
" ..
.. 0 s
0... ill
... U
.
.'0...
......'"
. ..
:s "
..,
E'x.
o
o
lI'l
.
...
...
...
<I>
o
o
...
.
N
o
N
<I>
i
"
...
.s
:!
...
o
'"
c
II
U
.
...
'"
..
lIIl
...
...
t:~..:
1lO'" 1lO
Il.... :s
........e
......:
:s ..: '"
'0",
..
.....'0
.. 0 Il
.... ..
. '"
· . Ie
~..... "
"0":
a lI'l U
..CD....
""..;i
...\0110
......H
~<I>U
. .. ~
"tJ-Z....
!i.... :..
...;!'"
.......,., .
~..gg
o...,..c:o
.... 0 P-N
4012;.'
.... ...'"
"tJ . cu 0\
"'Cf'\...o.
. '" ...
'"
o N": >0
2iCJ\....rz.
o
\0
CD
..,
...
...
<I>
o
~
'"
.
...
'"
..
g
..:
'"
N
. IS) ... &tot Ell
..:..: 0 0 lij.
....""'~ ""'
a '0 g :..
cu..~....m
U -.
~1!!.~~
"'. tJ l> a
.. ...... a
... II.... 0 G.I
",aU..:
o s:: lIS bO""
.." cu CD c::
CJ .... ..... ,0
.... CID 0....
Cll~ ~ 8' ~
. .... '"
... .
:: r:... . ...
O'oo~.
...."">0'0
c:L.........
..
'="2t"'4u", 0
.... 0 0 Ct,'
=- ......<l .
cw.~QI..."tS
O.<lu"'s"
..,.........Cj...
g .s ~!.:: g.
...." ..
.,"'O"tlCDW
. c:.., .....,
.... cu...,.... c: I>>
';l!<~Il""
........ "'" ::s....
.:s...QJu....
Il ........<l 0 't!
....cuu...a"tl..
o
o
lI'l
N
<I>
o
o
'"
.
...
<I>
'"
Cl
I
..
u
.
~
'"
..
llII
:t
....
.
.
..
l!:
"
'"
."
"
~
..,
)6 - .Q<:6D
I
,.
,/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
~
(Proposed change to.page 56 of DIF manual)
"7
ITEM
ANTICIPATED
GROWTH
NO GROWTH
PART 2. MID-LIFE SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS (FYs 1991-92/1992-93/1993-94)
I'Y 1991-92
4GL
.'fax (7\)
I'Y 1992-93
99,000
6.900
64,400
4.500
.Disk upgrade
Replacement printer
Tax (8.25\)
19,100
17,900
3.100
19,100
17,900
3.100
I'Y 1993-94
.10 HB Memory
.Tape drive speed kit
Cobol 85
Networking Software
Tax(8.25\)
16,800 0
10,500 0
10,000 7,500
50,000 32,500
7.200 3.300
11 .200 7.100
251,700 159,900
251,700 159,900
970,300 970,300
970,300 970,300
Contingency (5\)
'fOT.AL PART 2:
'.rOTAL PROJECT COST
(PARTS 1 ., 2)
TOTAL SYSTEM COST
(1.e. excluding
training costs)
....*.........................................;.................
DIY !'ACTOR . difference in total syst_ cost - "(960,300 -
659,400) - 300,900 - 300,900/960,399 - .3133
................................................................
. Items expected. to be purchased on the used market
~
)/, - J.~l
.... --- - ------ - LL i
,Ii-
Ii
.. .. tit - .. J!
-.II .
Ira
o 0 ~ ~ ~ _jl
~ z ~ J,lii
1 ;:!
... ... ...... ... - {!i ..
Ii;
o 0 ~ ~ S l}~
..::: Hi
o 0 ~ i ~ 1-,0 ~
......::: Ii
. . .D
"I!.
"n~m
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i I;
iiz
o c ~ I ~ 18'
... ... :: : IiI
.iJ
il..
a ~ 0 ~ if i i
ii _ III . li;ti
.... · Iii
I ~ 0 l I .D II .
~ i . i i I ~1-:
.. .. .... .. ~
-- . egg --now ....--.... -
I
-
li:... ...............
I ~ ~
! ! I ~
i i li: ...
i 11- ~ i.:
I ~ i
I ~ e
~ ,
- -
li: ...
!
~IU ~
+
I ~II~ ~
1,Ii I ...
I J ·
I f ~
I ij I~ ~
I I I
hi
o 0 0 0 l
~
.. tit .. .. ..
o 0 001.
t
-
.. .. .. .. tilt
l ~ 0 0 ~
Iii .~ E
.. .. .. .. ..
~ i 0 ~ ~
i '" : ~
.. tit .. tit ..
.. .. .. ..
~ ~ 0 ~ ~
R.. - I'>
_ - lO
.. .. .. .. ..
i ! ~ 0 i
tit .. .. .. tit
~ l i ~ I
II - .. - -
N;- .. .. I
tit tit .. .. ..
;
- ~ e
1 fl. i I ~
I.l! I ~ ! I
m i i A! 4 E
.... III 2i :,;
)
f l i I
! ~
11 I i I
Ii - J2<6~
.- -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~If?-
~....~
.......~~.....,;:
~~~~
CllY OF
CHUlA VISli\
MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
November 2, 1989
Ms. Jenette Litton
wildan Associates
6363 Greenwich Drive
suite 250
San Diego, California 92122-3939
As mentioned in an earlier letter, the City will be
purchasing a new mainframe computer and a portion of the
equipment costs are directly related to needs imposed by
anticipated growth. The new mainframe will cost $960,300
and is projected to have a 5-year life. The DIF related
portion, not including a factor for administrative costs, is
calculated to be $300,900 (.3133). A complete cost
breakdown and written justification is attached.
In spreading the costs for this DIF-related project,
attention should be given to the following points:
--Fees should be spread over 5 years;
--No inflationary factor should be added;
--The growth related portion should be spread 'to
new development both east and west of I-805;
--other projects in the supplemental DIF have a 5%
administrative factor. Most of the administrative
costs associated with this project will be
handled by staff who are part of the city's normal
overhead and, thus, will not be charged against
the project. As such, I would suggest adding a
smaller administrative factor (perhaps 2%).
Sincerely, .~
].';~ ~
Assistant Director
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 920101(619) 691-5296
)i-JC(3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. '
DiF PROJECT
Renlacement of Mainframe Comnuter
The city's current mainframe computer, purchased in July
1984, needs to be replaced. While staff have been able to
enhance the capacity of the existing mainframe system over
the last several years to keep up with growing needs, the
present mainframe is quickly becoming functionally
obsolescent. Additional memory cannot be added to the
current system nor can processing or disk storage be further
enhanced. it is projected that the current system could
reach capacity this fiscal year. When capacity is reached,
the City's Data Processing Division will not be able to meet
any user support for new automation or for expansions to
existing programs. Given the growing needs of the City,
continuation of the present mainframe system will become
impractical in the very near future. The estimated cost for
replacement of the mainframe is $960,300. This cost would
be spread over the 5-year life span projected for a
mainframe computer. A total of 31.33% of the cost
($300,900) is directly attributable to equipment upgrades
needed to serve anticipated growth. A detailed cost
breakdown is attached.
u-~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11/1/89
- ~" - . - -
:COST . COMPARISON: : ~REPLACEMENT .:OF MAINFRAME COMPUTER
. -
- '- -. - ~ .- ....-
'l'he:.alternatiyes: d'e:tai:leu bel:ow: compare~:the: city's- mainframe
c.omputer needs, Under~ both as t'no: -growth ": :an<L"growt~1
scenario-. o. ~ cost. differences. between.. scenarios essentially
reflect: needs .fOradditional.computer memory, storage space
and:-speed to~keep.up: with: anticipated: growth~:.' ..
,",..,.. -. .
,_. .~'. _.
..
- '-.. -..
- - .. . - - -..
-- ..-. - - ._- -....--- --.-,.
DESCRIPTION
ANTICIPATED
GROWTH
NO
GROWTH
UNISYS.central processing
unit with 10 MB memory
add-on (*), operating system,
cobol-68 compiler, OMS
inquiry, printer DLP, disk
subsystem, upgraded disk (*),
data communication control-
ler, tape subsystem(*),
tape drive speed kit(*),
cobol-85, 4GL, replace-
ment printer, network
lingages, and system
start-up.
contingencies (5%)
$739,500
37.000
776,500
$505,700
25.300
531,000
(*) Denotes items expected to be purchased on the used
market.
)~ - ~<6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COST COMPARISON (Continued)
ANTICIPATED
DESCRIPTION GROWTH
NO
GROWTH
Sales Tax (7%) 54.400
830,900
37.200
568,200
Finance Cost (**) 129.400
91.200
TOTAL SYSTEM COST: 960,300
659,400
Other (Training) 10.000
10.000
TOTAL PROJECT COST: 970,300
669,400
**********************************************************
DIF FACTOR = difference in system cost (960,300 - 659,400) =
300,900 = 300,900/960,300 = .3133
**********************************************************
(**) Selected items to be financed over 5 year term @
projected 8% rate of interest.
~ -Jb~
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
11/1/89
COST BREAKDOWN: REPLACEMENT OF MAINFRAME COMPUTER
ANTICIPA'r.J:;P~_ __ _ __ _
ITEM GROWTH NO GROWTH
PART 1 - MAINFRAME AND ASSOCIAT~Q_EQUIPKENT (FY 1989~90)
UNISYS Central Process-
. . ing Unit. $244,40Q -..----. 158,900
operating System 48,600 31,600
Cobol 68 Compiler 9,500 6,200
DMS Inquiry 7,000 4,600
Printer DLP 5,800 5,800
Disk Subsystem 90,000 58,500
Data Comm Controller 54,300 54,300
*Tape Subsystem 47.700 35.000
507,300 354,900
Contingency (5%) 25.400 17.700
532,700 372,600
Sales Tax (7%) 37.300 26.100
570,000 398,700
Installation/Delivery 10,000 10,000
Finance Charge
(5 years @ 8%) 129.400 91. 200
709,400 499,900
Training 10.000 10.000
719,400 509,900
TOTAL PART 1: 719,400 509,900
* Items expected to be purchased on used market
)~ - J~7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
ITEM
ANTICIPATED
GROWTH
NO GROWTH
PART 2. MID-LIFE SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS (FYs 1992-93/1993-94)
*10 MB Memory
*Tape drive speed kit
Cobol 85
*Disk upgrade
4GL
Replacement printer
Networking Software
16,800
10,000
10,000
22,500
99,000
15,000
50.000
223,300
o
o
7,500
22,500
64,400
15,000
32.500
141,900
contingency (5%)
11. 200
234,500
7.100
149,000
Sales Tax (7%)
TOTAL PART 2:
16.400
10.500
250,900
159,500
TOTAL PROJECT COST
(PARTS 1 & 2)
970,300
669,400
TOTAL SYSTEM COST
(1. e. excluding
training costs)
960,300
659,400
...........**...........................................*
DIF FACTOR = difference in total system cost = (960,300 -
659,400) = 300,900 = 300,900/960,300 = .3133
**********************************************************
* Items expected to be purchased on used market
I~ -Jf{i{
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.8 TELEPHONE SYSTEM UPGRADE
Existinl! Condition
The telephone system currently in use was adequate to meet the needs of the City's
staff as of 1990.
Needed Improvements
City Staff prepared a Telephone System Master Plan dated November 27, 1989 which
outlines the need for a system upgrade and divides the improvement into two phases.
This telephone plan is based on the growth and staffing figures detailed in the Civic
Center Master Plan. Phase I upgrades the existing system to meet the demand
through 1995. Phase 11 expands the system to meet the demand up to the year 2000.
A significant portion (39 percent) of the cost associated with upgrading the City's
phone system is for staff services. In FY 1990191, for example, over 45 percent of
the City's Computer Operations Manager's time was devoted to assessing citywide
needs, developing RFP's and RFQ's to expand system capacity and capability; and
installing new equipment. For the two fiscal years FY 90191 - 91192, City staff
reimbursements are projected to be $79,900. Over the ten year project, reimburse-
ments for City staff services are projected to total $163,490.
Status of Needed Improvements
The upgrading of the City's telephone system for the existing City facilities was
completed at the end of fiscal year 1991/92, and included installing new conduit and
wiring, and adding additional telephone lines. The voice processing system, which
has a City share of 64.5%, should be purchased and installed in fiscal year 1992193
at a cost of $50,000.
Method of Apportioninl! Costs
All of the telephone upgrades are due to an increase in the number of employees
since 1990 and projected to be needed as the result of growth. Since the increase in
the number of employees is related to a need for increased service as a result of new
growth, new development will fmance the total system cost of $404,200.
1993 Public Focilities DlF Update
City of Chula Vista
57
I~. &<(;7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO.8
. TELEPHONE SYSTEM UPGRADE
1991 1992
Description Cost Estimate Cost Estimate
1 Phase I, Instruments, Wiring,
Conduit, etc. $ 87,420 $ 82,022
2 7.5% Contingencies. 6,550 4,101
3 Sales Tax @ 7.25%2 6,640 0
4 Voice Processing (payments) 72,150 50,000
5 Consultant 17,500 13,250
6 Major Construction 0 56,277
7 Interest on General Fund Loans 0 0
8 Project Staff Services 0 110,000
Phase I Subtotal $ 190,260 $ 315,650
Phase II, Cabinet, Instruments, Boards,
9 911 Relocation 121,170 72,870
10 10% Contingency' 12,120 3,644
11 Sales Tax @ 7.25%2 9,330 0
12 Consultant 0 5,000
13 Major Construction 03 0
14 Project Staff Services 0 55,000
Phase n Subtotal $ 142,620 $ 136,514
SUBToTAL PHASE I & n $ 332,880 $ 452,164
15 City Finance Charge ($7,611 + $1,173 0 $ 12,391
+ $3,607)
16 Less DIP fees collected plus interest 0 (28,061)
17 Less City share (Voice processing) 0 (32,250)
TOTAL $ 404,244
USE $ 404,200
Contingencies for 1989 estimates set at 7.5% for Phase I and 10% for Phase n. Boch 1992 cooliDgencies set al 5%.
2
Sales tax for 1989 estimates set at 7.025% for Phase 1 and 7% for Phase n.
3
COI1Struction, treoching, etc. required for Pb.ue n assumed to be accomplished as part of the Civic Center expansion and charged to that DIF
project.
1993 Public Facilities DlF Update
City of Chula Vista
58
) I - ~6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PuBLIC F ACll..ITIES FINANCE PLAN
DOCUMENTATION
. Telephone System Update
1. DIF Fund Status - As of June 30, 1992
2. CIP Project detail dated January 23, 1992.
3. Letter dated November 27, 1989, "Phone System Upgrade Overview".
4. Attachment I, "Cost Estimate Phase 1".
5. Attachment 2, "Cost Estimate Phase 2".
6. CIP Project 00910 - Phone System Upgrades.
Note: The following documentation material is !lQ! paginated.
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
59
;/ - J~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ROV BV:WILLDAN SAN DrEeo
,- 1-83 i" q 2AM
42~ C'C4~ WILLDAN SAN DIEeoi"O
TELEPHONE SYSTEM EXPANSION DIF-AS OF 6/30/92
1-06-93
A. DIF Revenues received to date: $ 28,061
B. DIY Investment earnings to date: $ 0
Total Revenues $ 28.061
c. commitments to date:
Jill:
ComlJleteq'
Cabling: $ 7.336
Trench and conduit: 7.583
Hardware: 13.639
Parts and equipment: 30.181
Miscellaneous: 6.'i5
subtotal: $ 65,034
Onaoina
Consultant: $ 2,250
Staff Services: 55.547
Subtotal: $ 57,797
TOTAL: $ 122,B31
D. Currently planned expenditures:
Additional system upqrades
5D1P 9h*~e la 100~. Ho.ev.r, c1~y 11nanCed port'on of DJF Share, Which will be p.td beck over ti'TIe.
Jb - r1i:J.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ·
.*
I ...
I
I
I
I
10
Rev BY:WILLDAN SAN DIEGO
1- 7-83 ;11 ;06AM
425 6164~ WILLDAN SAN DIEGO:' 2
Exhib1t 7
Telephone System UpqX'ade
01l-Jun-92
Description
Phase I
EquiplUent
Continqency .
1989
Estimate
199Cl
Estimate
Sales Tax ..
$87,420
$6,550
$6,640
$72,150
$17,500
$38,e60
$13,250
$56,277
$0
$110,000
$90,960
$4,043
voice Processing (Payments)
Consultant
Major construction
Interest on General Fund Loans
Staff Time
PHASE I TOTAL:
$190,260
$J03,290
Phase II
Equipment
Contingency .
$121,100 $72,870
$12,110 $3,644
$9,325
$40,240
$',000
..... "'....
$!l!5,000
$142,535 $176,7'4
$332,794 $480,044
Sales Tax .*
voice Processing (paymonts)
Consultant
Major Construction
Staff Time
PHASE II TOTAL:
TOTAL:
contingoncie. for 1989 estimates set at 7." tor Phase I and 10\
for Phase II. Both 1992 contingencie~ s.t at ".
Sal.. tax tor 19;9 estimates set at 7.02'% tor Phase I and
7% for phallo II.
ConstX'uction, trenohing/ete. required Cor Phase II assumed to be
acoOftpliabQd a. part of the Civic Center expans10n and charge~ to
~hat DIP projeot.
)6 - 1ft3
.
II.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
j!
~I
6b
~ ~ ~ ~ C> ~ !
I '" , ~ ~
~
I
I
ei
! : ~ !, 0 ~ ~
~ ~ t .. .. ..
Ipq
I:".
:;/1 ~ C> C> C>
15 -
.. t......
~il~ ~ ~ l R!.
~~t~ : ~: C> ~ ~
.
t .. .. ..
"! !
~ ~
.... ..
.. ..
~ g i ~ c> g a
I III - =' .. ~
-
i ~i
t~ l~~ I ! ~
If I~> .. .. ..
Ja
tJ 8
1~ I ~ l ~ ~ i i
Ie ~ ~ ~ ~. I
1 II C..
I I if;
I f. JSI~
~
nl
I
~
D
t .. .. ..
g
.
i
~
!;j
~
i a
~ ~
.... ..
.. ..
~ ~
III III
.... ..
.. ..
c> ~ It
~ ..
-
~ ~
~ ~
.... ..
.. ..
c> c> c>
c> c>
.... ..
.. ..
!. !.
~ ~
.... ..
.. ..
~ i ~
:: ~ . ~
c> c>
~ ~
l;j l;j
- -
.... ..
.. ..
I I
.... ..
.. ..
_ I
. .. i
rdhlJ
Iii i S Jt ! I
~
~ l ~
I I I ~ ~
~ JJt;f I
... '" Ii ;it >
l:i
-I
I.
n
It
-!
it
II
It
SI-
)1
if
It
"h
61
-=
S"J
il.
j;~
. iI .
...~~
J ".II
2's
li_
..I!
't;
Ii;
- -I
HI
th
SIll
p"-
jI..11 J
eSJ
Jill
It
!I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~v~
:::~~ ::
......-..;~~
.....~-:;..-:;...
~~-~
~.~
CllY OF
(HUlA VISfA
MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
November 27, 1989
Ms. Jenette Litton
wildan Associates
6363 Greenwich Drive
San Diego, California 92122-3939
Jenette,
A couple of quick updates.
--The sources for the price estimates on replacing the
City's mainframe computer were the following
companies:
UNISYS
DSI (new and used equipment)
ESI
--The sources for the price estimates on fire related
items (except the Brush Rig which were already
identified) are as follows:
Equipment - San Diego Fire Equipment Company
Construction - Costs for the city's recently
remodeled fire station #2 on East "J" street,
with appropriate modifications for the new
sites (e.g. increase landscaping costs for
larger acreage). Also, price estimates were
compared to estimates used by the City of San
Diego. The City used an estimate of $100 per
square foot; San Diego uses an estimate of $125
per square foot.
Lastly, after conferring with Dave Byers and the City's Data
Processing staff, a new DIF project, upgrading the phone
system, is proposed. The project is discussed below.
Phone Svstem UDarades: FYs 1990/91 - 1999-2000
Based on the anticipated growth rates and staffing figures
detailed in the recently completed civic Center Master Plan,
City staff have developed a Telephone System Master Plan.
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 920101(619)691-5296
I, - &.95
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Telephone System Master Plan is divided into two parts:
(1) equipment upgrades to the existing system needed to meet
demands through FY 1994-95 and (2) expansion of the current
system to meet demands through FY 1999-2000. The total cost
of Phase 1 upgrades are $190,260. The specific equipment
items and costs are detailed in Attachment 1. The sources
for the individual price estimates were:
- Phone instruments, expansion boards, instrument wiring
and cable PER TEL-PLUS
- Conduit PER City's Building Maintenance Superintendent
- Voice Mail System PER VICTORY AND ASSOCIATES
- Consultant cost PER city's Data Processing Manager
The total cost of Phase 2 expansion, which requires
of a second telephone switch cabinet are $142,620.
specific items and costs are detailed in Attachment
sources for the individual price estimates were:
purchase
The
2. The
- Phone instruments, expansion boards and instrument
wiring PER TEL-PLUS
- Voice Mail System PER VICTORY AND ASSOCIATES
- UPS expansion and 911 switch relocation PER city's Data
Processing Manager
The total 10 year costs for upgrading the City's telephone
system to handle anticipated growth are $332,880.
It's important to note that City staff are planning a trunk
line study in the coming fiscal year. That study may
indicate the need to add phone trunk lines during Phase 1.
Also, as staff are better able to assess long-term phone
system demands, some of the expansion planned for Phase 2
may be required in Phase 1 (FY 1990/91 - FY 1994/95).
In spreading the costs for this DIF related project,
attention should be given to the following points:
--Costs should be spread to new development both
east and west of I-805;
--An appropriate inflationary factor should be added;
CITY OF CHULA VISTA/I__ J/.CZ?
I
I,
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
--A 5% administrative factor should be added, similar
to other projects in the supplemental DIF.
If I can provide any additional information please don't
hesitate to call.
sincerely,
~
Assistant Director
attachments
cc: Dave Byers
Susan Cole
Rick Nelson
Zoubir Ouadah
John Pavlicek
Jim Thomson
CITY OF CHULA VISTA$ - r;}.e; 7
I
I.
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT 1
11/27/89
PHASE 1 PHONE SYSTEM UPGRADES: FY 1990/91 - FY 1994/95
Upgrades to existing telephone switch configuration:
Expansion Boards
(3 sets @ $12,000/ea)
$ 36,000
Instruments
Model DT II (57 @ $60/ea)
Model DT IV (34 @ $500/ea)
3,420
17,000
Wiring
Instruments (91 @ $88/ea)
Feed Cable
Conduit
8,000
16,000
7.000
Subtotal: 87,420
Contingency @ 7.5% 6.550
Subtotal: 93,970
Sales Tax * 6.640
Subtotal: $100,610
Other Phone System Upgrades:
Voice Mail (payments)**
72,150
Consultant***
17.500
TOTAL: $190,260
* At 7.125% for FY 1990-91 and 7% for the remaining fiscal
years.
** $57,580 system financed over 5 years @ 8%.
*** To assist in defining user/equipment needs, writing an
RFP and overseeing implementation of the voice mail
system (350 hours @ $50/hour)
)j - ;;'i<:6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I.
1
I
ATTACHMENT 2
11/27/89
PHASE 2: PHONE SYSTEM UPGRADES:
FY 1995/96 - FY 1999/2000
Expansion of current telephone system:
2nd Switch Cabinet (MMG)
TOTAL:
$ 50,000
3,300
11,000
6,700
10,000
5,500
19,600
10,000
5.000
121,170
12.120
133,290
--2....3 3 0
142,620
*
**
142,620
Instruments:
DT II (55 @ $60/ea)
DT V (22 @ $500/ea)
wiring:
Instruments (77 @ $88/ea)
Voice Mail system Expansion
Boards:
Trunk Cards
station Cards
UPS - expansion
911 Switch Relocation
Subtotal:
Contingency @ 10%
Subtotal:
Sales Tax @ 7%
Subtotal:
Consultant
Major Construction
COMBINED TOTAL PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2
FY 1990/91-FY 1999/2000:
332,880
* Cannot be specified at this time.
** It's assumed that any major construction needed (e.g.
retrenching) would be accomplished as part of the Civic
Center expansion and charged to that DIF project.
); - /).q<(
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CIP PROJECTGG910 - PHONE SYSTEM UPGRADES
PHASE I: FY 1990/91- FY 1994/95
FY 1990/91
Expansion Boards
$ 12,000
Instruments
DT II (16 @ $60/ea)
DT V (8@ $500/ea)
960
4,000
Wiring
Instruments (24 @ $88 ea)
Feed Cable - 600 pairs
Conduit for Cable
2,110
16,000
Sub-total
7.000
$ 42,000
Contingency @ 7.5%
3,150
*
Sales Tax @ 7.125%
3,220
Consultant $ 8,800
Voice Mail (payment) $ 14.430
TOTAL FY 1990/91 COST: $ 71,670
* Based on one-quarter percent increase for half of the
fiscal year.
I~ - 360
or II (16 @ $60/ea)
DT V (8 @ $500/ea)
Wiring
Instruments (24 @ $88/ea)
Sub-total
Contingency @ 7.5%
Sales Tax @ 7%
Consultant
Voice Mail (Payment)
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FY 1991/92
Expansion Boards
Instruments
$ 12,000
960
4,000
2.110
19,070
1,430
1,440
$ 8,700
14.430
TOTAL 1991/92 COST: $ 45,070
)h -~I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-
FY 1992/93
Expansion Boards
Instruments
"" -. ....
DT II (16 @ $60/ea)
DT V (8 @ $500/ea)
Wiring
Instruments (24 @ $88/ea)
Sub-total
contingency
Sales Tax
Voice Mail (Payment)
$ 12,000
960
4,000
2.110
$ 19,070
1,430
1,440
14.430
TOTAL FY 1992/93 COST: $ 36,370
)1 - 3a:J..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
FY 1993/94
Instruments
DT II ( 9 @ $60/ea)
DTV (10 @ $500/ea)
Wiring
Instruments (19 @ $88/ea)
Sub-total
540
5,000
Contingency
Sales Tax
Voice Mail (Payment)
1. 670
$ 7,210
540
540
14.430
TOTAL 1993/94 COST: $ 22,720
16 - ja3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
1\
I
I
FY 1994/95
Voice Mail (Payment)
$ 14.430
Total 1994/95 COST: $ 14,430
TOTAL PHASE '1 COST: $190,260
NOTE:
All other phone system upgrades will be included
in a follow-on ClP project which will serve the
City from FY 1995-96 through FY 1999-2000.
C:\MARTY\CIP-PH1
)~ - 503 er
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.9 RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Existinl! Condition
The existing Records Management System for the City of Chula Vista is in need of
updating and modernization due to the increased volume of records and transactions
experienced on an annual basis.
Needed Improvements
The City of Chula Vista is in need of a citywide records program which includes a
survey of all City records, design of a functional filing system, City Council adopted
retention schedules, destruction of documents no longer required to be maintained,
a retention program and central storage area and, finally, a microfilm program.
Status of Needed Improvements
A consultant has been hired to work with staff on the design of the new records
program.
Method of Apportioninl! Costs
The Records Management Program is needed to correct deficiencies in the existing
system and to prepare the City for the anticipated growth in transactions and volume
of records in the coming years. The improvements anticipated are expected to
benefit both the existing records in the City as well as new records to be generated
in the future. Therefore, the City will fund 64.5 percent of the cost of the new
system while future new development will fund 35.5 percent or $112,800 of the 1992
cost estimate.
1993 Public Facilities DlF Update
City of Chula Vista
60
16 - ~f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO.9
RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
1991 1992
Description Cost Estimate Cost Estimate
1 Consultant $ 51,000 $ 32,130
2 Hardware/Software 31,500' 223,464
3 Supplies/Shelving/Microfilming 174,000 20,000
4 Data Entry 18,000 71,829
5 Project Staff Services 25,500 26,032
Subtotal $ 300,000 $ 373,455
6 Less City's Share (64.5%) (209,880) (240,878)
7 Less Other Developer fees collected 0 (10,000)
8 Less DIP fees collected plus interest (0) (10,991)
9 City Finance Charge 0 1,166
TOTAL $ 120,120 $ 112,751
USE $ 112,800
1993 Public Facilities DIF Update
City of Chula Vista
61
) ~ - 3~5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PUBLIC F ACILITms FINANCE PLAN
DOCUMENTATION
Records Manal!ement System
1. DIP Fund Status - As of June 30, 1992
2. CIP Project detail dated December, 1991.
3. City Staff memo dated August 31, 1990.
4. City Staff memo dated June 18, 1990.
Note: The following documentation material is not paginated.
1993 Public Faciliries D/F Updare
City of Chula Visra
62
!~ -3ll~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Rev BY:WILLOAN SAN OIEeo
1- 7-93 i12;29PM
42~ 01 04" WI~~UI\II ~I\!l UjC~V ,. ,
RECORDS MANAGEMENT DIF FUND-AS OF 6/30/92
A.
DIF Revenues received to date:
B.
DIF Inva~tmant earninss to date:
Total RevenUOll
C. Commitments to date:
ID.F.
Completed
ConQultantt
On.;:loina
Sttlff e..rvic...u
TOTAL t
city
Consultant:
D. Currently planned expenditures:
Purchase of hardware/shelving
Conversion of records
I~ - -:jt>7
1-06-!l3
$
10,991
~
$
o
10,991
$
11,406
$
$
36
12,442
$
20,724
.'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O'~
{~1)5 MMI~ev\
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
December 17, 1991
TO:
FROM:
SUBJEcr:
I've tried to catch you several times; my timing is very bad. I do want to drop this ofT for your
comments.
Attached is a revised CIP Budget. I have trimmed every "luxury" out of it and have ended up
with a very basic system which will consist of:
1. Five printer capabilities: one for each building (police, Fire, Public Services,
Administration, and Community Development.
2. Ability for a total of thirty people to access the system at the same time. Police
actually wants to have the ability of fifteen of their people to access at a given
time, but I think we should see if this is adequate frrst.
3. A 50-disk juke box. They have a smaller one (an eleven disk), but Police claim
they generate 250,000 records yearly. A 5-114 inch disk will hold on an average
of 30,000 records; that is over 8 disks a year! That would not leave enough for
the rest of the City.
When we run out of space, we can add on juke boxes. (fhe 50 disk one is about
the size of the refrigerator in the Council Conference Room). Also, when
records become inactive an seldom researched, they can come ofT and filed.
Should thefuformation be needed, all one has to do is put that disk back into the
system. It only takes a few minutes to do.
I~ - ~g
I
I
,
\
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
elP Budget Memo
Page 2
rYe tried several ways to reduce the budget. In my opinion, the lowest cost is to acquire the
equipment all at once. To stretch out buying the equipment over several years, one adds
installation and training costs, software maintenance and upgrade costs, and general
Inmin;~trative costs.
1 have enclosed a Table on costs to start a microfilm system along with advantages and
disadvantages of Imaging Systems and Microfilm Systems.
/6 - "367
I
I
,
I
IL
III
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CIP PROJECT ESTIMATE
(plan 2)
Date: T'1Pr,.",her 1991
Project No.: nC129
...c:a.lion:
City Hall
City-wide RP.COrds Manaetm1P.nt Pro~m
Project Manager: Beverlv A Anthelet City Clerk
jeclTuIe:
mNl\lILTANT
FY 91192: 532,130
TOTAL CONSULTANT
HARnWARR~OFrWARE
FY 91/92: .0-
FY92193'
Hardware
1 Monito1 52795
1 Scanner 57295
2 Optical @ 53300
I Juke Box ~ 535,000
2 print bds 54800
20 Disks @ 250
Software
1 Source @ 529,000
1 License @ 57500
1 JukebOxl 517,500
2 Printers 52500
W'mdows 51350
Mise 516,948
Tax@ 510,448
Shippmg @ 5500
InstalVfram @J 56,000
TOTAL FY 92/93 $143,588
566,290
560,350
FY93194:
Hardware
2 print bds @ 54800
50 disks @ 5250
Software
4 licenses @ 57500
2 printers @ 52500
Mise..
Tax @ 54,711
Software Maintl
Upgrade @ 514,303*
Install @J 54,000
TOTAL '"FY 93/94 $ 69,505
TOTAL HARDISOFTW ARB
512,300
535,000
522,205
m.
~UPP1 JRS/SHRl.VES
FY9O/91:
TOTAL SUPPLIES
520,000
A-1S2 (1IW1)
$ 32,130
e"",-I
'jW"
IV. TRMPORARY HR1.P
FY 90191: 510,000
FY 91192' .0-
FY 92193: 2 PT aideslyr 528,200
TOTAL TEMP HBLP $38,200
TOTAL TEMPORARY HBLP+
'ib.~
('l~N'P.RAL AnMTNlSTRATION'
$ 73,726
v.
FY 90191: 53,213
FY 91192: .0-
FY92/93: 517,179
FY 93194: 5 6,950
TOTAL GBNERAL ADMIN
S 27,342
$366 291
TOTAL PROJEcr
$213,093
$ 20,000
P\aD 2 iI cIoveIopcd over a tbreo-year period. 0thcrwiIe, \be plan i. \be ......
buie I)'IIClD which will only include: (1) 5 printer capabilities: one for each
building (police, F'.... Public Scrvicca, Administration, aod COJDJDUDity
DcvdopDlCnt); (2)ability for 30 pcop1c toacccaa \be I)'Itcmat \be ......time,
aocI (3) a 5O-<IiIk juke box.
* Figured at 15% of the total cost for software
+ Figured at full cost recovery
)6 - '"3/2)
I - ll:l ji lil !! . 1:: c ~
g: - .. -E a'- C
- 8 ~ .... '* ~ ,*,*c:?I -a ~- j i
~ _U ~ '* ~ '* VI '*
~.~ VI rJ
'" $" ..... '3 i7il'tl
! ,u ~ l!! t::
I ~ < ... ... ~ '~'S'!l
1 !![;l-
~ '" } o~~]
~ ~ -= t::
I ~ !ij ~ .... '* 00 '* ~ ~ .... ,*,*c:?I '* '0 j i .~
Cl ~ 00 '" l;>~~00
VI ..... -
~ '" ~ .... .,; - i= ""s
~ '" - ~ !1'- ..
ll. ... - N -I5.~
I ~ ~ ... !> ~~~'il
" C
t .. .- c ~~
N '* '* '* '* c:?I '* ,*,*c:?I '* " ]13 e
I III :;! ~ "' Cl:I.~_~
0 - "E
'" 8....-
ll: ~ ~ @ alS]
E ... 1:0:: fI} ~.~t::
I Cl .. -8 ~ ~-: 8.
~~ 'i of! ~ a
, us ..2
~- l;>
~ ~ '* ~ ~ ~ ~. ,*,*c:?I '* '0 8"'t:]
I - .. " .. a"
&:: M ~ '" ~ &, ]~OB
.... -
... ... 'n - 800
'tl ~e "
0 O:'='~
I ~.J - iie~..s
!l ~ ._ Cf.I .c
"' .c'- u _ c
"'< :> .J - it e-= g i
>li; " E ~.~ .s
.. < 8
:; Cl
I :SCl~ a ~ III ."' .B ~.P'tl
! - 00' 1S
.JEo " Cl:I.C 2 '0
2t~ '0 '* VI '* '* ! VI ,*,*c:?I '* ..
0 '" - " ooo.j;
'1.l.lS l;> gClll: '" ..... :; .- g -'c:!
I ~b ... $" l!! "' ffJ =_0
U I-~ec " "E' ~ e::
.. 1:0:: 8 ~~ -o;g
~~ .B ... .. 00 ".;
e "i . <<I tU ~
-u ffi -!! "]..
I u ~ G, + 0 '~e.~0'3
.. .
~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ '" '* '* '*1 '* c.N = v.l't;j._
.Jo;:J1:O:: ~ 00 .... c.g: ~o.'E ;;;
gll: 1:0:: 1:0:: - '" 00 ..- 'C.!'l ~.B g
- M ~ ~ ..r ~
I '0'2 o.c "
E l-eci:8 .... ..... 00 v.:~ Be.
>< - N " c.
I ll. ... ... 8< ~~-8 VJ ~
- ... fi-aJl
I .. II ~.s
[;l "' 'G, ill
~ .;:: 1S ~ ~.~ 0 Cl:I
" U;s
I .. "' .J ~ .... ~. ~ ~ - '*'*'*1 '* ""6. ~uo ~
" g ~ ll:l "~;-a~
.. "E 0 - ..... -=e
" @ M ..r 1'l ..r t "';8
ll: .... - ..... .S-o._-o e
"' l- N .... ~.B !l131S[;lB ..:
] 1:0:: ... ... .g',Q"'O fn v.I ~
I II i'i 0..2 c= B
';J go U'C';J ..;
Ii ~"
" 'a ] ~~ .!'l Ii..... ~I:!: @
-0 ~ .; 000
'i .~ .....00 "' ".. :9
I :I: c. c. ..0 ~~ti:r.2
, S ~ ~~ ..
l;> l;> u E ~.i ~ {E 13
u U :I: ~ ~
1 [ J ~l ~lg ~i 'C
Ki -8
I .ll U 0 ... ~ " .~
~ - g !i:; O[;l ..-0
~ , ~ < ~ ~ !! "'.B.5.B
~ ~ ] 0 ~ ...- ~ i
~ 1: ~ '" te:~ ~-E .c 1S .5 . B
I ~ t; 0 C.-o ~ '3
~ Jl - I I:O::Cl ~~ ] ~O.;'~
~ '"
~ e1!iPS 1
\ 0 o.ll
9 ~ ~!~ t~ c:Q
I ll: t:l S ~ :> 1:0::'::
Cl ..... ll.0 .
I )? - 311
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BID PRICES FOR MICROFILM EQUIPMENT.
Vendors may bid on one or more of the items listed. Equipment prices must include supplies required for
installation and initial operation.
The below listed equipment is for a Computer Assisted Retrieval System (CAR) for microfilmed documents. It
does not include the Police Department.
OTY PRICE
ITEM PER UNIT TOTAL
Planetarv Camera 1 24 295.00 24 295.00
Film Processor 1 14 101.00 14,100.00
Dunlicator 1 15,430.00 15 430.00
Densitometer 1 3020.00 3020.00 .
Liaht Table 1 350.00 350.00
Roll Film ReaderlPrinter for CAR svstem 4 23 500.00 94 000.00
Fiche ReaderlPrinters 2 3295.00 6 590.00
Aoerture Card ReaderlPrinter 1 27,588.00 27,588.00
Roll Film Stora"e Cabinets 5 1,100.00 5 500.00
CAR Software 1 15,750.00 15750.00
Retrix Retrieval Svstem 3 8,670.00 26,010.00
Camera Lens 1 350.00 350.00
Readers onlv (for counters) 10 1.200.00 12 000.00
TOTAL 244,983.00
NOTE: Price does not include chemicals nor staff to operate equipment. Also, a place would have to be located
to accommodate the filming and processing.
Also, microfilming would be only for permanent inactive documents. There would still be a large volume of active
records remaining within departments. ;Facilities would have to be obtained to house documents with retention
schedules. Optical disk would eliminate the need for large storage facilities since even active records would be
stored. Those records with retention periods would be located on the same disks which could be destroyed at the
end of the retention periods.
OiDformalioo obtaiocd from an ac:tual bidfor tbeCily ofEl<:oDClido. Somcprioe.... dated 1989, othcn...cum:DI quotes.
/~ - 3/~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
When the Chula VISta city-wide records management project began in 1990, the Secretary of State had just
approved the use of optical disk as a storage medium. However, the industry had not yet developed a storage disk
with an adequate life expectancy to accommodate long-tenD storage requirements similar to microfilm. It has
been learned that a disk has now been developed with a life expectancy of 100 years; the same life expectancy as
microfilm. Therefore, the records management project took a different direction in order to make use of the new
and far superior technology.
IMAGING SYSTEM
ADVANTAGES OF AN IMAGING SYSTEM (optical disk):
1. An imaging system is more than just a storage medium for inactive records. It is a medium by which
most records can be stored during the active stage of the document and easily retrieved without ever
losing a document or ever having to handle a piece of paper.
2. Space requirements for an imaging system are less than those required for micrographic systems.
3. Accessing documents with an imaging system is faster, making labor costs lower. Records will not.be
misplaced, misfJled, or lost but will always be available.
4. Delays and costs of film processing (darkrooms, wet chemicals, service bureaus, etc) are eliminated.
S. An electronic document system can be integrated with other City information resources and is ae<:e$sed
by a computer.
6. Records can be faxed directly from a designated workstation without having to make paper copies and
taking them to a fax machine.
7. Computer generated reports can be sent directly to the optical disk for storage without having to scan
the paper document. This is especially helpful to departments such as Finance who have computer
reports to store.
8. The system uses the computers.and printers which the City currently has (except in cases where 19 inch
monitors are needed for indexing purposes).
9. Start up costs are approximately the same as for microfilming.
10. Approximately twenty thousand documents can be filed onto a 5 1/4 inch disk. This will greatly reduce
storage space within each department. Storage costs are less using an imaging system than the
maintenance of the filing cabinets.
-1-
I~ - 513
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
11. Using an imaging system can also reduce the cost and necessity for storing paper documents in a storage
area.
12 Documents can be added to mes months apart, but can be retrieved as a group.
13. Each department will have full control and access over their records. Other departments may be allowed
to "view only" those documents which are not confidential.
14. The system will almost eliminate the necessity to maintain paper records which will ~l;m;n.te the need
to me, retrieve, and refile with the possibility of misplacing and losing documents.
IS. Documents can be scanned at the speed of 2.S seconds per document.
16. Scanned documents will be indexed by each individual department and in most cases can be maintained
by existing departmental staff once the initial records are done.
17. Copies are made on regular white paper using a laser printer. Therefore, the copies are clean and neat
in appearance.
18. Aides the Police Department in searching for criminal records, fmger prints, and photos.
19. Has been proven to raise morale of records department personnel since they no longer see themselves as
"file clerks" but "information professionals."
DISADVANTAGES OF AN IMAGING SYSTEM:
1. Doesn't accommodate oversize documents such as maps. An Engineering modules can be added at a cost
of approximately $30,000.
-2.
/~ - 1)'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MICROFILM SYSTEM
DISADVANTAGES OF MICROFILM SYSTEMS:
I. A Microfilm System is beneficial only for permanent storage of inactive records.
2. Need to hire employees to do the filming, processing, and copying of rolls.
3. Need to deal with chemicals which often become an environmental irritant to workers and other
employees in the area. A large, well ventilated room is a requirement.
4. Process for locating a document is more time consuming. During the filming process, each document is
filmed and automatically numbered. This number is recorded into a computer program along with the
film roll number and a description of the document. In order to locate a microfilmed document, one
searches a computer index for the document name. A roll number is given with the actual location on
the roll of film. The roll of film is retrieved and placed on a special reader/printer which has a keyboard.
The location number is coded in, and the roll offllm advances automatically to that location. Prints can
be made of the document if necessary. The roll is then rewound and replaced on the shelf.
S. Paper copies of microfilm are not as clean as copies from an optical disk system.
7. Service bureaus can be used. However, a disadvantage is that documents must leave the City. Inevitably
that is just the time someone needs a document. We have experienced rolls of film lost in the mail.
8. Cannot put both source documents (8 1/2 x II) on the same roll of film with the oversized maps. Source
documents are done on 16mm while oversized documents are done on 3Smm film.
9. Not a satisfactory method for the Police Department to quickly search criminal records. Clean copies
cannot be made.
10. Microfilm does not pr~vide the ability to fax copies without having to make a paper copy first. Optical
disk can.
II. The entire microfilm process requires more space.
12. Additions to a file will be located on separate rolls; cannot keep flies together.
.
.3.
/6 - 315
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
August 31, 1990
TO:
FROM:
Tom Bandy, Wi lldan & Associates $;/
lori lieberman, Principal Management Assistant
SUBJECT: City-wide Records Management Program
The City of Chula Vista will begin development of a records management program
in the FY90-91 fiscal year. First year costs, which have been approved by the
City Council as part of the FY 1990-91 CIP, are estimated to be #$86,000. The
portion to be funded through the Public Facilities Development Impact Fees is
$33,546.
a:2,o1i
An important element of this first phase will be the hiring of a consultant to
develop and begin implementation of a comprehensive records management
program. Based on feedback from other cities which have gone through this
process recently, costs for the entire program will be approximately $330,000
over a three to four year period. Of this amount, $12fi,J99 (J8.J\) will be
eligible for DIF monies. '.2.110<;0 (~7.3"l.)
Attached are the following: (1) Records Management CIP Detail Sheet; (2) memo
to the City Council from the City Clerk which provides justification for the
program; (3) cost estimates of the various components of the project.
ll/akl
cc: Gene Asmus, Assistant City Manager
Marty Chase, Assistant Director of Management Services
Dave Byers, Budget Officer
~
J~ - 3/1"
~ ---
I ~t go j lie.
~ 1 i~
8 <}I <}<}I
I. <} <} <} q q q "i .~
'" ~ <-t: ~ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Ii-E
...-'! ..
I -cU ."
~ I u' Ii ~
",u ~""
" ~ i<;j; ql 1;
0' ~ql
"':;1 q q q q q <}
I ~ ~~ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. H
~ sa
tJ ~'"
I!l e-:l
I :il !2~ <} q q q ql q .; 'I q .w 2
o~ .q ug
.. ~~ g,s
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
E-~
I ~ ie
~!i1 ql 8
<'!o: q q q q q qql q a~
.g ~
~~ .. .. .. .. .. .. t:- .. v.
I 1= 11-'0 ]~
Q ",' ff: " .
~L ~ I ~ ~1 ~ III ~ ~l
~ q '~e
" t <li" ';"
I ~ .... ~
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. " 5
-Eli!
..... ~.~
~ &:.'0
e-
I "'... ... u:'
<'!~ "'~ 'ill
~:i1 z " l~ ~
o..~ ~ ~ ~ ~l ~ ~
<,!~05 q P
>1;; 1-08:0 " ~ " t t
I ~~ 12~~~ .... ~ . ~
.. .. .. .. :l ~
""
~Il,
~2 .., e
.5 0
I ~~ -5t:
tJU H~
~r f&.
t ~
~ "" .
q q q <} ql <} q<}1 q .eijii
I iii -Eh
..
n~~ S e IS
~ g.u
,J1loo . e .
I 5 j.g';;
~ "'I'" e.6i1
0-0 - ~
u e '"
l e ~1:- ftI ..,'~
..
~ 'at...
.e ~<'! i~ "" 5 "
I ~ ~ ~" ~ ~l ~ ~ tl'l'lI..d
1;; ~i:O
. " ~b ~ q <li" t 5' e
~ L ~ 0" . ~
~ ~.!a
...... .. .. .. ..
" -E~ ;; c.~
I ij .u
:i o " "] .
~ p ~. -Ii
~~ .. ~ .
u ._ 0 .5 'a l g
.:! 2e- 5
I .lj 'i .flu i ~ S~-g
'3 :t " . Ii ~.5l1
t- e- ~-li i ." o e
8.2 j S ~ ue.!
u u .. .~ ~ ~~...
:l! .5
I j ~ ~ i 12 ~~!
a ~ i f ~ ~ .5
~ .~ 11 """"
Z "3 8: :il ~ ~]
1= ~ 0 ~ e .. ~a
!;: .il ~ ~ '" Ii..
I tJ z tJ'llli
I!l ~ B ~ a~~
:il ~ :! ;::
.. -' = :> g:"O~
I
a.- /6 -j/7
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 18, 1990
TO: The Honorable Mayor and city Council
FROM: Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
SUBJECT: City-wide Records Management Program
BACKGROUND: The city of Chula Vista is seventy-five years old and
has no council-approved procedure for managing its records.
Consequently, records are being handled differently by individual
departments. As a result, the following is happening:
1. Duolication of files: no one is certain who the
authorized record keeper of a file is; therefore, files
are being maintained by several departments. This
creates a proliferation of stored paper. In addition,
individual staff members often maintain their own files.
2. Excessive oaoerwork: handling records in this manner
without retention schedules result in mass retention of
information.
3. Protection of records: a great majority of records
are being stored in various locations around the City.
Some taking up valuable office space, others in the
attic, in the police basement, city yard, and community
centers. These records are subject to fire damage and
possible destruction from adverse environmental
surroundings such as insects, moisture, and heat.
The above problems occur when a consistent, council-adopted records
system for filing, records retention and destruction, and records
administration is not implemented.
Also, during the past few years, the Public Works Department,
Building and Housing, Planning, and Personnel have all tried to
submit budgets for a records program. These request have been held
in abeyance in hopes that a city-wide records management system
could be developed.
ANALYSIS: In order to establish the necessary program for the
city, the first step is to design the filing system with built-in
retention schedules and establish the Official keeper of the .
record. This process is time consuming, and the foundation for the
)~ - 3'1$
i~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-2-
entire records program which will follow. It is an area in which
the city Clerk's Office does not have the time or expertise to
handle this important and critical area of the program.
Additionally, city departments and staff are often more receptive
to an outside individual when making recommendations and changes in
such a sensitive area. Once the system is designed and approved by
council, then staff would be in a position to oversee the program.
Attached is an article from the "Wall street Journal" indicating
the importance of handling records in a consistent manner with
established retention schedules. This article also addresses the
concern which has been expressed as to why a city-wide program, and
why it is necessary for each department to be on the same program.
The city is a corporation with departments often overlapping each
other in responsibility. If one department keeps a record which
another has authorization to destroy, it could expose the City to
a law suit unnecessarily in the future. It is essential for the
City that once a record is destroyed, it is truly destroyed.
Likewise, vital records maintained by a department must be
preserved in a consistent manner.
Microfilm will most likely be the method used for preservation of
vital records. The original film should be maintained in an off-
site location with a copy maintained by the responsible department
(record keeper). Permanent records that are to be maintained in
.paper form should also be maintained in one area. This assures
that in case of a disaster, records are readily available from one
location.
It is recommended that a consultant be hired to oversee the design
stage of the system and development of a procedures manual. The
amount budgeted in the first year will accomplish the following:
$40,000
Consultant services to include: meeting initially
with departments and staff members~ assisting staff
with the records inventory~ analyzing the records~
conducting interviews with staff in order to design
a customized functional filing system for Chula
Vista with retention schedules~ creating cross
indexes~ developing and writing a procedures
manual~ and most importantly, conducting bi-weekly
on-site meetings with individual staff members to
respond to questions, motivate, oversee, and train
staff to assure each department is following
through and understands the filing system. It is
estimated it will take approximately J.OO days @
$400 per day.
For high density filing shelves, folders, and
labels for file conversion.
$20,000
.
/6 - "3/'1
I.
I
.
.
I
I
I
.
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
-3-
$10,000
For temporary help at a minimum wage to help type
labels for the new folders.
$16,000
For Administration and contingency which includes
staff time.
As an additional note, Council should be aware that there will be
additional costs for the program during the next four years.
Expenses will include a software program for monitoring the
records, additional supplies, revising, updating, and creating new
Legislative History programs for other Boards and Commissions, and
eventually the microfilm stage will include evaluating whether to
purchase equipment in order to do the microfilming in-house or use
a service bureau. Lastly, the program may require one additional
full-time personnel in the FY 91-92 budget.
attach.
cc: John Goss
Eugene Asmus
David Byers
.
/6 - ~()
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
DESCRIPTION
1. Consu ltant
2. Hardware/Software
3. Supplies/Shelving/Microfilming
4. Data Entry
5. Administration
Subtotal
6. 10% Contingency
Subtotal
7. Less City's Share (61.7%)
Subtotal
8. 5% DIF Administration
TOTAL
USE
)~ - 3:;,1
COST ESTIMATE
$51,000
31,500
174,000
18,000
25.500
$300,000
30.000
330,000
203.610
126,390
6.320
$132,710
$132,710
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:
Updating of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee
to pay for various public facilities within the city of Chula
vista's General Plan Boundary.
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,
April 20, 1993, at 6:00 p.m. in the council Chambers, Public
services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time any person
desiring to be heard may appear.
DATE: April 6, 1993
Beverly A. Authelet
City Clerk
"I declare under penalty of perjury that 1 am
employe;! by the City of Chulo Vista in the
Oalce of the City Clerk and theN 1 posted
this Agenda/Notice 011 the-.\?ulletin Board at
the ~Ubli~~~~ts B~ildin~l>Qd~ City ~,II on,..\_
DATED," ~ SiGNED '\ ,.,,""L'i-:'~' \
, )
) 0--- J;2~
. ,
, ,
.......,
J
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF -
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
If'u\.ht. fo.<.J,+,is "d'-::, - . ;,..
NOTICE IS HEREB GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILlc,BE.HELD THE CITY COUNCILGGtie.
of Ch~l a Vista, Cal iforni a, for the purpose of , ' &'.
updat'^~the '_' ~". ;:' .~.. Development Impact Fee .-. .~,~.
2,29 rQ.1ati"y tOj,levelopment T"'r""" PIlIl'" to pay for various public facilitieso~
within the C,ty of Chula Vista's General Plan BOUndary.~ .
. ~
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this matter in court, you may e-'
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else rai~ed at the public
hearing described in this notice, or 'In'wdtten correspondence del ivered to
the City Council at or prior to the public hearing,
. , " ,/o" ,0 ',I.:' ' '+ A('HI d.O
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, JOIIUO''y 8,
19913 at 6:60 p.m, in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276
Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear,
DATED: lJettmaN' 21, I ';~U
Beverly Authelet
Ci ty Cl erk
ii ,\(
'I" ;
j.; .
'tJ:; ,
"
:,'.' ;,-;,-
-.ul "
r ~'"
:? ) b /'3~ /t;
--. ..-...--.......--..- -'"
ORDINANCE NO.
~5'1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADDING
CHAPTER 3.50 TO THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR
VARIOUS PUBLIC FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA'S GENERAL PLAN AREA BOUNDARY AND
SUPERSEDING ORDINANCE NO. 2432 AND ORDINANCE
NO. 2320
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the existing Ordinance No. 2432 and Ordinance No. 2320 are
hereby superseded, concurrent with the effective date of a new Ordinance , and
a new Chapter 3.50 is hereby added to the Chula Vista Municipal Code to read as
follows:
CHAPTER 3.50
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO PAY FOR VARIOUS
PUBLIC FACILITIES.
Section 3.50.010 General Intent.
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 within the City of Chula Vista.
The City Council has determined that new development will create adverse
impacts on the City's existing public facilities which must be mitigated by the financing
and construction of certain public facilities which are the subject of this chapter. New
development contributes to the cumulative burden on these public facilities in direct
relationship to the amount of population generated by the development or the gross
acreage of the commercial or industrial land in the development.
The City Council has determined that a reasonable means of financing the public
facilities is to charge a fee on all developments in the City of Chula Vista. Imposition
of the public facilities development impact fee on all new development for which building
permits have not yet been issued is necessary in order to protect the public safety and
welfare in order to ensure effective implementation of the City's General Plan.
Section 3.50.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, 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.
WPC F:\home\attomey\SS2.93
I ~/J'/
Ordinance No.
Page 2
(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 as
the following:
1. Any new residential dwelling unit developed on vacant land;
2. Any new commerciaVoffice or industrial development constructed
on vacant land;
3. Any expansions to established developments or new developments
on non-vacant land in those land use categories listed in 1 and 2
above, if the result is a net increase in EDUs. The Fee shall be
based solely on this net EDU increase.
4. Any new or expanding Special Land Use project;
5. Any Special Purpose Project developed on vacant land or non-
vacant land, or expanded within a pre-existing site, if the result is
a net increase in EDUs. The Fee shall be based on solely on this
net EDU increase.
6. Any other Development Project not listed above but described in
Section 65927 and 65928 of the State Government Code.
(e) "Community Purpose Facility" means a facility which serves one of the
following purposes:
1. social service activities, including such services as Boy Scouts and
Girl Scouts, Boys and Girls Club, Alcoholic Anonymous and
services for the homeless;
2. public schools;
3. private schools;
4. day care;
5. senior care and recreation;
6. worship, spiritual growth and development;
(f) "Special Land Use" means any non-residential, non-commercial/office or
non-industrial Development Project (e.g. Olympic Training Center,
hospitals, utilities), or non-Special Purpose Project.
WPC F:\home\attorney\S.52.93
/6/1'.2.
Ordinance No.
Page 3
(g) "Special Purpose Project" means any for-profit Community Purpose
Facility (e.g. day care).
(h) "Engineer Report" refers to the April 20, 1993 "Development Impact Fees
for Public Facilities" Report
Section 3.50.030 Public Facilities to be Financed by the Fee.
(a) The public facilities ("Facilities") which are the subject matter of the Fee
include buildings, equipment and related one-time start-up costs or portions
thereof, as detailed in subsection (c) below and in the Engineer Report on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.
(b) The City Council may modify or amend this list of Facilities by written
resolution in order to maintain compliance with the City's General Plan or
the Capital Improvement Program.
(c) The Facilities are as follows:
Civic Center Expansion
Police Department Expansion and Improvements
Corporation Yard Relocation
Library System Expansion
Fire Suppression System Expansion
Geographic Information System Development
Mainframe Computer System Expansion
Telephone System Upgrade
Records Management System Development
Section 3.50.040 Territory to Which Fee Applicable.
The area of the City of Chula Vista to which the Fee herein established shall be
applicable shall be the territorial limits of the City of Chula Vista ("Territory") as they
may from time to time be amended.
Section 3.50.050 Establishment of Fee.
A Development Impact Fee ("Fee"), to be expressed on a per Equivalent Dwelling
Unit ("EDU") basis, is hereby established to pay for the Facilities within the Territory.
The Fee shall be paid upon the issuance of building permits for each Development Project
within the City of Chula Vista.
WPC F:\bome\attomey\S52.93
1/'/1-'3
Ordinance No.
Page 4
Section 3.50.060 Detennination of Equivalent Dwelling Units.
Each new single family detached dwelling, single family attached dwelling, or unit
within a multi-family dwelling or mobilehome dwelling in a Development Project shall
be considered one EDU for purposes of this Fee. Commercial/Office and Industrial
Development Projects shall be charged at the rate of 5.00 EDU's per gross acre of land.
The EDU rate for each Special Land Use Development Project, as defmed in Section
3.50.020, shall be charged at the rate of 5.00 EDUs per gross acre of land, except that the
Olympic Training Center shall be charged at the rate of 1.25 EDU's per gross acre of
land. The EDU rate for each Special Purpose Project, as defined in Section 3.50.020,
shall be charged at the rate of 3 EDUs per gross acre of land. The charges shall be those
outlined in Section 3.50.090(c). The Fee multiplied by the total number of EDUs within
a given Development Project represents a Developer's fair share ("Fair Share") for that
Development Project.
Section 3.50.070 Time to Detennine Amount Due.
The Fee for each Development shall be calculated at the time of building pennit
issuance and shall be the amount as indicated at that time and not when the tentative map
or fmal map were granted or applied for, or when the building permit plan check was
conducted, or when application was made for the building pennit.
Section 3.50.080 Purpose and Use of Fee.
The Fee collected shall be used by the City for the following purposes in such
order and at such time as determined by the City Council:
(a) To pay for such of the Facilities that the City Council detennines should
be constructed, installed or purchased at that time, or to reimburse the City
for Facilities funded by the City from other sources.
(b) To reimburse developers who have been required or pennitted by Section
3.50.140(a) to construct, install or purchase approved Facilities listed in
Section 3.50.030(c), in such amounts as the Council deems appropriate.
(c) To repay any and all persons who have, pursuant to prior Fee Ordinance
2320 or 2432, or pursuant to this Ordinance, advanced or otherwise loaned
funds for the construction of a Facility identified herein.
(d) To repay the City for administration costs associated with administration
of the Fee.
WPC F:\bome\auomey\552.93
/J,/I ,1
Ordinance No.
Page 5
Section 3.50.090 Amount of Fee.
(a) The Fee shall be the amounts set forth in Section 3.50.09O(b) and (c). The
City Council may adjust the amount of this Fee as necessary to reflect
changes in the costs of the Facilities as may be reflected by such index
as the Council deems appropriate, such as the Engineering-News Record
Construction Index, or such other basis; changes in the type, size, location
or cost of the Facilities to be fmanced by the Fee, changes in land use
designation in the city's General Plan, and upon other sound engineering,
financing and planning information. Adjustments to the Fee may be made
by resolution amending this Section.
(b) The Fee shall have portions which are, according to the Engineer Report,
allocated to a specific Facility ("Fee Components") which correspond to
the costs of the various Facilities, plus the Administration cost for the Fee,
which is a percentage of the Fee Components' total cost divided by total
EDUs. as indicated in Section 3.50.090.
(c) The fee shall be the following, depending on land use:
Land Use Fee
Residential $2,150/dwelling unit
Commercia1lOffice $1O,750/acre
Industrial $1O,750/acre
Special Land Use $1O,750/acre
Olympic Training Center $2,688/acre
Public Purpose Exempt
Non-profit Community Exempt
Purpose Facility
Special Purpose Project, $6,450/acre
including For-Profit Day
Care
Section 3.50.100 Development Projects Exempt from the Fee.
(a) 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 ("Public Purpose").
WPC F:\home\attomey\552.93
I~A'5'
Ordinance No.
Page 6
(b) Community Purpose Facilities which are not operated for profit ("Non-
Profit Community Purpose Facilities") are also exempt inasmuch as these
institutions provide benefit to the community as a whole including all land
use categories which are the subject matter of the Fee. The City Council
hereby determines that it is appropriate to spread any impact such Non-
Profit Community Purpose Facilities might have to the other land use
categories subject to the Fee. In the event that a court determines that the
exemption herein extended to Community Purpose Facilities shall for any
reason be invalid, the City Council hereby allocates the Non-Profit
Community Purpose Facilities' Fair Share to the City of Chula Vista and
not to any of the land use categories which are the subject matter of the
development impact land use categories.
(c) Development Projects which are additions or expansions to existing
dwelling units or businesses, except Special Land Use projects, shall be
exempt if the addition or expansion does not result in a net increase in
EDUs.
Section 3.50.110 Authority for Accounting and Expenditures.
a) Fees collected before the effective date of the Ordinance codifying this
Section.
1. All fees which have accrued shall remain in separate accounts
("Accounts") corresponding to the Facilities listed in Section
3.50.030, as established by the Director of Finance, and shall only
be expended for the purposes associated with each Facility account.
2. The Director of Finance is authorized to maintain Accounts for the
various Facilities identified in this chapter and to periodically make
expenditures from the Accounts for the purposes set forth herein.
b) Funds collected on or after the effective date of the Ordinance codifying
this Section.
1.
The Fees collected shall be deposited into a public facility
financing fund ("Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund,"
or alternatively herein "Fund") which is hereby created and shall be
expended only for the purposes set forth in this chapter.
2.
The Director of Finance is authorized to establish a single Fund for
the various Facilities identified in this chapter and to periodically
make expenditures from the Fund for the purposes set forth herein.
WPC F:\home'attomey\552.93
/~A ,t,
Ordinance No.
Page 7
Section 3.50.120 Findings.
The City Council finds that collection of the Fee established by this chapter at the
time of the building permit issuance is necessary to provide funds for the Facilities and
to ensure certainty in the capital facilities budgeting for growth impacted public facilities.
Section 3.50.130 Fee Additional to Other Fees and Charges.
This Fee 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.
Section 3.50.135.
Reimbursement Offer.
Mandatory Oversizing of Facility; Duty to Tender
Whenever a Developer of a Development Project is required as a condition of
approval of a Development Permit to cause a Facility or a portion of a Facility to be built
to accommodate the demands created by the Development Project, the City may require
the Developer to install, purchase or construct the Facility according to design
specifications approved by the City, that being with such supplemental size or capacity
required by the City ("Oversized Capacity Requirement"). If such a Oversized Capacity
Requirement is imposed, the City shall offer to reimburse the Developer from the Fund
either in cash or over time, with interest at the fair market value of money, as Fees are
collected, at the option of the City, for costs incurred by the Developer for the design and
construction of the Facility not to exceed the estimated cost of that particular Facility as
included in the calculation and updating of the Fee. The City may update the Fee
calculation as City deems appropriate prior to making such offer. This duty to offer
reimbursement shall be independent of the developer's obligation to pay the Fee.
Section 3.50.140. Developer Construction of Facilities.
(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 a Facility, or if a developer
proposes to design and construct a portion of a Facility in conjunction with
the prosecution of a development project within the Territory, and follows
the procedure for doing same hereinbelow set forth, the City Council shall,
in the following applicable circumstances, tender only the credit or
reimbursement hereinbelow identified for that circumstance.
1)
If the cost of the Facility, incurred by the Developer
and acceptable to the City, is less than or equal to
that portion of the Developer's Fair Share related to
the Fee Component for that Facility, the City may
WPC F:'home\attomey\.'5S2.93
;",/"')
Ordinance No.
Page 8
only give a credit ("Developer Credit") against the
that portion of the Developer's Fair Share related to
the Fee Component for that Facility ("Fair Share of
the Fee Component"); or,
2) If the cost of the Facility, incurred by the Developer
and acceptable to the City, is greater than that
portion of the Developer's Fair Share related to the
Fee Component for that Facility, but less than or
equal to the Developer's total Fair Share, the City
may give a credit which credit shall fIrst be applied
against that portion of the Fair Share related to the
Fee Component for that Facility, and the excess
costs for the Facility shall then be applied as credits
against such other Fee Components of the
Developer's total Fair Share as the City Manager, in
his sole and unfettered discretion, shall determine;
or,
3) If the cost of the Facility, incurred by the Developer
and acceptable to the City, is greater than the
Developer's total Fair Share, the City may give a
credit against the Developer's total Fair Share as the
City Manager, in his sole and unfettered discretion,
shall determine; and/or, the City may tender to the
Developer a reimbursement agreement to reimburse
said Developer only from the Fund as monies are
available, over time, with interest at the fair market
value of money, at the option of the City.
Section 3.50.150 Procedure for Issuance of Credits or Tender of Reimbursement
Offer.
The City's extension of credits or tender of a reimbursement offer to a Developer
pursuant to Section 3.50.140 shall be conditioned on the Developer complying with the
terms and conditions of this Section:
(a) Written authorization shall be requested by the Developer from the City
and issued by the City Council by written resolution before Developer may
incur any costs eligible for reimbursement relating to the Facility.
(b) The request for authorization shall contain the information listed in this
Section and such other information as may from time to time be requested
by the City.
WPC F:\bome\attomey\'5S2.93
11,,4' 8'
Ordinance No.
Page 9
(c) If the Council grants authorization, it shall be by written agreement with
the Developer, and on the following conditions among such other
conditions as the Council may from time to time impose:
1.
2.
3.
4.
WPC F:\bome\attomey\552.93
Developer shall prepare all plans and specifications and submit
same for approval by the City.
Developer shall secure and dedicate any right-of-way required for
the Facilities.
Developer shall secure all required permits and environmental
clearances necessary for construction of the Facilities.
Developer shall provide performance bonds in a form and amount,
and with a surety satisfactory to the City (where the Developer
intends to utilize provisions for immediate credit, the performance
bond shall be for 100 percent of the value of the project).
5.
Developer shall pay all City fees and costs;
6.
The City shall be held harmless and indemnified. and upon tender
by the City, defended by the Developer for any of the costs and
liabilities associated with the construction of the Facilities.
7.
The City will not be responsible for any of the costs of
constructing the Facilities. The Developer shall advance all
necessary funds to construct the Facilities.
8.
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.
9.
The Developer shall provide a detailed cost estimate which
itemizes those costs of the construction attributable to the Facilities
and excludes any work attributable to a specific subdivision project.
The estimate is preliminary and subject to fmal determination by
the Director of Public Works upon completion of the Facilities.
10.
The City may grant partial credit for costs incurred by the
Developer on the Facility upon determination of satisfactory
1"//" 1
Ordinance No.
Page 10
incremental completion of a Facility, as approved and certified by
the Director of Public Works, in an amount not to exceed 75
percent of the cost of the construction completed to the time the
partial credit is granted, thereby retaining 25% of such credits until
issuance by the City of a Notice of Completion.
11. 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 Facility to the City. The Director of Public
Works shall make the fmal determination on expenditures which
are eligible for credit or reimbursement.
Section 3.50.160 Procedure for Fee Modification or Reduction.
Any Developer who, because of the nature or type of uses proposed for a
Development Project, contends that application of this Fee is unconstitutional or unrelated
to mitigation of the burdens of the Development, may apply to the City Council for a
modification 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 permit application. The application shall
state in detail the factual basis for the claim of modification or reduction. The City
Council shall make reasonable efforts to consider the application within sixty (60) days
after its filing. The decision of the City Council shall be final. If a reduction or
modification 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 this Fee.
Section 3.50.170 Fund Loans.
(a) Loans bv the Citv.
The City may loan funds to the Fund to pay for a Facilities should the
Fund have insufficient funds to cover the cost of said Facility. Said loans,
if granted, shall be approved upon the adoption of the annual City budget
and shall carry interest rates as set by the City Council for each fiscal year.
A schedule for repayment of said loans shall be established at the time
they are made and approved by the Council, with a maximum term not to
exceed the life of the Fund.
WPC F:\b.ome\attorney\5S2.93
I"/I./~
Ordinance No.
Page 11
(b) Develooer Loans.
A Developer may loan funds to the City as outlined in Sections 3.50.140
and 3.50.150(c)(14). The City may repay said Developer loans with
interest, under the terms listed in (a) above.
Section 3.50.180 Effective Date.
This ordinance shall become effective sixty (60) days after its second reading and
adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Marty Chase
Special Projects Manager
!.L1h.4rO
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
WPC F:'home\att0mey'552.93
Ivll"l/
RESOLUTION NO.
1?lJr3
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE 1993 UPDATE OF THE
PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
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 city Council has determined that new
development within the City of Chula vista will create adverse
impacts on the City'S existing public facilities which must be
mitigated by the financing and construction of certain public
facilities identified in this ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a
reasonable means of financing the public facilities is to levy a
fee on all developments in the City of Chula vista; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to said agreement, the fee has been
justified by the report entitled, "Development Impact Fee for
Public Facilities" ("Report") dated April 20, 1993, and compiled by
City staff with the assistance of Willdan Associates incorporated
herein and attached as Attachment 1; and,
WHEREAS, the Report and various other reports show that
the City's public facilities will be adversely impacted by new
developments within the City unless public facilities are improved
or constructed to accommodate the new development; and,
WHEREAS, developers of land within the City should be
required to mitigate the burden created by development through the
construction or improvement of public facilities within the
boundaries of the development, the construction or improvement of
public facilities outside the boundaries of the development which
are needed to provide service to the development in accordance with
city standards and the payment of a fee to finance a development's
portion of the total cost of the public facilities; and,
WHEREAS, all development within the City contribute to
the cumulative burden on various public facilities in direct
relationship 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 April 20, 1993, City Council held a duly
noticed meeting at which oral or written presentations could be
made; and,
J~/J"I
WHEREAS, the city council determined, based upon the
evidence presented at the meeting, the city's General Plan and the
various reports and other information received by the City council
in the course of its business, that imposition of the public
facilities development impact fee on all developments as indicated
in Attachment 1 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 in order to ensure effective
implementation of the City's General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby approve the 1993 Update of the
Public Facilities Development Impact Fee.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
,/( A~
,,~ ''I.
Bruce M. Boogaar , City
Attorney
Marty chase, Special Projects
Manager
F:\home\attomey\PFDIF.res
) /, /1';J..
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 11
Meeting Date 4/20/93
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING: Considering Coastal Development Permit 64 for
Development of a Golf Driving Range, Batting and Pitching Cages, and
Accessory Uses on Fifth Avenue North of "C" Street.
RESOLUTION \1 0 i'~ Adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-91-
50(B) , Two Addendums Thereto, and Mitigation Monitoring Program;
and, Issuing Coastal Development Permit No. 64 to Develop a Golf
Driving Range, Batting and Pitching Cages, and Accessory Uses on Fifth
Avenue North of "C" Street Subject to Conditions.
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY: City Managerrj
(4lSths Vote: Yes
No X)
BACKGROUND:
The project proposal involves construction of an athletic and sport recreational center on
approximately 12.54 acres located on Fifth Avenue north of "C" Street within the "Inland
Parcel" of the Local Coastal Program. The project site is located within the Town Centre II
Redevelopment Project and within the California Coastal Zone. The site is designated for
general industrial use but does allow a golf driving range and commercial sport and recreational
enterprises by conditional use permit. On March 23, 1993, the City Council and the
Redevelopment Agency approved a conditional use permit and an owner participation agreement
respectively for the proposed project subject to a number of conditions.
Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-91-50(B), two Addendums thereto and a Mitigation
Monitoring Program were prepared for the project. A previously approved grading permit for
the property has expired and a revised grading plan is currently being processed through the City
Engineer. If the plan is substantially revised, additional coastal development review may be
required.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council hold public hearing, consider public testimony, and adopt a resolution:
1. Adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-91-50(B), two Addendums thereto,
and Mitigation Monitoring Program; and,
2. Issuing Coastal Development Permit No. 64 to develop a golf driving range,
batting and pitching cages, and accessory uses on Fifth Avenue north of "C" Street
subject to conditions in Attachment II of the resolution.
)"'"1 - 1
Page --1. Item _
Meeting Date: 4/20/93
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable
DISCUSSION:
The project site is currently vacant. The Historic Sweetwater River cuts across the western
portion of the site. The new Sweetwater River Concrete channel is located adjacent to the site's
northern boundary.
The triangular-shaped site is also bound by a lumber yard to the east and a vacant parcel to the
south. A loo-foot wide open space buffer, adjacent to the Sweetwater River and Broadway,
limits the parcel to the west. Due to the environmentally sensitive area on the west property
line, direct access to Broadway has been eliminated and limits the buildable area to the easterly
two-thirds of the property. The entrance and access driveway for the project is to be provided
at the North Fifth Avenue extension on the east side of the site.
The applicant proposes to develop a golf driving range, batting cages, putting and pitching
practice areas and with baseball pitching and batting instruction areas. In addition, the proposal
includes construction of a 2,000 sq. ft. club house, a 324 sq. ft. storage/service building and
a 500 sq. ft. maintenance building. On-site parking will provide 86 vehicle spaces.
As presented at the March 23 meeting, this project was the subject of substantial discussion
between the developer and staff concerning safety and economic issues. As a result, the project
C.U.P was granted with a ten year limitation, with the option for the developer to request
additional five year renewals at the expiration of each five years. Also, in order to avoid adding
additional financial impediments to the future development of the site, the project improvements
are to be amortized over an eight year period, and the developer agreed to waive all relocation
rights and rights for loss of goodwill after five years.
With regard to safety, it should be noted that the exact heights of the sixty (60) foot fence along
the northern boundary plus the twenty-five (25) foot fence along the southern boundary will be
determined following review by the Director of Planning of a ball flight analysis. Therefore,
in the event that the analysis indicates the probability of balls escaping the project boundaries,
the fence heights can be increased. Finally, there also will be interior fences of approximately
twenty (20) feet in height installed perpendicular to the tees at the north end of the tee structure
in order to further reduce the risk of errant balls by encouraging the aiming at the target tees
located in the center of the driving range landing area.
There is an approved grading plan for the site which has a valid coastal development permit.
The on-site grading will be modified to accommodate this project proposal. Preliminary review
of the revisions to the current grading plan indicate that no substantial changes in grade or
drainage will occur provided conditions no. 4 & 5 set forth in Attachment II of the resolution
are adopted.
The driving range, putting greens and sand traps will be located on the northerly and easterly
portions of the property and will involve about four fifths of the developable portion of the site.
)1.2..
.
Page -1. Item _
Meeting Date: 4/20/93
The pro shop, and batting and pitching cages are planned on the southwestern portion of the site.
Parking for 86 vehicles is provided adjacent to the pro shop on the southwestern portion of the
site.
The facility's hours of operation are planned to be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through
Sunday. Night lighting is proposed since the facility will operate during the evening hours. The
Design Review Committee has required the light fixtures to be returned for detail design review
and approval. Also, the project's C.U.P. requires that a lighting plan be submitted to address
the environmental impacts of the lighting.
A 60 foot high ball screen will be placed along approximately 1280 feet of the northern property
line. A 25 foot high ball screen will be placed along the southern portion of the driving range
area. Pacific Southwest Biological Services reviewed the type, height, and location of the
netting and determined that no impact to wildlife would result.
The eighty-six on-site parking spaces were deemed to be sufficient for the proposed use.
Although the City does not have a standard for this type of use, under County standards the ratio
is one space for every three persons based on the total occupancy permitted by the Uniform
Building Code. Using a similar standard of one space per three persons plus one space per
employee, a minimum of 37 spaces would be required (76 tees + 8 batting cages + 2 pitching
cages = 86/3 = 28.6 + 8 on shift = 36.66 (37).
The visual, noise and lighting impacts of the project were addressed as part of the environmental
evaluation, and are further discussed here as foIlows:
Visual
The areas which may be most affected by the project are the residential uses to the south of the
project, across "c" Street. The main impact was anticipated to be on the view several homes
have looking north across the Sweetwater River and toward downtown San Diego. The applicant
is proposing a 60 foot tall net which will be transparent. The net is intended to keep golf balls
from landing on SR-54. Because of the transparent nature of the material, its visibility will be
limited. In addition, Planning staff spoke with residents who were concerned with this issue
with regard to an earlier industrial project on January 20, 1993. They indicated that they have
no objections to the type of screening, screening supports or to its height.
Noise
Noise is not considered a problem because the closest residential area is about 700 feet to the
south of the batting cages. In addition, there are intervening structures which should act as noise
buffers. Even though a crack of the bat (the loudest noise that would occur) will be heard, it
will be muffled by the separation, intervening buildings and the background noise generated by
SR-54 and National City Boulevard. Consequently, no significant noise impacts are expect from
the proj ect.
\'1-3
Page -A, Item _
Meeting Date: 4/20/93
Li!!hting
In the environmental analysis, lighting/glare was identified as one of the issues most likely to
cause negative impacts. As a result, a lighting plan was required as a project condition. Also,
lighting is required to be either shielded or directed in such a manner that glare from the project
site may not spill over the property line or otherwise negatively impact any nearby land use.
During the Conditional Use Permit process for the project, it was determined that the proposed
project at this location will not have significant environmental or land use impacts that cannot
be mitigated. Parking is adequate to meet the demand, and no excessive noise, dust or other
environmental factors will adversely affect surrounding land uses.
Findings
Based on the following findings, the proposed project, subject to conditions listed in Attachment
II to the Resolution, the proposed project is found to be consistent with the Certified Local
Coastal Program:
1. The project site is currently undeveloped and does not provide coastal reliant
recreational facilities or access to coastal reliant recreational facilities. The proposal, if
undertaken, will not conflict or impact recreational or visitor-serving facilities to be located on
or adjacent to the coast.
2. The project will not interfere with coastal access or coastal traffic circulation.
The project is not located near or adjacent to the coast or bay, therefore, traffic generated by
the project will not interact with coastal traffic.
3. The proposed land use is allowed by Conditional Use Permit. The proposed land
use has been reviewed and found, subject to conditions, to be consistent with the policies of the
certified Local Coastal Program.
FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact related to coastal related issues is anticipated.
\1- ~
,
Page -A, Item _
Meeting Date: 4/20/93
Lighting
In the environmental analysis, lighting/glare was identified as one of the issues most likely to
cause negative impacts. As a result, a lighting plan was required as a project condition. Also,
lighting is required to be either shielded or directed in such a manner that glare from the project
site may not spill over the property line or otherwise negatively impact any nearby land use.
During the Conditional Use Permit process for the project, it was determined that the proposed
project at this location will not have significant environmental or land use impacts that cannot
be mitigated. Parking is adequate to meet the demand, and no excessive noise, dust or other
environmental factors will adversely affect surrounding land uses.
Findings
Based on the following findings, the proposed project, subject to conditions listed in Attachment
II to the Resolution, the proposed project is found to be consistent with the Certified Local
Coastal Program:
1. The project site is currently undeveloped and does not provide coastal reliant
recreational facilities or access to coastal reliant recreational facilities. The proposal, if
undertaken, will not conflict or impact recreational or visitor-serving facilities to be located on
or adjacent to the coast.
2. The project wilt not interfere with coastal access or coastal traffic circulation.
The project is not located near or adjacent to the coast or bay, therefore, traffic generated by
the project will not interact with coastal traffic.
3. The proposed land use is allowed by Conditional Use Permit. The proposed land
use has been reviewed and found, subject to conditions, to be consistent with the policies of the
certified Local Coastal Program.
FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact related to coastal related issues is anticipated.
(P AM/DISK#12/a:4-20cp64.A13)
\''''6/'1'''1.
RESOLUTION \ 1\)'6 i
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-9l-50(B), TOW
ADDENDUMS THERETO, AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM;
AND, ISSUING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 64 FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A GOLF DRIVING RANGE, BATTING AND
PITCHING CAGES, AND ACCESSORY USES ON FIFTH A VENUE NORTH
OF "C" STREET SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) has been
certified by the California Coastal Commission; and,
WHEREAS, said LCP includes Coastal Development procedures determined by
the Commission to be legally adequate for the issuance of Coastal Development Permits and the
City of Chula Vista has assumed permit authority of the Chula Vista Coastal Zone; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly noticed and conducted on April 20, 1993,
in accordance with said procedures; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista has considered the
information in the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-9l-50(B) two Addendums thereto, and
Mitigation Monitoring Program attached as Attachment I; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, as "approving
authority" , has reviewed the proposal to develop a golf driving range, batting and pitching cages,
and accessory uses on 12.94 acres located on Fifth Avenue north of "C" Street.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA does hereby find, order, determine, and resolve as follows:
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista finds that the proposed project, subject to conditions
listed in Attachment II, is in conformance with the Chula Vista certified Local Coastal Program
because:
1. The project site is currently undeveloped and does not provide coastal reliant
recreational facilities or access to coastal reliant recreational facilities. The proposal, if
undertaken, will not conflict or impact recreational or visitor-serving facilities to be located on
or adjacent to the coast.
2. The project will not interfere with coastal access or coastal traffic circulation.
The project is not located near or adjacent to the coast or bay, therefore, traffic generated by
the project will not interact with coastal traffic.
\1-1
3. The proposed land use is allowed by Conditional Use Permit. The proposed land
use has been reviewed and found, subject to conditions, to be consistent with the policies of the
Certified Local Coastal Program.
The City of Chula Vista finds that the proposed project, subject to conditions listed in
Attachment II, is in conformance with the Chula Vista Certified Local Coastal Program and,
statewide and regional interpretive guidelines have been reviewed, and the proposed project has
been found to be in conformance with the public access and public recreational policies of
Chapter 3 of the Public Resources Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves Coastal
Development Permit No. 64.
Chris Salomone, Executive Secretary
and Community Development Director
A
Submitted by
roce M. Boogaard
Agency General Counsel
(P AM/DISK# 12/a:4-20cdp64.rso)
~ l -8-
ATTACHMENT I
ADDENDUM
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 91-S0(B)
FIFTH A VENUE GOLF RANGE/SPORTS CENTER
March 18, 1993
Clarification to the Compatibility with Zoning and Plans (Section C) for the Negative Declaration IS-91-50(B)
is summarized below. The Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista has allowed
preparation of this Addendum if one of the following conditions is present:
1. The minor changes in the project design which have occurred since completion of the Final EIR or
Negative Declaration have not created any new significant environmental impacts not previously
addressed in the Final EIR or Negative Declaration;
2. additional or refined environmental data available since completion of the Final EIR does not indicate
any new significant environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Final EIR or Negative
Declaration; and
3. Additional or refined environmental data available since completion of the Final EIR or Negative
Declaration regarding the potential environmental impact of the project, or regarding the measures or
alternatives available to mitigate potential environmental effects of the project, does not show that the
project will have one or more significant impacts which were not previously addressed in the Final EIR
or Negative Declaration.
Condition No.2 is appropriate for this Addendum. The change occurs in the Compatibility with Zoning and
Plans (Section C) for the Negative Declaration, and does not create any new significant environmental impacts
not previously addressed in the Negative Declaration. The change is described below. The change does not
alter the conclusions of the Mitigated Negative Declaration; the impacts and mitigation measures remain as
described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. All of the reported impacts can be mitigated to a level below
significant.
Change in Consistency with the Local Coastal Program (L,CP)
The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that the site is designated by the General Plan as Research and
Limited Industrial, with a portion located within the LCP area, and requiring an LCP amendment. The
amendment was stated to be necessary to allow, as a conditional use, the land uses proposed for the project.
However, the approval of the City's Local Coastal Program Resubmittal No.8 (October 13, 1992) included,
as conditionally allowed uses, "Athletic and Recreational Commercial Activities" which was defined in
Appendix A of the document as including commercial sport and recreational enterprises, golf driving ranges,
batting cages, open space areas (of an active use) and recreational centers. Since these land uses are now
conditionally allowed, an amendment to the LCP is no longer necessary.
c
Consultation
Diana Richardson, City of Chula Vista Community Development Department
Lyle Haynes, City of Chula Vista Community Development Department
Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney for the City of Chula Vista
Documentation
.0\
,.
Excerpt of applicable sections from LCP Resubmittal No. 8 and Appendix A
\'\ ~ '1
/1/
.!
v?
Section 19.82.28 - Animal Services Commercial Activities
Animal Services Commercial Activities include the services relating to the storage? maintenance. grooming or
keeping of household or other animals.
Section 19.82.29 - Transport and Warehousing Commercial Activities
Transport and Warehousing Commercial Activities include the provision of warehousing and storage, freight
handling, shipping, and trucking services.
Section 19.82.30 - Building Maintenance Services Commercial Activities
Building Maintenance Services Commercial Activities include the provision of services to buildings involving
cleaning, maintenance, custodial and security.
Section 19.82.31 - Funeral and Interment Services Commercial Activities
Funeral and Interment Services CoIprnercial Activities include the provision of undertaking and funeral services
involving the care and preparation of the human deceased prior to burial.
Section 19,8232 cAthlctlcari<i. RcciCiiuonalCominci:oa} Activities
~1~~,~Iik'~~i.ilf~~~~~~t~B~r~ilill~lr~!_il[illtill~~l!l~
INDUSTRlAL
Section 19.82.35 - Custom Manufacturing Activities
Custom Manufacturing Activities include the following activities. They also include certain activities accessory
thereto, as specified below.
(a) Manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging, treatment, or fabrication of the following
products:
Experimental? film, electronic, or testing;
Electronic instruments and devices;
Office computing and accounting machines and typewriters; and Scientific,
electric measuring and control instruments and testing equipmenc
(b) Printing, publishing, and sign-making.
(c) Accessory uses incidental thereto, including administrative, executive and financial offices and incidental
services, such as restaurants to serve employees, when conducted on the premises; wholesale business
storage or warehousing for products of the types permitted to be manufactured in the zone; other accessory
uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use.
(d) Retail sales of products produced or manufactured on the site.
- 8 -
\, -/D
Section 19.84.11 - Wetlands and Buffers
The following uses shall be permitted within lands designated as Wetlands and Buffers, on Map
1, Land Use Control:
Restoration or enhancement of wetlands areas, with development or construction limited to
interpretive facilities which will preserve natural resource or habitat values.
Section 19.84.12 - Industrial: General Pennitted Uses
All land designated on Map 1, Land Use Controls, as Industrial: General shall be permitted
to accommodate the following use classifications:
Food Service Commercial
Convenience Sales and Service Commercial
Business and Communication Service Commercial
Retail Business Supply Commercial .
Research and Development Commercial
General Wholesale Sales Commercial
Transportation and Warehousing Commercial
Automotive Fee Parking Commercial
Custom Industrial
Light Industrial
General Industrial
Essential Service Civic
Special Signs
Development Signs
Realty Signs
Civic Signs
Business Signs
Section 19.84.13 - Industrial General Conditionally Pennitted Uses
Educa~oDalServi~Commercial Activities
Child~C<u-eCi:V.kActi\ilties
All lands within the Inland Parcel designated on Map 1, Land Use Controls, for Industrial:
General Use, shall be permitted to accommodate the following use classifications pursuant to the
Conditional Use Procedure at Chapter 19.14:
~~~~!!!~~!~!~~'!~t!JfS!I!~!~' Accessory Commercial Activities
Automotive Servicing Commercial Activities
Automotive Repair and Cleaning Commercial Activities
Boat Sales or Rental Commercial Activities
Boat Servicing Commercial Activities
-21-
1\-11
Animal Services, (continued)
Dog Bathing Dog Clipping Dog Training Services
Dog and Cat Hospital
Guard Dog Training
Horse Training
Pet Clinics
Pet Grooming
Pet Motels
Public Corrals
Public Stables
Riding Clubs
Veterinary Hospital (large animals)
Veterinary Hospital (small animals)
Transport and Warehousing
auto Storage Garages
Distributing Plants
Freight Handling
Moving and storage Firms
Parcel Delivery Truck Fleets
Private Storage Public Warehouses
Refrigerated Warehouses
storage Yards
Storage, Cold and Food
Trucking Terminals
Warehouses
Athletic/and Recreational
8Bmm~%'8g;{\~!?ifiB*tlIf1n4EJ~i?p~{\PW9ii~J!~.fie~liB.F'~~~$
~~~Wl
- 13 -
Appendix A
h'l:L
-,~,
ADDENDUM
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 91-50(B)
t II ui A VENUE GOLF RANGE/SPORTS CENTER
January 19, 1993
Clarifications to the Project Description for the Negative Declaration IS-91-50(B) are
summarized below. The Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista has
allowed preparation of this Addendum if one of the following conditions is present:
1. The minor changes in the project design which have occurred since completion of the
Final EIR or Negative Declaration have not created any new significant environmental
impacts not previously addressed in the Final EIR or Negative Declaration;
2. Additional or refined environmental data available since completion of the Final EIR does
not indicate any new significant environmental impacts not previously addressed in the
Final EIR or Negative Declaration; and
3. Additional or refined environmental data available since completion of the Final EIR or
Negative Declaration regarding the potential environmental impact of the project, or
regarding the measures or alternatives available to mitigate potential environmenl4I
effects of the project, does not show that the project will have one or more significant
impacts which were not previously addressed in the Final EIR or Negative Declaration.
Condition No. I is appropriate for this Addendum. The changes occur in the Project
Description, and do not create any new significant environmental impacts not previously
addressed in the Negative Declaration. The changes to the Project Description are described
below. The changes do not alter the conclusions of the Mitigated Negative Declaration; the
impacts and mitigation measures remain as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. All
of the reported impacts can be mitigated to a level below significant.
1. Changes in Site Plan
The Project site plan has been prepared in greate~/detail than that shown in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration. The most recent site plan folIows the Addendum as Exhibit A.
The new site plan shows a maximum 60 foot high transparent, protective fence along the site's
northern boundary, whereas the Mitigated Negative Declaration described this fence at 30 feet
high. The Mitigated Negative Declaration stated that this fence created a potential aesthetic
impact, which was mitigated by requiring it to be of a transparent material. Its increase to a
maximum of 60 feet is necessary to address potential safety issues by protecting vehicles on
SR-54 to the north from errant golf balls (supporting documentation attached as Exhibit B). It
is proposed to be of a transparent, sturdy material, which would be consistent with the required
mitigation measure.
The sturdy material would avoid any bird entanglement impacts. The type of material proposed
has been inspected by biologists of Pacific Southwest Biological Services, and is considered to
be of a texture, size and support necessary to avoid entanglement impacts (see attached letter,
Exhibit C). Additionally, it is proposed to have an anti-perch material (such as Nix-a-lite) along
the top to avoid predator perching impacts.
\\..\~
The new site plan also shows a 25 foot high sturdy, transparent fence along most of the project's
southern boundary for protection from golf balls. Again, its proposed sturdy, transparent
material is consistent with the requirement of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and does not
create any new impacts. This fence would also have the anti-perch material installed along its
top.
2. Clarifications to Project Description
The Mitigated Negative Declaration included the discretionary actions under section C,
Compatibility with Zoning and Plans. These discretionary approvals are listed here also to
provide clarity regarding required project approvals:
· LCP Amendment
· Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
· Coastal Development Permit
Additionally, an Owner Participation Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency will be
necessary since this project is located in the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project Area.
Also, it should be noted that with a CUP, the project is consistent with the City's General Plan
and Redevelopment Plan.
No other changes have occurred to the Project Description.
Consultation
Individuals and Organizations:
· R. Mitchel Beauchamp, Pacific Southwest Biological Services
· Gordon Howard, City of Chula Vista Planning Department
· Martin Miller, City of Chula Vista Planning Department
· Lyle Haynes, City of Chula Vista Community Development Department
· Diana Richardson, City of Chula Vista Community Development Department
· Richard Rudolf, City of Chula Vista Attorney's Office
Documentation
· Letter, Golf Centers of America, January 21, 1993 (Exhibit B)
· Letter, Pacific Southwest Biological Services, January 21, 1993 (Exhibit C)
WPC F:\HOMEICOMMDEV\IS91-50.TEX
\I"I~ },1"'Z8
--.
\.
Fe
./
""""'--
N"'YIOH"'l CITT aOut.lEliI...ao -
\-------- '---____ ' : 3 '''E-^ ~ j~ ~
if ". //''''''{E. C :f
~ ----~ 1 /' \ S :~
.. A ~-~'" \'p ....E.
~ :/: -- -~ Iii I ~
~ '//~I ;, -----... 9 e t !
'" ......... i i ~ ::
'I, I l ~
~" ~
E "
f5'"
f~~
_nO
.-eSz
!"~2
:!~;
gr;>
=.
".
.
i
"
.
I:
o
z
~ I
e
:;
Ul :f~
P j"
z r
1
~I
I< !
.,
m
Z
~
"
~ ifli f
&fI iii:
e Ill'
- I
9
Q
! ,1.
f .. .. E
1.!~.'J=E m~ I"
/:'0<:" ~ t, :::'9Z . t
~Ht i~l:~t~!~
ar-~ ....... ..0...
H~;; CI;~ f.!.~I,;
'.;~: f<i ~!; n
,.-. - ,-,- P
il'< -, ~, 5
1'.... $- ~ C .
ii =':
-, !
i
-
~ "tJ
~~~ :D
ii~ E
'=R m
JF~ ~.
Q:! C
i~ :>>
Sr ;;
~:. u
0"
E'
.I
..
;Q
F<
i~
-,
-,
...:r
!M
:;;:!:
.
.
.
. ....1 I !~111111 .lli
N ~FI Ii Ii':
i~1
Gn
Q
e
Glt=5
o~
r
1100
~p
~~
m
~~
wc;)
~r
)>I=f)
~
~n
om
)>'d"
"-
~
m
~
\
\ r
\ H I
\ di
~f~, ;
d!~11 ~
"I I >:
. L I ~
ifl
ffil
,,!.,-
-
-
n
c
.
~
-
"
.
.
.
en .
~h~
!; :;!g
z ~
-fin... AV""'UIE
~
1_=.
-.-
SOUTIf T:.A Y GOLF CEHTER
GCIl..f CEWTfRS OF .AME1lICA.
-._---- - -1-
===-~ ~
----~- - -
-----.- - -
---
.-.---- - -
---- - -
---..-.
------. , --
--.- - -
SITE PUN
\l..ICS
\.
/
./
-------
-...ATlO...Al. CITy .oulf......"O _ -'____ _
~. -
'-""
"'-,-
.. ---
-..._---
\ ~
\'-:::j,
'-
I.
\..-.
:l
: 1'1 l:e i:'
] 1'1'1' ['i
I,j/1 I,' Ii
1./1 .J I"
J ,,", ,1
111' I
: I.j I
1111 i
I HI ,
IJ I
o !;d
rm~ ifif! fflff'fi fllfflUff
'11/Jllf If'~ ~ II,/JfM flII',11 ;
i ~ r I Ip r r
D ~
mn(/llm[rIHlfjlm
IiI Ifl"lllll"j n~
II rIll 1//1' II!I f'
flrf fl!/rllljIUllj,lId'~
If H 'jJ i
rr ,; ~
! 111/1/ ! ,I ':slP,'djjll
- ~~II Ij iN lUrJdll1
....((1-.,
'4'E.,.
'--fJ------ -__ ".Eo
. -
1 '
It ",
, "
: -.....
J "
f
i
~
"
"
,
(f)
9
~
c;;;;;
(;)9
o~
r
1100
~;b
~~
gj0
C/)g
~F
)>'TJ
~t')
:D L-n
~'/P
~
En
~
~
o
c
~
'"
m
>
-<
~
~
Z
o
(f)
o
)>
~ h rC\1
o "~\.2!
z ~
o
m
."
-i
."
~
Z -FiFtH AVENU[__
~
I_a
_n_
SOUTH BAY GOLF CElITat
OOJ CfHJERS~ ~
LAHOSC.t.PE CONCEPT PUN
-------- - -/
=-.-2.",= f;=- =
..::=~-:.:.:..:- - -
-----__ _ -a--
0-=::=-=:-. ;.. =:
\\J 1\0
-~
/'
~
!
:
{
.
x
-~
.
-'----J _ ~-......._~
J ----1j 1~::::::,.
I / / .' __ ,/1 """,.
f.y' '.1 "'-
I i'~ _~_ "
! '. ".....
')
BUFFER ...
~RE~
o
.
e
.-/
:
~
.
n
; ~ .
/
I
,
~ '
~
- !
1
I
,
en
=1h@
m '0
" "",
~ ~:i'
z
! I Illllll! .j,j
:.r-;,' ~~ II Ii':
~II
I_a
-~
smITH !JI..Y GOLF CElITEf:
GI:1IJ UHTEIIS. OF AIooIoE"lCI.
SITE PUN
Il~ If
-------- - -/-
----- ~
::-.:...-:--=----=:. - -
_._---~- - -'
-=::.~--=--;-- - -
---- - -
=-=:=.= - -
--- --
-_._~
..""". .un"", I
,..-"
.
: t 't
I "
i! :.
.....
\.J
.....i
.'
!
1
, ~\,J-J:-;
1,-<
,
,I,
/
"
.Jr"'_
:;:;'J...
I
/
I
;'
-'~I'-;::;:
.,-~ ~J
I
,
I
/
/
(-
\
Ii'
i
I'
i ~
~
/ I
,I
\ Ft
,'. . I
' ~ u.., ..~\j
.,.. J .
.
.
"!i-
.
,
!
I
!
: :".
-~
'....:.
l
.,
~ 'h, ~ ~
l ~
'"-i;
\;
-1i
\1.
/.
. I'
'.
'~,
'-.':'.
..:- ,
II:.:=.
'\/
,.~. ; ;-~
-. .
-'- -
---:.:;:.:.:.::~.:,.;.,:- ,
- -
-,
OA7":
"'"
. ,
-"_I,l"""
,
.~-----~;....-
. --
"
T"'lJlt'
/'~.
i
EXHIBIT 8
GOLF CENTERS::
OF AMERICA
Mr. Jerry Alford
patrick Development
2445 5th Ave. Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92101
January 21, 1993
Dear Mr. Alford,
The information included is the result of careful con-
sideration with regards to the ball flight issue at the
South Bay Golf Center.
We have evaluated simular golf ranges and proposed that
the recommendations listed be implemented in the design
of this facility.
With their inclusion we are now comfortable that these
design features have significantly reduced the possibility
of the errant golf ball problems. our final step in this
process will be a stringent policy and procedures program
during opertions which we will enforce against malicious
behavior. ..
~'/-<<4
Ken Ferrell
GCA/GCAMC
1"l~/~
9815 Carroll Canyon Rd., Ste. 202 . San Diego, CA 92131 . (619) 695-0971 . FAX (619) 695-9568
The evaluation of the following golf ranges were done to
understand methods that are being implemented to combat
the issue of errant golf balls. Our goal at all GCA Golf
Practice Center's is to eliminate this as an issue and a
concern in all stages of development and operations.
Suggestions are included at the end of this evaluation as
to how this goal can be accomplished at t.he South Bay Golf
Practice Center site.
Evaluation:
Big Tee Golf Center
Buena Park, CA
Fence Ho:ight-
L~ft side:
Right side: (Borders street)
6'
,/.0 I - 200 yds
50'- 200-2~O
'0'
e.ack side:
Methnds-
'" Po!:ted signs
* Gr'ass tee nearest street
* Tee line cur'ved to center
* T~rgets trom' center to left c~nter
* 10' fence saperates deck and grass tee line
D~scriptiot'- Very wid~ rang~ with nC) apparellt er"r'ant bal I
problems. Large eucalvptus trees border right
side between very busy street and fence line
for added protection.
Diamond Bar GC
Diamond Bar, CA
Fence Hei9ht--
Left side: (Borders freeway)
Right side:
Back side:
3D'
10'
none
~1ethods'-
W Trees surr'ound ranqe
* Targets positioned-In center
Oescriptlon- Very small range with straight tee line.
Range protected primarily by thick pine and
eucalyptus trees around entire perimeter.
Fence which borders fr~eway positioned more
for golf course than range.
" -l \
.~
R~ngc Evaluation cent.
Page 2
Palm lake GC
Pomona. CA
Fence Height-
left side:
Right side:
Sack side:
none
(borders street) 30' wi 5'ext.
6' chainlink
Methcds- # Extention added to fence
'" Signs posted
'" Targets positioned on left side of range
Description- Palm Lake range is very small and narrow with
a busy street bordering the right side of the
range. The 5' fence extention is very in-
adequate as well as other efforts to stop
errant balls. There has been and continues to
be numerous complaints filed which the owner
has been liable for.
El Toro Golf Center
El Toro, Ca.
Fence H~ight- left side:(borders street)
Right sid"!:
Back side: (borders street)
40'w/10' ext.
20'
20'w/10' €xt.
Methods-
'" Grass tee line positioned near street
'" 10' fence seperat€s deck and grass tee line
'" left side fence built up on app"ox. 10' bank
'" Short targets positioned on left side
'" Long targets positiQned in center of range
'" Tee line is slightly curved
Description- After' sever'al complaints, El Toro Golf Center
added 10' extentions to their fencing. They
have minimized the issue. Landing area is
very wide with the majority of complaints
coming from residents situated behind the
. range. Total length is approximately 260 yd..
\l~~'l
/"".,
Ran'~'? Evaluati on
Pag", 3
Surf and Turf
Del Mar, Ca.
Fence Length- Left side: (borders freeway)
Right sid",:
eack:
none
10'
none
Metheods:
* Targets in center of range
* Tee line curved towards center
* Trees border perimeter
Description- The range is very wide with little necessity
for fet1ci fig. Range borders freeway but tee
line is curved making it extremely difficult
to hit in that direction. Tall eucalyptus
trees border freeway for added protection.
Mission Bay GC
"';ss;on Bay, Ca.
Ff,nce H'!;;~lht- Left s"ide: 30'
Right side: (borders 5treet) 30'
Back 5id~: 101
f.1~tt:(.)d:;-' '" Signs pcst.~d
* Tar"gets positioned in center of r5ng~
* Trees positioned on perim~t~r of rang~
Oe3cr;ption- Range ;s very wide with l~r8e eucalyptus
tre~s SUrt'olJllding perimeter. Signs are well
posted regarding errant shQts. Range has re-
ceived few complaintn about errant bal is.
Stardust cc
"'Ission Valley,Ca
Fence Helght- Left side:
R;ght side: (borders street)
Back side:
f) ',:hainlink
25''01/ S' ext.
to' chainlink
Methods-
* 5' extent;on on fence bordering street
* Tee line curves dramatically toward center
* Grass tee line positioned nearest street
* 12' fence seperates mats and natural teES
* Targets positioned in center/left center
* Eucalyptus trees surround perimeter
\1..2.3
Range evaluation cont.
Page 4
stardust CC cont.
Oescription- Wide range with dramatic curving tae line.
Fence between mats and natural tee line
allows grass tee line to angle toward the
center of range. There have been few
complaints as a result of this positioning.
End of evaluation
The fol lowing are design considerations for the South Say
Golf C~ntcr. These recommendations will greatly reduce the
possibility of ~rrant golf shots being hit outside the
confines of the landing area.
1. The tee line should be moved back to the west ~s far
~s p05!ibl~ so as to add length to the landing area. This
fl'affic flow.
2. The tee line should be positioned to a slightly more
southerlv direction which encourages golfers to aim more
to the right side of the range.
3. The qrass tee line should he p8sitioned on the left
side Of-the range with a protective fence positioned
between it and the deck. This will allow th~ grass tees
to face in a more southerly direction away from traffic
flow.
k. Tress should be postioned on th@ grass tee line to
force golfers to hit more to the right side of the range
away from traffic flow.
5. The north $ide of the range should be bermed so as to
maximize the fence height along the perimeter.
6. Fence height on the north side should be at least GO'
not including the height of the berm.
evaluation showed that almost every range perimeter
~. ed by bushy trees (usually pines) and tall
tUB tree~ Since the eucalyptus trees have a fast
growth ra _, .y should be considered for future pro-
tectior..
\i ':l.\.\
Range gvaluation cont.
Page 5
8. Signs must be clearly posted stating that golfer5 are
responsible for errant golf shots. Video camarasof the
tee line would help control the situation.
9. Short targets (100 and 150 yds) should be positioned
tow~rd the left center portion of the landing area. Longer
targets (175 and 225) should be positioned to the right
center portion of the landing area.
10. The upper level of the deck may have to be restricted
to irons only. However, this should only be considered if
necessary and would be a function of d~ily management.
J<F
.
\1~lS
Pacific Southwest Bioloyical Services, Inc.
Post Office Box 985, National City, California 91951-0985 · (619) 477.5333. FAX (619) 477.1245
EXH\S\T C
211anuary 1993
Ms. Diana Richardson
Redevelopment Agency
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91910
PSBS #017A
Dear Ms. Richardson:
Today 1 have been given a sample of the netting proposed for use as the golf ball banier at the National
Avenue Associates project at the north end of the 5th Avenue extension. Mr. Alford explained the conditions of
how the net was to be constructed and maintained. 1 was also given a specifications sheet for the material which
indicates the material is made of Olefin, which is a plastic. 1 discussed with him the requirement for the Nix-a-Lite
to be placed along with the top support cable as well as the tops of the support poles. This barrier material can be
attached to the top support wire by hog rings which are a normal accessory of the barrier system. Mr. Alford also
showed a sample of the material to our wildlife biologist, Douglas Padley, and he indicated that the material met
the requirement for rigidity once it was stretched into place.
Based upon the materials presented to us, the specifications of the material and the conditions of
construction and maintenance of the barrier, it is our opinion that the barrier will not result in any adverse effects
to birds flying in the region nor serve as a significant site for captor perching. This opinion is due to the east to
west orientation of the banier, its rigid nature which will resist entanglement by birds and the use of the Nix-a-Lite.
I trust this comment is of assistance to you in your assessment of the project. A like product could be
used, I have retained a sample of the material if needed to compare later.
Sincerely,
R. Mitchel Beaucbamp
President
jls
P.S.
Attached is a copy of the specifications and -a sample- of the material
I have revie"(ed.
4<
JAN 1993
Rece;ve~i
Commz~~~:~ ~~~~~~? ~~::~ 2~; r
\/-l.l
. Fast and easy installation - 3 times faster
than wire.
. Wide widths - eliminates 75% of joining
pieces.
. Dark green color blends into surrounding
landscape.
· Lightweight - easy to handle.
. Saves time - labor - money.
Ball Banier Netting Accessories
19100- hrto Hog Ring PI...,
19101- hrto Hog Rings (2500 per box) for hrto Hog PIief,
19102 - Manual PI...,
19103 - Me..val Hog Rings (400 per Ib) for Manual PI...,
19104- Eye to Eye Tumb<..ctJes
19105- 3(16" Coble Oips
19106- 3(16" 7, 7 AitpIcne Coble (500 Reel)
'7O<fn~ "I'....,...,.., ._. .
Revolutionary 1" mesh Olefin Knitted Netting stops off
course golf bolls. and minimizes losses and possible injury
to passers-by. Will not rot or mildew Ond lasts from 5-10
yoo~ 65 Ib sfTength per mesh. 220 Ib buming sfTength
per mesh. Color: Dork Green
79001-ModeI65 BaIlIlcm1er Nelltng,
6W x 150', 191bs
79002-ModeI125 Ball Barrlef Nelltng,
12W x 150', 371bs
79003-ModeI100 Ball Barrlef Nelltng,
25' x 100', 48 Ibs.
79004 - Model 150 BaIlIlcm1er Nelltng,
HEW 25' x 150'. 74 Ibs
79005 -ModeISOO Ball Barrlef Nelltng,
SO' x 1SO'. 1SO Ibs
)l'~
.
~ {
mitigated negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Fifth Avenue Golf Range/Sports Center
PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast corner Broadway/SR-54, north of "C" Street, in
the northern portion of the City qf Chula Vista, California
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 562-3'4-02
'2..
PROJECT APPLICANT: National Avenue Associates
CASE NO: IS-91-50 (B)
DATE: June. 23, 1992
A. Proiect Settino
The project site is vacant, and has received surcharge soils as allowed by
current Coastal Development Permits. The Historic Sweetwater River
Channel cuts across the western portion of the site. The new human-made
channel of the Sweetwater River is adjacent to the site's northern
boundary.
B. Proiect Description
The project proposes to develop a golf driving range, putting and chipping
practice areas, batting cage, and proposes to provide golf and pitching
instruction. A IOO-foot buffer is included per Local Coastal Program
requirements adjacent to the west side of the site to be developed, and
east of the onsite, wetlands associated with the historic Sweetwater River
channel.
C. Compatibility with Zonino and Plans
The site is designated by the General Plan as Research and Limited
Industrial, with a portion located within the Local Coastal Program area.
The proposed use wi'll requ i re a Local Coastal Program Amendment, and a
City Conditional Use Permit. The industrial and warehouse uses, are uses
allowed within this designation, and automotive and boat sales and
services are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, the
Local Coastal Program Specific Plan states in the Coastal Development
Permit Procedures section that where a public accessway, or open space or
conservat i on restriction on land is requi red by the Local Coastal Program
(as is required by the Local Coastal program buffer design standards) each
applicant for a Coastal Development Permit shall record one of the
following legal documents as specified in the conditions of approval:
I. Irrevocable Offer of Dedication
The app 1 i cant shall submit a pre 1 i mi nary title report and record an
irrevocable offer to dedicate the access, open space, or conservation
easement or to convey such interest in property in fee the accessway,
\1~l9
/'7.". J 'l- :
city of chula vista planning department 0lY OF '--'J
environmental review section, CHUlA VISTA /
~~~~\'
-.-
"~~=E
,--V""-
-..,
. (' /, '.', Y.(
/1.):..
{
" '/ /'
:.:,.>'-- .
OY, ArB c ~~~~ 0 , E 'a69
r'-""~I~~ 7C J; ~. ~,'v\".-\ ~'r~11\\J\ ~ ". '''''"'__
c, ,,,",.d""~ Yl ~- ,. s'~\-X~\"-.. "\,:i-...:,,~~x~\;.'\" 1'-j~> ..~.~ ,~' ~ ....
'."".,.,. '::J' ,1"'~ 7C ir~ '''@:: ~ ....Y'" ~.I\ 1"/' ~"~ ~ .'
J ~t::;"':. ~,,~ J ~~ 6 ,. .., \" \J"~_..v .t<. ;;;;oiJ4~',,'p< f ., - ~I 1\ \ ;",' ~-c
~~~~~ ~\t .::....... ~~~ ~zt~ >~{&.*~~~ .~ "-.w~': ..~r~~~~\t- J,
~,~.,., . Y1 ~ -.....~ ~l'q.~ :\;~~\:-:.- > .,... .' , ~~. -tc. \
-~ .' ~ - ~ - '" ~::;;!~~~, ,- ,- ~ ....:0-
't;~; l( ~~. ~. ~ ~'l1~ ~'( ~~s'ri;!3 ~ ...1t~_-...:; ... ~~ ~ ;c~ ~.,. ....__
-,' I' % -\ \ ~ ' ,.,., ....,. ;l.J<f)..e:~' - ..~.~ ....~ It
' ~ ".. ~L ~ . . ," J' _w 'J
".~..' " '~~'I ~ . ~ l \"," ~ .. / -~..-i~" ~ ._ -- , .. It ~ . ../
'i>.: ",71 I'-i\ . 1 \~ ~ d";:" ~ I '; IlH~ ::i~ 2
0,':, ..", I ~.-. ~~~: ....SITE "''''', I L~~\:'. . .'. ~ .
" . '. ~'. t-.... " '!O-'?-__~ '(' ! Jl::~"'ii\ ~ I ~,. _~~ .
- t,;;f.€-...,. 'A'r"-- -.J/J ~~ \ ~'!l '., ,rw.-;,.- , '_" ""-?7.;;)),.,.m;.~
'''''',Id!' 'I-" \ ,-- ~._' '7t' *",~.' f"\ \,,~~\~^ ~"~ '.' ''I>c" __"'~,';' _~"'!
~""'-" . ~~' ~ <: ~', '<'i, ''':2 ~ -.6 \ 'it. sr....>\oi ;1' /,' 2"
! t~1~!' k .' :_~-- \ ~'; -- ;"",,'" " \~f' . " -eJ,. ";:..,.,,,, f'~ "(I, ~" B6NIT ~Ro.r~
4..;;y;;...;-..:-;\ "':". -: _.~ . ----- , , ,0'>" ,-t..'-:'l <;."'i \ AI;. \..-I \1: f.. "'1.'" 1:.\_ .' y ,i"ACt~~
3 ,~",." --------=, I~;."';.. :~",.t"<;. "~~~'''''''' 'C,i~""J\* ".';;t"~.:L.r:..Y!:"~~/J ".\~.".
'1>"':( 1 , ''l'?'~:kt'~'f ~"o~ ~1.:" .., ,,~..I;;"':;\,;,~~~~""~~'''';~l:;;';rt~!2.JI,"; f'\,;'" 3
/".,\ . I h.' '15 ,." ~ ~".. ~ ~ ~ ~ J..\: ., .' (./~ - '" If
~ It .>;::': , ~ n ~. "":iI-".'. ... .f' l< ~,,~ 1:.'- ~< ," ~ ~ m;'.c! ,,/ " '-',
~ t.':":::,' __ _______ O>\,\'E 1>. >~"O ~\ '''::, I? ,(j "'::. ~'1..\1f'<!j '_
~ f~\;;;: ,:i'- t ~~,,~ <>... ~ ..-v " "~,. ~ ~'>>:"[1%/. ,
· (~~(!~\"" I 1~...;"," ~~. ~~\~c, .~'tt~S: "~~~'~\
4 '~:~ - .~,- '1' ~.y \'.;. ~\ ~\~ ',<!<? ~ ~~,;:. .~~.: --'':.~'4
"~f' t~.. .~ . 1 "~~6 ~p~, ~"~~ ~ ~C1~.vs: r~'Vo) ;::-~~O~~t
~ ...... "-1.'.'. 1 , '~., ~;..~ 1 ~":~i~~,""", '.\'n);;];:so~ .<li
-' ,----erJ-...:'::......-- L--1_ . -. ~ "~,D~ :'<~'<"T"~~,,\D ~t7",@J~_b-~_
:,-."-, ,.;J..:;.."!" "~, ~ "'" I s:\~c\.;.\s ~;~;~._..\~ ;t~:i .-A'H;S~~~~~
\. '., ',.: I. I ...~...... \ '-~ \~ ('!..P'" ~\'6.. ~ ~
'.'~~. - '.'. :,"', . "-b. ~ - 1 _ " :..g.r,~; -r n..c ll. ~ ~""'.A' ~ '; ~."~.:-.. ,\.... \J-G~~f'i\ 0,.1.))1
;,": .-. -~. ~ "'t[t, " ~... ~ '5" ~8" "io ;>:'*..", F !Po<>'-:~ .... <f:-_:~;~"'{:"(l"_RO ,. '
.~' \ 1'. 0' :. ....~\ ." ';o~ L,,-,,1t ,..."'\ 1);0
"~"t : . ~ I~ \~ I ;J~\~'t~ ..\\.1~"~'~~ ~ c~ 'k?'" "... dP
-: '1 - . . ... ..... "'~~ ~ !;.~s1 .;..."",:r~ \ .: ,~. ....,>/1
-,.;.. ~ ----+'""-~----- \\ --- -.'1 ~ s ~;e;::@. $~r;' -
'.'~..'" .' "~.' \ '1_)' , ~ Ji\~~ ~." ~.~ ~ "'.'" .....,."r".,'..1....'C"".".,.\~.::'.... s..:;
....:.\.:\ " ',';' ~-' ~ "")\\\~t.1'~~~ ^ ~."'~I ~ i<'u;'?'-:.J";"'~ '" ~l
",- '" . ._Co,' . "- \ ~ _ ~ ,1"'....s "'~ s:"l: ~ (:;...:_..:CO/.IN.~~cu,..:~:.-._~.f'f ~'t" y;.
.' '" ' f' .~ J.=- /o\\\V-,.' ~"'" .. u 'C'-:'-', ",.:", "~'." "'~ '..
',~A'i 'Ft .. ~i Yf~, ,'.'1~!l~~.6
Fl">'.',": I .I{.. ..... "1 11\ ",,,:J~~X-- .~\ .J:..-:\';J~...\.1:~;;'\
A i B 'I c ~~ 0 E i F
/ VICINITY MAP ,
2
\l'~DI'1-3L.
.'
\\<
\;
(
,
~
-.---- ..,....,
- NA nOHAl ~lTY 8. lAD
"-~-',I-----_-- ,.,"
- - ~';':-~--..l~:_" _ _.' _
\ .. ',,~~ -~--- ---
~!';~~-,,-, "', S~1lI< _
. - --. 'I -.. ~rEIlI1%;
. ..:' -L. -"- - - t _ TI
-JI _ I -:
I Ii' _ _ - I
5J ~ -__I/-,
Dam'
mlffi, f I f;!fiil ,
Iliil'III' "hff
1n'l 1 '(I1r: _
f!jJflI i i!F f
il fIr! ,'I,'!!:/j I
II Jll~"-.
! m,p!
'l'lil I
mum Hi,'l I
,pI,
~e~ *~.
1,1rllii/I1lt;l fl'j!!! Ii ml1 ilil
J I I..!_ I, 1 J r'C
f I i,'i!j i I~ Ii
I 111 I'!
" I '
JII, - Ii!
I ill' , :1
Ii' i
'\E)=
t:.:': fl{ffi('[fl[i[fj IlIIjI!iJ
l'f/!ililr"l,l'j'r-!" lilMilli
,'J',f.. Ill, p'h, I
II "11 1 II '11':il'i
I f" '1,1',,1'
: I IliJlJj'l1
!ll'f" Ii
lhH'1l
!III,Illl"
111',1'/'
,
<
-~
{1,~
\l'~l
-i'
.-
,.
,
.
o
"
o
>
m
"
o
o
~
"
>
;;
..d;;, 'A VI T
I~C; S R L
A ST C
..
"-
/
-/'-.,,-
~
-"''''TIO'''At. CITY .Oull""'''D _ ____ _
~,--, - -
-',
----.
" ----
------
U
t-;
\ ~
, '
, ~
-"'\
\ '
\.-.
il
:l'ir:S j!
J 1",1 '''1
LJl!ll. Ii
"Il-J ,L-!
1 '," :1
: ill I
! III !
J /II !
'J I
u EJ
[ifIp/lliff ~ fflfilji rlTfffHrg
I,ll 111ft! Ifll i IWiM Irlflll i
i i r I IF f If
D ~
rm [fl[fIHfrrr IfTf" ~~
III rIll/I 11111 Hi IHlll wI
llf I! III fl!P!li~ ~
III 1 ! r"'s i
If I r!i
l11W111
. Fml II
II;
'1:1 !
I:., :
.. :
~I
Gfj
g
=
b;
(;)9
o~
r
"00
g>
~~
m
:u~
C/)g
~F
> IT)
s::
mF)
:Uffi
j27':
~
ffi
{A;!
...."1:1
......,1:...
---r---- ---~,.~.
I~ '''-'i
f "
!
~
",
"
I-~
_n_
'-
( I
~
o
c
~
'"
'"
>
-<
~
.' "I ~
" "m
I m
"
11 ~
l....,
It",
,.
I,""
f '
I
~
r
i
..--J
I
,-~
, .
\ .)
'--'
):
Z
o
en
()
)>
~ ~gQ~
O .~
.'"
Z ~
()
m
'U
-l
'U
):
Z
(..J
-"IF'N AVE"'Uf--
SOUTH flAY GOLF CEIIT"..R
OOl.fCEfo(TfASOF~
L.ANOSCAPE: CONCEPT PUN
-------- - -,-
==:=-~ f;=
-=-:~~i=-..'?- tE ~
\l-~'l.
>~
-2-
as described in the permit conditions, free of prior liens or
encumbrances, except for tax liens. This offer can be accepted
within 21 years by a non-profit organization or governmental agency
subject to approval by the executive director of the Coastal
Commission. Until this offer is accepted or until the landowner
allows, the publ ic has no right to use the accessway, provided that
the 1 andowner shall not interfere wi th estab 1 i shed exi st i ng public
use.
2. Outright Grant of Fee Interest or Easement
If the project is important in and of itself for public access, open
space, or conservation needs, and the size and scope the proposed
development is such that an out-right conveyance interest is
appropriate, or there is an accepting agency approved by the
Executive Director of the Coastal Commission available to accept the
easement of fee interest, it can be required prior to issuance of the
permit. Until such a grant is accepted or until the landowner
allows, the publ ic has no right to use the accessway, provided that
the 1 andowner sha 11 not interfere with establ i shed exi st i ng publ i c
use.
The applicant has proposed to grant an easement to the City over the
IOO-foot buffer area. The purpose of the easement would be for the
protection of the wetland resources as required by the Local Coastal
Program. The easement would also make land available for the City's
Greenbelt, as shown on the General Plan. The Greenbelt area
coincides with the buffer requirements of the Local Coastal Program.
The appl icant is also reserving the right to use a portion of the
buffer area for supporting structures, i ncl uding approaches, for a
bridge connecting Broadway with the project site. A bridge is not
proposed as part of this project. Additionally, the applicant
reserves the right to use the wetland and/or buffer area for
biological mitigation projects. This use, protection of resources,
is also considered consistent with the wetland and buffer protection.
D. Comoliance with the Threshold/Standards Policv
1. Fire/EMS
The Threshold/Standards Pol icy requires that fire and medical units
must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of
the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City
of Chul a Vi sta has indicated that thi s threshol d standard wi 11 be
met, since the nearest fire station is 1 mile away and would be
associated with a 3 minute response time. The proposed project will
comply with this Threshold Policy.
\"l~~3
\)
~
-3-
2. Police
The Threshold/Standards Pol icy requires that pol ice units must
respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and
maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5
minutes or less. Pol ice units must respond to 62% of Priority 2
calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time
to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project
will comply with this Threshold Policy.
3. Traffic
The Threshold/Standards Pol icy requires that all intersections must
operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception
that Level of Service (LOS) "0" may occur during the peak two hours
of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of I-80S
are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection
may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour.
Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this
policy. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Pol icy. The appl icant will be required to pay standard signal fees
to the City.
4. Parks/Recreation
The Threshold/Standards Pol icy for Parks and Recreation is 3
acres/l,OOO population for projects east of I-80S. The Threshold
Standard policy is not applicable to this project site.
5. Drainage
The Threshold/Standards Pol icy requi res that storm water f1 ows and
volumes not exceed City Engineer Standards. Individual projects will
provide necessary improvements consi stent wi th the Drainage Master
Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project was
preliminarily reviewed by the City's Engineering Department, and no
drainage problems were noted. However, the final grading and
drainage plans will be reviewed by the Engineering Department for
conformance with City standards.
6. Sewer
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows and volumes
shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects
will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master
Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The project construction
plans, including infrastructure, will be reviewed by the City
Engi neeri ng Department for conformance with these appropri ate pl ans
and standards.
Ir- 31..1.
-4-
7. Water
The Threshold/Standards Pol icy requires that adequate storage,
treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently
with planned growth and that water quality standards are not
jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project
will comply with this Threshold Pol icy. The appl icant has already
begun coordination for water infrastructure plans with Sweetwater
Authority, who supplies water in this area.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the
proposed project could have one or more significant environmental
effects. Specific mitigation measures are required to reduce these
effects to a level of less than significant.
The project now avoids or mitigates the potentially significant
envi ronmenta 1 effects previ ous ly ident i fi ed, and the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative
Decl arat i on has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the
State CEQA Guidelines. Specific mitigation measures have also been set
forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached as Addendum
"A".
The fo 11 owi ng impacts have been determi ned to be potent i ally si gni fi cant
and are required to be mitigated to a level of less than significant. A
discussion of each of these potentially significant impacts from the
proposed projects follows.
1. Earth - Soil erosion and 1 iquefaction could occur at the site during
construction and after development.
2.
Air - The
significant
emissions.
project would
air qual ity
incrementally contribute to regionally
impacts from project traffic vehicle
3. Water
Water consumption at the site would incrementally contribute to the
demand on water resources, a regionally significantly impacted
resource.
4. Plant and Animal Life
Significant sedimentation could occur to the adjacent wetland during
and following development activities.
5. Lioht and Glare
Lighting of outdoor recreational areas such as this project, could
intrude into nearby residential areas.
\\''3lS
-5-
6. Aesthetics
Potential view blockage from residences on the hill to the south of
the site could occur because of the 30-foot high golf ball protective
fence. .
F. Mitiaation necessary to avoid sianificant effects
Specific project mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially
significant environmental impacts identified in the initial study for this
project to a level of less than significant. These mitigation measures
have been made conditions of project approval, as well as requirements of
the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Addendum "A").
1. Earth - Liquefaction and soil erosion impacts can be mitigated to a
level of less than significant by updating the current
soils/geotechnical report (Woodward-Clyde Consultants) and by
implementation of the measures contained in this updated report.
2. Air - Incremental air quality impacts can be mitigated to a level of
less than significant by adherence to future relevant transportation
management programs required by the City of Chula Vista or APCD.
3. Water
Incremental impacts to water supply can be mitigated to a level of
less than significant by adherence to any water offset program Chula
Vista has in place at time of building permit issuance, and water
conservation requirements. imposed by the water district. The
appl icant must obtain a service availabil ity letter from Sweetwater
Authority prior to issuance of the grading permits.
4. Plant and Animal Life
Sedimentation impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than
significant by inclusion of a drainage swale/detention basin within
the buffer area; or by construction of a silt fence located between
construction and the drainage ditch and/or the Sweetwater River.
5. Liaht and Glare
Lighting on the south side of the site facing the residences, must be
reviewed by the City's design review process to ensure that nuisance
lighting is not permitted. Lighting may be required to be shielded
and redirected downward (at least to a 45 degree angle) to eliminate
direct lighting toward any residences.
6. Aesthetics
The golf ball protective fence on the north side of the site must be
transparent such as chain link fencing or other "see-through"
material.
Il'3b
-6-
G. Findinos of Insionificant Impact
Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project
described. above will not have a significant environmental impact and no
environmental impact report needs to be prepared.
1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
cOlllllunity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory.
With mitigation measures implemented, potential biological resources
would be protected, and any impacts avoided. Additionally, the
project would not affect any examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory.
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
No long-term environmental goals, such as agricultural production,
natural resource habitat preservation or mineral extraction would be
disadvantaged by the project. Additionally, with standard
City-required building measures, and mitigation measures, the project
would be consistent with the City's Threshold Policy.
3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, .cumulatively
considerable. means that the incremental effects of an individual
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of' other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.
Cumulative impacts associated with the project are contribution to
degradation of air quality, consumption of energy and water
resources, and contribution to future traffic congestion and signal
warrants in the project vicinity. With implementation of standard
building requirements and mitigation measures, the project
contribution to these impacts would be reduced to a level of less
than significant.
4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
With implementation of standard building requirements, no indirect
adverse effects would occur to human beings.
\\,,31
-7-
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Oraanizations
City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Engineering
John lippitt, Engineering
Cliff Swanson, Engineering
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering
Bob Sennett, Planning
Ken larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Department
Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation Department
lyle Haynes, Community Development Department
Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva
Applicant's Agent: Jerald A. Alford
National Avenue Associates
2445 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 400
San Diego, CA 92101-1692
2. Documents
City of Chula Vista General Plan - 2010
City of Chula Vista local Coastal Program
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning
Office of Planning and Research Hazardous Materials list
"Geotechnical Investigation, National Avenue Associates Site",
Woodward Clyde Consultants, Dec...,6, 1985
Noise Impact Study, "Town Centre Industrial Complex", Giroux and
Associates, August 19, 1991
3. Initial Study
This environmental determination is based on the attached' Initial
Study, any comments recei ved on the Init i a 1 Study and any comments
received during the public review period for the Negative
Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review
of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning
Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
11" 38'
.
-8-
4. Preoarer
The preparer of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
is Diana Richardson, Community Development Department, City of Chula
Vista, with input from City staff and subconsultants.
EN 6 (Rev. 12/90)
WPC 4968H
t l' ~~ I ' '1'lfD
I
\
/_)
-f
I
*
ullTIo~ lJ2liID(ill@ OIl1J(\@[)1)1fO@ll1liIDOOW O@1f(( Il>>O(IDIl1l~o
\\ #4-0
ADDENDUM "A"
Mitigation Monitoring Program
IS-91-50 (B)
This Mitigation Monitoring Program is prepared for the National Avenue
Associ ates' Fifth Avenue Golf Range/Sports Center project. The 1 egi sl at ion
requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are
implemented and monitored on Mitigated Negative Declarations, such as
IS-91-50(B).
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant
envi ronmenta 1 impacts. The mit igat i on moni tori ng program for thi s project
ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the following potentially
significant impacts: soil erosion, 1 iquefaction, air qual ity, water, plant
and animal life, light and glare, and aesthetics.
Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation
Compl iance Coordinator (MCC), shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator
(ERC) for the City of Chula Vista. It shall be the responsibil ity of the
appl icant to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring Program
are met to the satisfaction of the ERC. Compliance with the mitigation
measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration No. IS-91-50(B) shall be
provided to the ERC prior to the issuance of any permits by the City of Chula
Vista. The ERC will thus provide the ultimate verification that the
mitigation measures have been accomplished.
"",
WPC 4969H
\1-41/ 17-1/2,.
Issue Area
Light and Glare
Miti!!ation Measure
Review of lighting design by Design Review; performance standard -lighting to be shielded and directed
downward (at least 45 degree angle).
Proiect Phase (Proiect Design: Construction: Post Construction)
Design and Construction
Res\lonsible Party or Agencv
Planning/Building and Housing Department
Verification of Completion
Person:
Date:
Comments:
Issue Area
Aesthetics
Mitigation Measure
Golf ball protective fence must be transparent, such as chain link. Effectiveness of the fence in retaining
errant balls must be reviewed every six months for a period of not less than one year. If the fence is not
effective, then changes to the fence or operation of the course must occur (reference project conditions
of approvaL)
Proiect Phase (Proiect Design: Construction: Post Construction)
Design, Construction, and Post Construction - one year.
Res\lonsible Party or Agency
Planning/Building and Housing Department
Verification of Completion
Person:
Date:
Comments:
WPC 4971H
-4-
\.l .. 43
\)
Issue Area
Water
Mitigation Measure
Adherence to any water offset program City has in place at time of building permit issuance, and to any
conservation requirements of water district. Also, service availability letter from water district submitted
to City prior to issuance of grading permits.
Proiect Phase (Proiect Design: Construction: Post Construction)
Issuance of building permits; issuance of grading permits
ResDonsible Party or Agency
Planning/Building and Housing Department; Engineering Department
Verification of Completion
Person:
Date
Comments:
Issue Area
Plant/Animal Life
Mitigation Measure
Inclusion of a drainage swale/detention basin or silt fence in lOO-foot buffer area.
Proiect Phase (Proiect Design: Construction: Post Construction)
Design and Construction
ResDonsible Partv or Agency
Engineering Department
Verification of ComDletion
Person:
Date:
Comments:
-3-
'\1~~
Issue Area
Air
Mitigation Measure
Adherence to future relevant TDM programs required by City.
Proiect Phase !Proiect Design: Construction: Post Construction)
Post Construction
Responsible Party or Agency
Planning Department
Verification of ComDletion
Person:
Date:
Comments:
-2-
\1*4-'5
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING CHECKLIST
PROJECT NAME: Fifth A venue Golf Range/Sports Center
IS NO.: 9I-50(B)
Issue Area
Earth
Mitigation Measure
Update current soils/geotechnical report (WCC), and implement updated requirements of report which
will be consistent with City Grading Ordinance.
Proiect Phase (Proiect Design: Construction: Post Construction)
Design and Construction
ResDonsible Party or Agency
Engineering Department
Verification of Completion
Person:
Date:
Comments:
-1-
l1-lfb
ATTACHMENT II
Coastal Development Pennit #64
April 20, 1993
Conditions of Approval
The project proposal shall comply with:
1. All conditions set forth in Council Resolution No. 16981; and,
2. Owner Participation Agreement and conditions set forth in said document which waS
approved for the project proposal by the Redevelopment Agency on March 23, 1993 by
Agency Resolution No. 1302; and,
3. Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-91-50(B), two Addendums thereto, and Mitigation
Monitoring Program approved for the project; and,
4. All City of Chula Vista requirements set forth in grading permit PG-412. If grading
permit PG-412 is revised, City requirements and new grading plan must be reevaluated;
and,
5. Development criteria J. Grading and Drainage listed in the Bayfront Specific Plan.
(pamlDisk#12/condapvl.doc )
Vl .. &of 1
')
')
"'-... '--
OR-Ie. '.....4L
...."'. .
FOR OFF"! CE USE
Case Pio. -Z5-9/-S-0(.
Fee
Receipt N .
Date Rec'd
Accepted by
PrOject No. /79 _ '>-?<
INITIAL STUDY **
City of Chula Vista
Application Form
** This.:is a supplement to IS-9l-S0..; '"
A. BACKGROUND
/k.c...r~ p ~S
1. PROJECT TITLE Fifth Avenue Golf Range/S~orts Center
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) SEC Broadway & SR-54
(Between Broadway and 5th Ave., SR-54 & CSt.)
Assessors Book, Page &.Parcel No. 562364 M S6;;{-J~'/-O~
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION Golf driving range, golf instruction, putting
and chipping practice, batting cage, pitching practice & instruction,
delicatessan with on premises beer & wine sales.
4. Name of Applicant National Avenue Associates
Address 2445 Fifth Ave., Suite 400
5. Name of Preparer/Agent Jerald A. Alford
Address Same as applicant
City State
Relation to Applicant Partner
CA
Phone (619) 231-3637
Zip 92101-1692
City Sen Diego
State
Phone
Zip
6. Indicate all permits or approvals.and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required;
General Plan ReVision
--- Rezoning/Prezoning
,- --- P reci se Pl an
. --- Speci fi c Pl an
--- Condo Use Permit
Yari ance
2<.Design Review Gommittee Public Project
--- Tentative Subd. Map' --- Annexation
X Grading Permit --- Design Revie\~ Board
=== Tentative Parcel Map ~ Redevelopment Agency
--- Site Plan & Arch. Review X' Special Use Permit
...x.. Other ~\"14L (fJL.~Jr-
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator). These are on file with IS-9l-S0
X Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report
X Gradi ng Pl an --- Landscape Pl ans --- Hydrol ogi cal Study
-X Site Plan --- Photos of Site & 7 Biological StudY-LE"JTL:rz
Parcel Map --- Setting --- ArChaeOlogical Survey
--- Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map. --- Noise Assessment
--- Specific Plan --- Improvement Plans --- Traffic Impact Report
--- Other Agency Permit or ')( Soils Report Other
--- Approvals Required
n~l
:
<,
J
-.",.:::-
,I
- 2 -
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1.
Land Area: sq. footage
If land area to be dedicated,
or acreage 12.94' Acres (9.1.Net)
state acreage and purpose.
None
2.
Complete this section if project is residential.
a. Type development; Single family
Multi family Townhouse
b. Number of structures ,and heights
Two family
Condominium
c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Tota'l units
d. ~ross density (DU/total acres)
e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication)
f. Estimated project population
g. Estimated, sale or rental price range
h. Square footage of floor area(s)
i. Percent of lot coverage by bUildings or structures
j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provi ded
k. Percent of site in road and paved surface
3.
Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial.
a. Type (s) of 1 and use Indus trial _ General
b.. Floor area 2: 1i.000 S.F. Height of structure(s) 20'-25'
c. Type of construction Used in.the structure Standard, Type V, 1 hour.
To be used for golf equipment sales, delicatessan, etc.
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the
orientation to adjoining properties and streets 5th Avenue north
from "e" Street (to be constructed)
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provi ded Aoorox. 113
f. Estimated number of employees per shi ft Ii , Number of
shifts ? Total 12
g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate
A rox. 600 max. (see attached "Golf Center Traffic Impact" schedule)
Il~4~
..
-,-::-)
".
- 3 -
h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate 10 Miles
1. Type/extent of operati ons not in enclosed buil di ngs Golf practi ce,
h~tting pitrhinQ
j. Hours of operation Normal business hours are 7Arl to 10 PM
k. Type of exteri or 1 i ghti ng Wall mounted mercury vapor
4. If project is other than residential, Commercial or industrial
complete this section.
a. Type of project
b. Type of fadl ities pro vi ded
c. Square feet of ~nclosed.structures
d. Height of structure(s) _ maximum
e. Ultimate occupancy load of project
f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air
poll utants, (hYdrocarbons, sulfur.,_ dust, etc.) identify them.
Vehicle emissions; any stationary sources will be required
to comply with all Federal and Local Regulations.
2.
Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated Yes
(If yes, complete the following:)
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of
earth will be excavated? Removal of existing surcharge _ approx.
115,000 C.Y.
b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? N/A
c.
How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded?
d.
What will be the Maximum depth of cut
Average depth of cut
Maximum depth of fill
Average depth of fill
.;.
. -9..1 Acres
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
\"l '~l
~-\
, J
"'"'-..... ,
- 4 -
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed
project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical
appliance, heating equipment, etc.) Air conditioning, machinery
office equipment, lighting .
~
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project
(sq. ft. or acres) ~ 4 acres
5. If the prOject will result in any employment opportunities describe
the nature and type of these jobs. Sales,of equipment, instruction in
b 11 skills, rounds maintenance
6. rlil1 highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or
substances be used or stored within the project
site? No _'_
comply with all Federal and Local Regulations. .
7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day",wi1J be generated by
the proje~t? Approx. 600 max. (see ~.g.)
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the
project, and their points of access or connection to the project
site. Improvements include but not limited to. the following: new
streets; street widening; extension of'gas, electric, and sewer
lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Construction of 5th Avenue
north of "e" Str~...t ("~~ "PpTirotinn pr-7~)
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Geology
Has a geology study been conducted on the property? No
(If Yes, please attach)
--
Has a SOils Report on the project site been made?
IIf yes, please attach)
2. HYdro logy
Yes
Are any of the fall (!I'ling features present on or adjacent to the
site? Yes IIf yes, pl ease explain in detail.)
a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallo~ ground water
table? Yes. In Sweetwater River Channel
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or
adjacent to the site? Yes. Historic Sweetwater River Channel
\1 .. SO
='\'
" ..~.
""
"
- 5 -
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward
a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay?
See 2. e. below
d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to
adjacent areas? No. Slopes will be landscaped and silt
fences will be installed during construction.
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their
location. On site drainage to existin storm drain system
flowing to Iiooa control channel after passing through
3. Noise on-site de-grease and de-silting traps. ,
a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site
or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or
adjacent land uses? No
4. Bi 01 ogy
a. Is the project site in a natural or parti,ally natural state?
Yes. The area within 100' of Sweetwater River Channel on west boundary
b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and ~Ihich
(if any) will be removed by the project. None
5. Past Use of the Land
a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the
project site? None known
b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on
or near the project site? None known
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the
project site. Vacant land
\.,...'31
-,
.~}
~o,
- 6 -
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on
adjacent property.
North SR-54 Freeway and Sweetwater Flood Control Channel
South Vacant land and industrial uses
East Truss manufacturing & lumber staging vard
7. Soci a 1
West Broadway and 35th Street (National Cit ) industrial Dark
a.
Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?)
b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so,
how many and what type?) No
Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of
t e propose proJect.
No
It is intended that this development will include small business incubator space,
warehousing, showroom retail of large goods, and other uses consistent with
this type of business park enjoying exposure to Freeway SR-54
JC"r.)
- 7 -
E. CERTIFICATION
In" A. "CD(:/! ~ '
~~erln:scro~ -~
- ~ .
I,
Consultant or Agent*
or
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
information concerning the prOject and its setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of Possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
DATE:
*If acting for a corporation, include .capacity and company name.
ll.. 5...3
,....-~
GOLF CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT
In an attempt to determine the traffic impact of developing a Golf Practice Facility,
Golf Centers of America has sought public and private studies and research on existing
facilities in California and Nevada.
The company is also currently conducting a traffic study in Ontario, California at
4th Avenue, Inland Empire Road, Archibald and Vineyard. The following data summarizes
the results.
1. EI Toro Driving Range
Cherry and Geronimo
EI Toro, CA
85 Tees
18 Hole Executive Golf Course
Full Facilities
ADT Parking Lot Entry:
Golf Course 213
Driving Range 387
Total 600
2. Fremont Park Golf Center
Stevenson Blvd.
Fremont, CA
35 Tees
Full Facilities
ADT 261
3. Ontario Golf Center
Inland Empire Blvd.
Ontario, CA
100 Tees
20 Batting Cages
Arcade
ADT Projected 530
4. Saddleback College Golf Center
Mission Viejo, CA
80 Tees
Full Facilities
ADT Pi-ojected 440
-
\1~~
9"'0"0'""'''-
p-OP......IIC"O.
8,
'--
c
! '5
CITY DATA
Case No. .-T~- 9/-c.5D (.It')
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1.
Current Zonina on
site:
North
South
East
West
\ L', L.... d fj ~(;h,(5 -/-neJ
, L i F - J; Flood.,,)Qj
ILj 1<-s, Apt-. Rf-""rJ'A<{.,'r.{;R-I:S'~ql"-Fa,,,,<li
IL
\ VttL.sk-;n j (h),,J;o,,,<L-l
CA~ ')
i,U;tt..
Q. Sp<uJ Use--
Does the project conform to the current zoning?
TI-nnit-
2. General Plan land use
designation on site: =th
North :r",,-
South
East
West
Is the project
\< u-,"cs CL
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent
to an area so designated? Yes
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? 00
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance
the scenic quality of the route,)
3. Schools
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Students
Generated
From Proiect
School
Permanent
Caoacitv
Temporary
Caoacitv
Current
Enrollment
Elementary
U/A
Jr. High
Sr. High
4. Remarks:
iJMuuJ:}, ~~
Director of Planning or Representative
-ro
I"\-Sb
cJ-/1/Q12-
Date
WPC 9459P
-13-
YS - :;3 y
r
G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Case No. :rS-9/-5o
1. Drainaoe
a. Is tne project site within a flood plain? ~t:S
If so, state which FEHA Floodway Frequency Boundary
100 - )-'EA~ FLoOD floV/vD,i:J,€y
b. What is the location and description of existing on-site
drainage facilities? sW~:rWA7U Je,Vt.Jfl. CIIANNt.L
c. Are they adequate to serve the project? r-~s
If not, explain briefly.
d. What is the location and description of existing off-site
drainage facilities? Sw<,efiAlA-ri1f 1'.,v<1f' (flANNeL. A~
"{HuH'S" Alii L'"xIS77;V(', 4=:J* /<!CP FLOWING- I/1J TilE /VOR _<,f'{.. r'
D'R<c."oN vND<1!. 77/<.. Sovm OAr- FA'G<.wAY.
e. Are they adequate to serve the project? r-~s
If not, explain briefly.
2. TransDortation
a. rovide primary access to the project? /VO,Q m
vel'Jv<..
b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be
generated by the project (per day)? Gno '77! ,ps
c.
What is the ADT and estimated
project completion?
Before
level of service before and after
L.O.S.
A
After
~ ~13 0
.4
A.D.T. :;l. G 8u
..
If the A.D.T. or L.O.S. is unknown or not applicable, explain
briefly. .. AliA
.
d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If
not, explain briefly. T'.:s
WPC 9459P
-14-
\/";1
Case No. :rs- '}/-SD
e. Are there any intersections at or near the point that will
result in an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS)?
If so, identify: Location AI/A
Cumulative L.O.S.
f. Is there any dedication required? 7'.:s
If so, please specify. $77<"':'-;~ OM; ~::~()C.:' ;;;~:o;/
Ii I'PJ.ov...j '300' FIZoM . C' S77P __ r. )( _ :J: oN _"'" ___ t._
,((.~IJtA. . ie.a. w. "'''0", IS 7:J. '.
g. Is there any street Widening required? T'F"S
If so. please specify. NE"t.) S7>>.u.---r- Nut'/ ~"- AVd"/ AS' AN
. ~."..1tA~dJAJ OF F/~ Arr{A/tX-.
h. Are there any other street improvements required? y-~~
If so, please specify the general nature of the necessary
improvements. A/! //"1P~O~-<-","7S w.lf ~ ;:. 0;;:; ~~ ~I ~Avt.//<<I
wA r' IS CDIVS/1 ur ~t/.. TMc.(_ "r//IV("_ 80/ ~ ~~n ~ ;, :~: ~. ~.
PAVC.H(..n: c.vlt.6. Cv7T</?, SIn/wAIl:', S7iP",_ L,__. _,_~_ If>: ~ ~"'(.n.
3. Soils
a.
Are there any anticipated adverse geotechnical conditions on the
project site? UNK.,.,ow,J
If yes, specify these conditions. A//A
,
b.
4.
c. Is a sol1s report necessp.ry? }-2:S. Aec.o;'/),,AlG "/e> 771"
Al'pJ.,c.A7/o,v, A SO'Ls I!q,oR-r \.vAs ~ C.O'"'PI<.n/ ON
land Form Ho~v(A. A- c.o!'y lovAs ,vVT svlf/"1l7T<cI.
a. What is the average natural slope of the site? 1/.
b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? 9/.
T,v,7:AI STu.or
771,s !'~J,,(.r
,
5. Noise
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that
are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required
of the app 1 i cant? /IJ 0
6. Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste wll1 be generated by the
proposed project per day?
Solid 1~7S Ib/OAy Liouid /So.9ClD CAJ/o.IV.S/O/f'r'
' . .
What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or
downstream from the site? 1:1." vel' L.:;<- ::';.'~:~ IN ~-<... SOI/7Jk~/r
D,J'?.(C710Al /,.IV N. r"~ A"'lA~V-L _~_!-____ 77, _ Sf,;" p"p(..
( 3p~.",<;. 1/11-/1<".. ovTJ'"/j11) PL..o~'./V(i. uv' 77I~ SO"77/ EAS7t"Nr DIRcG77o,v
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? T'~s ' .
WPC 9459P
-15-
h,.~
Case No. rs- 'JI-Su
7. Remarks
Please identify and discuss any remaining potential adverse impacts,
mitfga fon measures, or other issues.
...
(p k~/IL
Date .
II - 5'1
WPC 9459P
-16-
DATE: June 3, 1992
.. ri2<J 1--1 :
.. /ZJ:
SUBJECT: CKRJ
o
o
o
The project con~ists of:
Location:
;"
ROUT! NG FORM
/
I?~
C'~/v.
..... 12:l)
Jr
,c.z"'lI{;:<~9<,
it,; /lIQ
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
.Carol Gove, Fire Department
'Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department
Current Planning
Frank Herrera, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob leiter, PI anni.n9 Di rector
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, library (Final EIR)
Other
Maryann Miller
Environmental Section
Application for Initial Study (Is- 91-50(BYFA- 536
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR- IFB-
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- IFB-
Review of Environmental Review Record FC-
IDP- 855
lOP
lOP
IERR-
)
)
)
)
A Golf drivin9 range, golf instruction, putting
and chipping practice, batting cage, pitching
practice & instruction.
SEC of Broadway & SR-54
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 6/12/92
Comments:
7/i-H S J?t-/'M- n;;, /lLc,~ J ~~'j
~ff't.'jV C/n---fi/c'/ /'?lJ"'co.6
~. / \ I ~l... 0/'27 _ /\'X
ICt'
C:~AA~rs .
~
/l-7
-;hr S
.
7/ /'-? ?
"i:.~,--y/
/77"-"</ F .TV +/L.,/7'X-C,
+
/9-C CS ~5
Il /' . "
/j1ZicA~j v .:Z[~ l....Uk7/.N :
CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT
BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION
Address $"Ij>;kf f( /~/!-S-4-
I
PLAN CORRECTION SHEET
/S-"j/;:Jc .l
rA-'::.X 'd~
Plan File No.D,o-.fiTChecker!1 '. Date
(.'
"/4-/9 J--
Type Constr.
Occupancy
No. Stories
Bldg. Area
The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions.
PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PLAN:
,/,0J/V T
(" / '
d-v /::JH//
/
--!--C'....c
/
/4:5
(,/
cLu6h,:V{Jf.
, / /"
v;wcc T ( ~'~'O
'<'-~
)
I~- .'7
(JAJ" -zf" wh;d/k...,.
..1
. <- ~ ':.v //L { I)
/(/17'-' S ~
i/ ~
/;}-fi. Nt hllL.,;'\/~d pv ,;V/I/zb/J <;>7/7<:[ J
O/f,L/- ft/l&/I.J --f:. /;E J-j/h,-A.<.) ./:;;/2 l-l/V[ ).10
4- ~h";"uS;'U' "U "', pr;~"
.-:) ;;~t;/J~t'wL ,- sk-. H:!7 /~~ .f!;r/A.'/J
{" /?!u /k,M-r-' ~/ J:7~r//~f ,J
/-; vi:::/ //// ~ ?--.>. :~~~r "/dzrz.iJ'
? ;Yl-t.:.':/
~-
(Vv'
;;~/L):';"'5 "
./ .
C~//ll/J
I
v
.r;J~
7
-"- (> -
t..~/
FPB-29
\ 1.L...1
H. FIRE DEPARTMENT
Case No. -75--.7'.,7- sorJr:)
1.,
What is the distance to the nearest fire station? . And what is the
Fire Department's estimated reaction time? //'-?'Cf
3H/N /<!.f5i''''ov:H
</
Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire
protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment
or personnel? \I;::: S
/
2.
3.
Remarks
I
r tv. /ckoL~
F5re Marshal
i /4/7d--
Date
l
H
H
ll-~
WPC 9459P
-17_
ROUT! NG FORM
DATE: June 3, 1992
/
TO:
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (E1R only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department
Current Planning
Frank Herrera, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final ErR)
Other
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ma ryann Mi 11 er
Environmental Section
[K[] Appl ication for Initial Study (IS- 9l-50(BYFA- 536
c==J Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(E1R- IFB-
D Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- IFB-
e==] Review of Environmental Review Record FC-
IDP- 855 )
IDP )
lOP )
/ERR- )
".
The project cons~sts of:
A Golf drivin9 range, golf instruction, putting
and chipping practice, batting cage, pitching
practice & instruction.
Location:
SEC of Broadway & SR-54
~
.."
.".. -...'"
,\;)L. ,
- ~\..".
~.e~;~~:~~;~'"
"",<::-::'~C?~i'~.
t,~' '-'
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 6/12/92
Comments:
. P1q~3 ~
~~
rt:c.... ~:s r-:o CcM1't~
~I~ ~-1~ ~ ~~.
)1-(.3
(
Case No. ---ZS-- /'J ~g~
H-1. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
1. How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed
project?
2. How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park
District 0 this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation
of the Gene 1 Plan? (If applicable)
3. What are the
District? (If
4. Is project subject 0 Parks & Recreation Threshold r quirements] _____
If not, please expla'n.
acreage requirements 1n the
Service
8.
near the project
from this project?
5. Are existing neighborh d
adequate to serve the popu
Neighborhood
Community Parks
6. If not, are parkland dedications 0
of the project adequate
Neighborhood
Community Parks
7. Does this project exce the Parks
established by City Coun. 1 policies?
as part
Thresholds
ements, will applicant be required 0:
9.
p.
-
V\ 1<0(
~~
\~ u... 1)(<:
~
Provide land?
Pay a fee?
--=-
~ (. S~~.
Pa ks nd Recreation Director or Representative
G.5 f17.-.
Date
17 ~ l.:. 'f
WPC 9459P
-18-
ROUT! NG FORM
DATE: June 3, 1992
./
TO:
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department
Current Planning
Frank Herrera, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chu1a Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other .
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Maryann Miller
Environmental Section
[gJ Application for Initial Study (IS- 91-50(BYFA- 536
c==J Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR- IFB-
r==J Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- IFB-
c==J Review of Environmental Review Record FC-
lOP- 855 )
lOP )
lOP )
IERR- )
",
The project cons,ists of:
A Golf driving range, golf instruction, putting
and chipping practice, batting cage, pitching
practice & instruction.
Location:
'SEC of Broadway & SR-54
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 6/12/92
Comments: Prior to issuance of building permits, payment of school fees and
a certificate of compliance will be required. No other school mitigation
will- be required.
ll..l.,,5
Ttiomas Silva
Assistant Director of Planning
BOARD OF EDUCA liON
JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS. Ph.D.
LARRY CUNNINGHAM
SHARON GILES
PATRICK A. JUDD
GREG R SANOOV AL
SUPERINTENDENT
.K)HN F. VUGRIN, Ph_D.
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET. CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH F![:e E:l VE::O
June 9, 1992
Ms. Maryann Miller
Environmental Review Dept.
city of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
U/J'NN/fVG
RE:
IS-91-S0(B)
Location:
Applicant:
Project:
/ FA-S36 / DP-8SS
SEC of Broadway & SR-S4
National Avenue Associates
Fifth Avenue Golf Range/Sports Center
Dear Ms. Miller:
This is to advise you that the project, located at SEC of
Broadway & SR-S4, is within the Chula Vista Elementary
School District which serves children from Kindergarten
through Grade 6.
District enrollment has been increasing at the rate of 4-S
percent over the past several years, and this is projected
to continue. Permanent capacity has been exceeded at many
schools and temporary relocatable classrooms are being
utilized to accommodate increased enrollments. The District
also buses students outside their attendance areas, both to
accommodate growth and assist in achieving ethnic balance.
State law currently provides for a developer fee of $.27 for
non-residential area to be charged (Chula Vista Elementary
School District $.12/square foot; Sweetwater Union High
School District $.lS/square foot) to assist in financing
facilities needed to serve growth.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
;S;:Y~- }
Kat"e Shurson
Director of Planning & Facilities
KS:dp
cc: Jerald A. Alford
\,~()c.
\1 \ \ \1 \1 \r \1
\/ \/ I I I I
I I I I I I
1 -- "i~ ~ . -1 .. -c_ ..c &':; ~
oc oc ~. .- - e-~ .- 0
-- o . . :: .
.. I:: ~.. ~-: e . " . c~ B
e:: f ~.. r .;' -c
_::~:o ~g." - .: rog ." I;:
.. .. g~.... ~I
e-'-'-c f! gg. ~~f
~.:! --~.. . ".. I;
~~ .-.. . - -;;.. - ~ .J >>0 ~ ='!
I~ c .ll IlL. .. lit .- .. j"" ~
..- ."e -. . '-1':: .
0..&;.....: ,:;.;:: I~ Iii CO - ~. t
1;0 .., " .. .
c . I ,
.. 1__0.. '5:;.: . ~ . - e 0 .. .
'10 - 8'e -- .!:i l: a"- ... I:: .. ":
_.. .0... f;:l~ o. ':~t -..
. Iii ~ .. II - ~. .:!
-;;-e-fI': . ~...
... 0 - - . Eat; e. ~
c" g,......~ :. i i ~ 0 ~ .i~ I .=~~
-.:! eoou 0 0
.:: ".. .! 1; . . _.! ~ "" 6'0 I 't......... --
~H g o~_ 00 .
.. c'" ... 0" .... ~ .- LE ...
. -,!g~...~ ".0 - ... c... .:! c .. g::
e,; . " -. .. O. -g;
_ 0_ t"'" - . .... . -f- .. . -.
lit::: ..101II.. II: --e e co e - . .- .f. ...
..c-:::~!5- .- . .. - ..... .
-0 .. g"; :II .... .. t...; - ~u. f"~ ~'ll
. fuo_. .. ~-...- .. ,. ... ....
., ....~1'... "" oe_ .... . ~ ..... ..... _0
.Ii':; i5.!':; ~~ ... ,. ". ~ -..- .,c.__ ..." ;1;:
...co-.. '"... cou ....... ... 0..
.:
.: .
..
. ..: .;. :c . ... .; . . ... .;
a
..; ..; 0.
co
'"
-
co
~
~ a
V '0
~~
"l;: . ~
.~ \ \
~. 'i iI
..
u
.
-~ ~ \1 I
.. i
.
I
~. ... \1
e a I
, i
e
e . -. I ....
. . ... 0_
~ .... ll'
Ii . c
.. . I.. ~'i
! .. ..
.. ..0
t;~ c ~ .. . I; i:.
. 0 ...~ :g.
-. . ~ .- .-
s.: i -.. 0_
" Iii. .... .,- "!j
. _e t ... .
.. ~.t' e .." 0.. C>
I -.. ~ ... .,- ..
. if .." g5; .
~! 'I - i f::
.
. ..~ :.
U . ~ . :::'t'::
.... I; ~~
.. . ~;: ~ :.
i . .:
.:. .. ... .: c_ ..1-
.:! .- H -e .-.
-.:I - .. . .ll' ~-..
So :;; i'" I - ~ .-
- -- .. .. . ...
. - "0 E~'" f~ H
t:. ~.E~ ~ - ..
,. .. ..
0 . .~ ... ~h
,!~ _ 0 .."
~ ~ ~ - - . ..... ....
0 0 0 :! . c ~
.. ~
1 . I .. I
:: :5 ..
.- . . ... .; 'Ii
.. . c . ...
..
-..
! ~:: ..
~ ..: ..; ..; .. ..; ..... ..: co
-. '"
:J;
..: - Il,tel ~
-
\
I
,
~
o
.:~~~
-;-.1:
ji~j
...- ,
"'0 ""
o "
" -
- ...:~:::
f= ~~I::-
..&.-..-
:"fi ~
0. _.. ~~
. 'V:i ....
; .!...ll~~
.. 0 __..
..-....0
~.! ..:~
. ~ ...--
~c:l::::;
.: ..:a :- f'
c,.,IO_..O
::
...
o
-
-;
"
t
l-
t
~
~
ce
_u
-
.
L
!~
-~
uv
~-
~:.
...
:a
~
~
..;
i
i .;
.;
I
\,
I
.....
CO
o
"
o
...-
o*.
ri
h
.
~.
~o
-
L
...0
Ot
i~_
,"
_0_
~H
",,--
occ
..~.
~
\,
,
,
....-
o c
'::1
"->
~-; i
I;..
"LO
l;g
~ .:::
I..
t:'
.-..
Oc
o~
co-
~~o~
...-..-
~......I
'!;-Ei
__ L
cc:__
-_.,QO
.;
\, I
, \,
I
L
o
""
"
;;:
!
-
"
-
.
o
O~
--
.
~~
-"
-""
.
LO
~~
L_
0""
:!;
..;
::
-
~
2
-
.
i.
f
0. ::
o
""
-
-
:a
:i
i
.;
\
,
I
~
"
-
o
>
:!.
o
"
i
!
-
"
N
o
"
::
~
!
.;
~
I
I
::
i
t
E
"
o
-
:!.
f
..
o
t~
;:~
~5
~-
~
..:
-
l
...
OL
o
C
--
C
_0
';2
2'"
o
-""
.-
" ~
8... .
fot
... .
c
oc
0- .
"" -
-...
LO
-::..
--~
ii-::'
-~
.. .
s::-
=-;1:
_ c
""~C
c~ .
.~-
~"o.
.
~
':'
~
-
-~
=t
:a.
0.
. L
to
.-
-""
u!?
11
o
u
- ~
1;;8
_ L
~o.
.;
0.
~
~
.
~
~
:a
',\, '\, \ \., \, \ '\ \, \
I I
I
L ... "0'" 0 l",&:"- _L 0" ," . .... .:.: $!'
0 C Jo,.. 0 - ~ 8'0 co _0 "-" co
- .::: . ~.. oc" 0 c__
. L e~e.: I:!. ~ -.. " . -
a L- .. *._L 0 -0"
o -"i C L 111"04::11 1:"" ... .. ...- a....
0 .. i-.. ;. 0 -u f= - Ol
u o~ ".. "LO
. r... ii:? ... L" "". - ...0, 0,:
.. ! O.lf:. 0..::11 -- ~ t"
L . __ 0 " 0..':_ "L..
~ --- ..~ ..:; .. ... t n '::;0
" lI; -~ c> " ...: e ';'
.. ....1 ~:: -e...... -0 "'E~ - -z...c- l:_
0 ;:..c-i 0." 0 _ ~c .
_0 s.t;; WO " " 0 N
- "''''0_ ..,- :i-E. ...~ ! t.. A 0 " c ':'
~.co ~; _"0 !::)
c ~.. " ~ :i c --- _""a > ' ~~
I';; L " ~~... ... _~"'U
-:..:a: :1 .._ 0 i.~~ ... "D C:__ _0 L~
.1':.'= 100. -t':: .. -..o'C
. 1 ""~ ~
:....1 -" ~..-g. ..0 o ,0
~L -- 0.. -- -
co, 0.. ....c.... .... _0 0 Ot i -0.
-0 - t 00" - 0 0.-" - _tt
- l'li ~ ..:: g 0..- to - ::"l!'~ 0
::; l-gl!'~';; -0. :a g" -.
- -- it ..I :-:: i~~ ; ! f-. ~c t;;
0" ---- o -g. .~
':~'it~ f"-~. j~~ ,,--.=
2'li l;!; L_ > _a_ -tl i reo::;:'
"'.-f~ --... " - o~u
. ....v ... - ---,:,...... ~ ~ .:...~f - . -- t.
""c -_c :I -... ti;~.== ~.. ~ 31::_ - c_ cco
y- c.._.... co "00. a.. .. uo_... "~o. --c.
-
li
..; .; .: .;. ..; .: ~ .; ..; .;
. 0.
~
~
.
Do
\l-~ ~
\, \,
I
~I
\1
\
\,
\
\
\
\
\
, , ~z'O ';; ,
0 0 .;: g:;z "M
-~ '0 0 . 0 'OJ?
i~ ~ t~ ~ ~ 0
- 'O . M'
. - ,~
. 0- -~ . . ~ ~~..... .0
, -' . f > .
- ~l:~ V 0 o e'o ~-
M U . ~ i~ .~
~i f"~ f ~ ~ 0 .....
f o. M - ~.- ~
Q...~ . - 0 '0
.8 V ::! . 0 0 ! M~
0, .0 > M . o.
, ~ 0 > . i -,
~- " :;; " " ~.
~ - . " 0 0 0" .;.
VM _M . . ~ . . "~ ':'
; -- ~ ~ . M . ~~
~ . - .- . <: M ';; . >
~- - M' 0 0 0 ............
0 .- - .- ~ ~ ~. - ~ ....'1;1)00, .
'V 0 - VV e' ~M
- -" ":J~ ~ - O. . f 0 ~; .. -.
V U " r . "
. - ~ 0.0
MV ~::a .0 t ~ ". 0 f t: -
0_ u . " . M~ . --
O~ ;i:. . 0 OM U . ~ ~ ';; - ~ ::U
-~ .M - , ~ O~ > - ~ 0 "
-. .. ~&g.,0\ f ~ ':; o . 0 - ~
. " .- ~ . ::: 0_ ~ ~~ Cc::.....
,- .V t::J ~ ::! 0 M_ .~ 0'" .......... .
. "- J:....~~ . - . " .. _...~ U .~
0 ~- 0_ . e'
-" U~ " ~ ......:>1- M-
. C V"_ -0 u ~ :;' _ U ~ . . ..0....0-:;: ~ .
co -> .C_ o C 0 . , . . 0
>. ~ ~ ~~ x- :; -0 M
U....... 0 . ~C" . .
--~..... ? ~--
_.0 M V V
~ . fO-
. ~ .,~ .c . ~-
~ '0_ . V ~ . ..: 0 ~EO
~ . ~ -~
:: ~ .,; 0.
~
~
a;
~
.
.
M
o
0.
o
"
~
.
~
-
..
M
.
~
g
i
o
-
.-
~O
_M
..
&,
~
~
.
~
o
~
.
~
o
.
-;
",:;
..
~V
- "
.
. c
-E
.
.-
. 0
. "
" ,
V_
00
-.
.
">/
.
>
-0
>
o
. .-
""o-...c:
.. c::: .., ..
..-~>.....
....'1:1_.......
t~=..~
...C...'5....
~_ &I _
...-Q.c::~
t:..:-e
~~ogt
...." -'"
....... 0.... Q.
~~.....:!::t
~~'i~ t
II ...'"...
c: ~i L ~
.. 0;: O~
.....~ "'U
C.............
... 0 .. ..
-::1c:~c:
- . .
, -.
.....::I,C.....
c:O~""O
';;
8-
f
~
.
~
-
..
-
.
~
~
o
~
M
..
.;
.0
\1
00
. .
,
:;0
..
.
'.
..,Ii.:;
V _
o ~
f..
. M 0
>.0_
"0_
. ~.
~:;e
- " 0
>
.
......
.vv
:;;~f
....f'E'
H~
.c
\
.~
~-
- .
o
".
" ~.
. .
-" "
'";;0"
.
. .
';; ::.....
M_ 0
&~c::
t.~~
-
. .
..-
~o'
....= g.
.~
::ec
- " .
:Ir~~
-~
.~ .
g .-5
_ 0
_o~
._ 0
-1";: .
v_
o.
-"
\',
- ,
V 0
.~
~
~
.~
~
.
.
-'"
~
O'
0.
o.
"-
~.
.
"
u
.
~"
-0
.-
.~
_ ~c
....c::;,
i-;'::>
.0
o~
~
.
.~.
~oo
---
MM_
.-~
0''''
"'.0
N
\ l.. "1
"',1
I
.
~
-
..
o
~
-
.
,
~ .
u
.....-
0_
~~
-.
. "
t_
8.~
MO
00.
.0
" "
...~
.
o
o
~
~
.
:=
-
o
.
-
-.
~-
'0
M~
~ >
01/
o
0"
o
--
o.
" u
.-
O~
. .
..>
.
"'.1
~.
O~
_0
~-
"~
. "
~o
~
l
~o
o "
-0
-~
M
-~
'0
.0
l
'"
o "
00
-
.
M_
--
u_
.-
~u
~ 0
~~
.c
\
t:
o
o
0.
.
.
_i
v_
is
--
:!~
-"
o c
00
_ M
M.
~ 0
,"
~-
u
\
\.
~
....
0_
~
o
E~
.
-~
";:0
~
-
-.
~~
M>
t.i
,
.
':'
.
.
o
o
0"
_0
.
M
:;g-g
0_ 0
-- ~
_0
.- "
" '0
. v.....
-"~
__0
cv.
..;
~
~
~
a;
~
\
\,
I
\
\,
-.J...tIIo.O_s..s..L..~ .':i!:":..!= ":"Ct- ........ --
.:!..~==...IOOO:5:; U,i- "'_0_ ...
-.. .0__1 i I ii.~ ~:; go
.. -...- - .. .. ~'*: i:i
I .:!~ . I... f'........: I . _..,Q __..c I~j
_....~-- i f";O.6: "01''-- t ..... s.. "..0 I
1.0'..1- .. g,- .8 ~I:r ..i....o._..
.. -.... '" -
f :t-r""c Ce.... -..~i;;~ ~.....! ~:.. -::'c"
~.. s.. .! 0 .. -.... f "1-
.....0.6: J .! . c ,- . ti~ r Z;. i. t:
--..... 0 ..! - ~ .--t..t.....i
;;: ';. ~ .I';... tor=: := ft'O:: "'''0 t-o .;.c: 0
tg.;;~-e ~.. 08.. .os.._- >> ! ':.. t...: :::ci ~
i .. C........ .... "" N
olIC .:.... "'=Q..g'..~ ..c'tO"~ ..c...~~....:~.. '" 0_ 0
.! ....'E.. -
-1'" .. E ~.c... -"'I"" .... ~- ..
.. .. lOll & ......- -... ~..... g ~-...o
. ~...D. ".....to ~ .Ie...". ~.. - .. .~..
-. ;: :3-.. o.i....... .... I.". .....i; i;~...
. ." .. 2'1- f..c~-
- t......: !_it' f... r _~ f; ........ 0.1:..-:- u.~
A_....u
I' "0'" 0 U .... 0 o.:~~cB. ~ 6.__1 t..... u... 'i.t
j ~c ir.~ '!.L.-:: -..~o ~~ .I": tti~ . -
.! If ._-~~~ ~!.- .I.cc x-.. ..-:;..::..c.....:! ;~:~
.. .......c._u....c l.l. ......c:
... f':~~-;~ -=6: g'~ L. t -"~et:.cc~" ':~~~i.== ...tt.!
.. --":::I....I.....oG. ... ::>.~;:!"2 .. ........ _c
! >~.Co."'_ ...~__ o Co. ... 0 0- 8....>~
80C:"C.O:'_ t:C:-IL. 8o-ci"i"oC .8 t' L... c: ,j..l:;- .,,-
~...I:;"CIl...u .. 0 ~'O.._ 'g__ _UAMO ~. ...
j .; ..; .; ..;
;: ~
'"
~
.
'"
~
'"
~
-
~
E
Ii!'
'E]
.u
Nk
..
"'-
\, \,
I I
I
-
"'i
o.
::I
t'"
~'"
-~
Ai
..;
-
.
i
i
::I,;~
-~-
.... &.~
"; t f::;
. ~.
t::.'5_
_='5=1
.. .-
f. u- ~.
__.u
~- -
......-
A~...oi
.I..Oio
..:i ..-"
~~c
~';;:i:it'!.
>>g&":
- .:~
......-
.~.c _
. ~
u ~.
:;-::o-~
..0..... M
~o .... C
.. C::lI.
...:t .......
.1'5 0 t~
I
\,
~.
_0
~..
-~
~-
.~
.~-
..-.
s..!
- ~
..-
.o~
i....a
e~ .
0.- 8.
.0.
.!s.o
~ -
.:!
_.co
-~-
- ~
"'jE
B~t
::~r
.~-
j-E
~k
..
=i
\
f
:I
I
:;
.:.~
~. .
0'::
~~~
_0-
_.c
~
~u
-;!
E;
"
..
...!o.
.~ ~
&t ';
e. _
AO :f
u_
.: fi't 8'
..::;~o
.~.
.- .
_..c..l:;
::~t'~
:a. CIl..
\
.. .
to!'
. -
.~"
'1.=
c~.i
- .
.
~."
-.-
;:u~
t-..._
~-~
_.:~~
.~ ..,
.;....0
!_o:
..tuO
.!_H
...-~=-
u.~
........c~
=~t...
a CIl.....
..;
\1-11)
\,
I
I
-"'-
.u.
--..
~"iz
. -
~ ~
8..u
!'
..u
.c",-
"''''.i
~
o .
.-
.:~:
-0-
-..-
:~~
f.~
0. ~
=:::
.1::1' -_
~. .
"" .
. - ~
" ~-
a=i:
.;
\,
\
f
0.
~'E
- .
.N
.!.'!!
o
~
.
I
:i
.;
2
r.'!!
-~
~
~~
k-
..c
~
~'i
u
-.
...
~.
.~
t ':;
_1t
.u.
i:i
io_
o
~
N
o
.!
~
...c
~~
.--
.-
..!.c
o :::.
s::,i
-~-
~~.
..~
t~~
... 8.1
0--
'" ~.
~o_
-~
..~
--.
;ii
..;
~
DO
~
.
..
~
-
-
;;
~
-
.
"
J~
.;
:::
III. Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.......[ ]
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a signif.icant effect in
this case because the mitigation Ileasures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED..................................................................................................... [i- ]
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required........[ ]
~ .73, )112-
Datel .
'L~&~~
Signature
For CiJ;J 1- C/w-1l. J.'$*-
IV.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
list all significant or potentially significant impacts identified in
the Initial Study checklist form.
~,~
'47 i-f PJlrFI, p-jll/k. ./
l11.d^dJ.~
YES
K
MAYBE
Y.
X
~
><'-
v. APPLICANT ACCEPTANCE OF MITIGATION MEASURES
~a~fm.e~
NAME TITLE
'7/1/11-
I flATE
\,..l'
M. DE MINIMIS FEE DETERMINATION
(Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990 - AS 3158)
- It is hereby found that this project involves no potential for
any adverse effect, e1ther ind1v1dually or cumulat1vely on
w11d11fe resources and that a .Certif1cate of Fee Exempt10n"
shall be prepared for th1s project.
b It 1s hereby found that this project could potentially 1mpact
w1ld11fe, indiv1dually or cumulat1vely and therefore fees 1n
accordance with Section 711.4 (d) of the Fish and Game Code
shall be pai~ to the County Clerk.
A~~~d-J~ i..-.
Environmental Review Coordinator
I
. {tMv ,):!, dr'lL
Dgte
\"l # t)...
uor OA~OO
_"0_
DISCUSSION
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
FIFTH AVENUE GOLF RANGE/SPORTS CENTER
The explanation for the Environmental Checklist Form is provided in this
section. If mitigation measures are required, these are shown throughout this
section in bold print.
1. EARTH
The project would cover over the site soils, and, due to the site's flat
topography, would retain the existing topography. The soils study
prepared for the project (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1986) is attached,
which discusses site soils and geologic conditions. This report refers
to a different type of development for the site than what is currently
proposed, however, the soils and geotechnical information remains valid
for any development. In summary, during construction, soils would be
exposed, and vulnerable to wind and water erosion, which could result in
increased siltation to the historic Sweetwater River Channel adjacent to
the site. Also, soils onsite are subject to 1iquification during
groundshaking as a result of an earthquake. Soil erosion and
1iquification are considered significant impacts. These impacts can be
mitigated to a level less than significant by providing an update to the
geotechnical report, particularly in the recommendations section, and by
implementing such recommendations. These recommendations must conform
with the City's Grading Ordinance, and will be reviewed and approved by
the City Engineering Department for adequacy. The City's Grading
Ordinance addresses soil erosion and stability issues.
2. AIR
Project-re 1 ated traffi c wou1 d incrementa lly add to the already
significant regional air quality deterioration. For these incremental
vehicular source impacts, the project would be subject to any regional
and/or City-required transportation demand management (TOM)
requirements, which include such programs as ridesharing and use of mass
transit facilities. Such programs are not yet required by the City of
Chu1a Vista or the APCD, and are pending approval of the regional 'plan.
3. WATER
The project would not modify the Sweetwater River drainage, but it is
currently within the 100 year flood zone of this river as defined by the
Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) map. Until the Sweetwater River
channelization project is completed, the site remains within the
estab1 i shed 100 year flood zone, as defi ned by FEMA. Thi s status wi 11
change once the channel improvements are completed downstream.
Project development would create few impervious surfaces, minimally
affecting the amount of surface runoff. Surface water on the site would
runoff to drainage improvements occurring south of the site, which is
considered adequate to serve the project. Changes in the amount of
surface water in any water body would not be affected, as the site is
relatively small.
WPC 4970H (6/30/92)
Il..l3>
"
Discussion for Environmental Checklist Form
Page 2
The site overlays groundwater which is approximately 0 to 4 feet below
the natural surface. With channel ization of the Sweetwater River, the
groundwater depth could eventually drop. The groundwater is not
extracted for any uses at the site. The project would not affect the
groundwater, and the WCC report did not anticipate that
construction/development of the project would intersect groundwater.
However, the report stated that if groundwater were encountered, then
recommendations regarding groundwater in the WCC report (and updated
report) must be incorporated into the grading and construction
procedures. These recommendations must also be consistent with the City
Grading Ordinance.
Regarding water supply, the project would place an incremental demand on
the limited regional supply. Any demand on an already significantly
burdened system is considered to also be significant. Each water
district has its own water conservation program in place, and
development is subject to the requirements of the program. This
project would be subject to Sweetwater Authority's conservation
requirements, and to any water offset program that the City of Chula
Vista has in place at the time of development. Such conservation
program must include a mix of drought-tolerant landscaping which must be
approved by the City's landscape Architect.
4,5. PLANT AND ANIMAL lIFE
The site has been studied for biological resources, including:
1. Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc., Report of a Bioloaical
Survey on a Sweetwater River Parcel at National City Boulevard.
City of Chula Vista, September 3, 1985; and
2. Wier Biological, Bioloaical Reconnaissance of a IS-acre site in
Chula Vista North of the Intersection of Broadway and "C" Street
(the Dixieline Property), 1985
3. Wier Biological, Report on the Status of Habitats at the Dixieline
Property Proposed fill at Broadway and "C" Streets in Chula Vista,
1985
4. SJM Biological Consultants, preparation of Biological Resources
section for the Town Centre II Amendment EIR, June 15, 1988.
Relevant excerpts from the Town Centre II Amendment EIR, which
incorporates all of the above-referenced material, are included below.
These excerpts are from the Impact Subsection in the Biology section.
Additionally, a recent letter report from PSBS (June 7, 1991) is
included as Attachment A.
YPC 4970H (6/30/92)
17-7t
Discussion for Environmental Checklist Form
Page 4
1. "In Site 3 [project site], minimize intrusion of humans into the
wetland and buffer zones by constructing a 5-foot chain link fence
or other effective constraint between the wetland and upland
development." The landscape plan proposed for the site shows
effective vegetation buffer between the west end of the development,
through the IOO-foot buffer to the wetland area.
2. "Continue to control sediment deposition in the wetland during and
following development activities."
3. "To eliminate potential sedimentation impacts, include a silt fence
between construction and the drainage ditch and/or the Sweetwater
River." Instead of a silt fence, but accomplishing the same
mitigation, a more effective measure would be construction of a
drainage swale which would empty into a detention basin within the
buffer area. The swale and basin would capture runoff silt in over
time, while allowing the slope vegetation to grow. Once slope
vegetation is established, sedimentation impacts would be
effectively reduced. Either the silt fence or swale and basin would
reduce the potential impact to a level below significant.
6. NOISE
Noise impacts from a previously proposed project for this site were
determined to be less than significant. The previous project anticipated
2,433 average daily vehicle trips (ADT) and resulted in a one decibel
(dB) increase in noise along C Street at the point of maximum traffic
concentration. This project, with an expected traffic generation of
1,200 ADT would generate less vehicle noise, consequently, no significant
no i se, impacts are expected from th is' 'source. The proposed use of the
site is also not expected to produce significant noise.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE
The project would produce new 1 ight, as there would be buildings and
recreational uses located in a presently vacant area. The presence of
new light is not considered significant, as it is located amidst an urban
area. However, lighting of outdoor recreational areas such as this
project, could intrude into nearby residential areas. Such lighting, if
not controlled, could result in a significant lighting impact. Lighting
on the south side of the site, facing the residences, must be reviewed by
the City's Design Review process, to ensure that nuisance lighting is not
permitted. Lighting may be required to be shielded and directed downward
(at least to a 45 degree angle), to eliminate direct lighting toward any
residences.
8. LAND USE
The site is designated by the General Plan as Research and Limited
Industrial, with a portion located within the Local Coastal Program
area. The proposed use would require a Local Coastal Program Amendment,
WPC 4970H (6/30/92)
Discussion for Environmental Checklist Form
Page 3
[Project] site wetlands would not be developed; and would be protected
from development on the uplands by a 100-foot buffer as presently
required by the existing Coastal Development Permits (CV CDP-004 and
008); impacts to the wetland vegetation are thus not expected.
Development of the non-buffer uplands would directly eliminate foraging
habitat for several visiting raptors, thereby reducing their use of the
area. A variety of smaller resident and migratory birds, as well as
rabbits, squirrels and other common small mammals would also be
eliminated or forced into neighboring habitats. Such incremental losses
of habitat would contribute to the cumulative population reductions
caused by progressive development in the region. In general, however,
these impacts are considered insignificant because of the degraded
quality of the existing habitats on site and the low sensitivity of the
species involved. Also, a number of these displaced species would
undoubtedly continue to use the adjoining upland buffer zone and
associate wetlands, both of which presently exhibit somewhat higher
quality wildlife habitat than the non-buffer uplands.
Wildlife in the wetlands and buffer zone would be indirectly impacted to
some degree by such expected factors as the presence and activity of
increased numbers of people and vehicles, possibly the presence of
buildings or other vertical structures, and the overall reduction of
open, visually unobstructed terrain on the site. The nature of the
effect of the 1 atter two factors on wil dl ife is often di ffi cult to
defi ne or quant i fy. However, at 1 east a temporary reduct i on in faunal
diversity in more constricted habitats closely circumscribed by
deve 1 opment, especi ally among raptors and some water bi rds, i s usually
found. Nonetheless, this indirect impact in considered insignificant,
once again due to the low sensitivtty of species and generally low
numbers of individuals involved. In addition, if human intrusion into
the wetland and undeveloped upland buffer areas is eliminated or
minimized through appropriate measures, most affected species will
likely habituate in time to the adjacent development.
Also, sedimentation could potentially occur to the drainage ditch and/or
the Sweetwater River from construction associated with the project. The
added silt load would primarily affect the habitat of benthic
invertebrates, which could in turn affect area waterbirds.
In summary, for thi s project the appl icant proposes a 100-foot buffer
between the marsh boundary, and the limit of grading. No impacts would
occur with this buffering. However, as stated in the ErR, impacts,
deemed less than significant, could occur from human intrusion into the
wetland and buffer zone. Also, significant sedimentation could occur to
the wetland during and following development activities.
Mitigation measures recommended in the EIR are restated below, with
clarification as appropriate for this project. With implementation of
these measures, impacts would be avoided and/or reduced to a level below
signi ficant.
WPC 4970H (6/30/92)
\ I -1~
Discussion for Environmental Checklist Form
Page 5
and a City Conditional Use Permit. The proposed land use is considered
to be compatible with the surrounding uses. Besides consideration of
land use type compatibility, other compatibility issues pertain to noise,
traffic, aesthetics and light and glare. Please refer to No.5, 6, 7, 13
and 18 of this Discussion.
9. NATURAL RESOURCES
Sand resources are shown by the City's Conservation Element of the
Genera 1 Pl an in the project vici ni ty, yet the fi 11 soil s and mixture of
silts and clays with the sands, diminish any value they may have. The
project does not 1 ie within any "regionally significant construction
aggregate area" as defi ned by the State Department of Conservation. No
other natural resources would be used in excessive amounts by development
of the proposed project.
10. RISK OF UPSET
According to the Office of Planning and Research list of hazardous waste
sites, this area does not have a history of hazardous wastes. The
proposed development is not expected to require the use of hazardous
materials.
11. POPULATION/HOUSING
The proposed center does not affect planned or present population of the
area. Employment opportunities at the site may create a demand for
housing in the project vicinity, but, the small size of the project does
not constitute a significant demand.
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Approximately 1,200 average daily trips (ADT) are expected to be
generated by this project (see Engineering Department Routing Form).
This traffic would incrementally contribute to future anticipated
congestion impacts at Fourth Avenue/C Street, and to signal warrants at
Fifth Avenue/C Street. Payment of standard signal fees to the City would
mitigate the project's contribution to this cumulative impact.
Additionally, street improvements to Fifth Avenue would be required by
the City's Engineering Department prior to the issuance of grading or
building permits.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Fire Protect i on. See plan correct i on sheet. The app 1 i cant wi 11
coordi nate with the Fi re Department, and wi 11 implement requi red
measures as part of the standard building process and in order to
achieve a building permit. Also, the Fire Department, stated that
trees planted along parking and entrances to center cannot impede
access to fire equipment.
~PC 4970H (6/30/92)
~ 1-16
Discussion for Environmental Checklist Form
Page 6
b. No impacts to Police Service.
c. Schools. See attached letters from Shurson (6-14-91) and Silva
(6-17-91). The appl icant anticipates the employment of
approximately 12 people, and includes approximately 6,000 .square
feet of building area in the Clubhouse and teaching area. The
number of students indirectly generated by the project would be
mi nor, but any student generated in a Di strict where capaci ty is
already exceeded is considered significant. State law requires
payment of school fees, which is considered acceptable mitigation
for the school impact. Thus, no other mitigation is required beyond
this standard requirement.
d. No impacts to Parks and Recreation; project is considered to
contribute to the provision of these opportunities.
e. No other substant i a 1 effects on Dub 1 i c facil it i es or qovernmenta 1
services.
15. ENERGY
SDG&E would provide energy to the site. Energy use would, however, place
an incremental demand on the diminishing supply of fossil fuel resources,
and indirectly contributes to degradation of air quality. Energy
conserving building design must be utilized, as required by law, and
other energy conservi ng features, such as effi ci ent 1 i ght i ng, shoul d be
integrated into the project design as feasible.
16. THRESHOLDS
Water (1): Developer must submit to the City a
1 etter from Sweetwater Authority. Otherwi se,
conformance with the Threshold/Standards Policy.
service availability
the project is in
17. HUMAN HEALTH
See No. 10 above.
18. AESTHETICS
The proposed project would be visually consistent with the adjacent
Historic Sweetwater River Channel, and is anticipated to be aesthetically
positive. A 30-foot high golf ball fence will be built along the site's
northern boundary. Such a fence coul d block exi st i ng vi ews toward the
north from a number of res i dences located south of C Street. In order
to avoid potential view blockage, the screen must be transparent, such as
chain link fencing or other such "see-through" material.
WPC 4970H <6/30/92)
\ 'l-ll
,
Discussion for Environmental Checklist Form
Page 7
19. RECREATION
The site is located adjacent to, and within, the City's Greenbelt system
as shown on the City's General Plan. The Greenbelt occurs to the north
of the site along the Sweetwater River, and crosses the west side of the
site, along the Historic Sweetwater River Channel. The proposed
development preserves the 100-foot buffer requi red by the City's 1 oca 1
Coastal Program between the development area and the wetlands associated
with the Historic Sweetwater River Channel. The City's General Plan
requires the Greenbelt area, which overlays a portion of the buffer.
Preservation of the Greenbelt will be accomplished by preservation of the
buffer a"'ea. The appl icant will grant an easement to the City over the
buffer area (see Project Description, Negative Declaration).
20. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Town Centre II EIR record search found a previously recorded
archaeological site, W-2241, somewhere on the north side of "c" Street in
the project area. This site was recorded as a deposit of tools with a
thin shell midden exposed on the surface. The field survey of the vacant
site (for Town Centre II EIR) did not reveal the presence of any
prehistoric sites due to the presence of the fill dirt. It is possible
that the site is located below the fill dirt. The proposed development
woul d not excavate to the bottom of the fi 11 di rt, only some surcharge
soils may be recovered. Thus, no disturbance to the site, if it were at
the project location, would occur.
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Wi th mit i gat i on measures implemented for potent i a 1
impacts, the project would not create impacts to
resources, and it would not el iminate major periods of
history or prehistory.
b. Long term goals are associated with use of the site for significant
natural resource protection or production of a resource, such as
agriculture, or mineral resources. No long term goals for the site
would be disadvantaged by the project.
a.
biological
biological
California
c. Cumulative impacts associated with the project are contribution to
degradation of air quality, consumption of energy and water
resources and contribute to future traffic congestion and signal
warrants in the project vicinity. With implementation of standard
building requirements and mitigation measures, the project
contribution to these impacts would be reduced to a level of less
than significant.
d. With implementation of standard building requirements, no direct or
indirect adverse effects would occur to human beings.
WPC 4970H (6/30/92)
/1-1~
u[roo@ [j2l@~@ olii]'((@[ijJilo@[j'j)@OOW O@\r\( Il>>O@[j'j)~o
\1 ~ 7~
.' ';0; BWIRt?/flfjiJ/TlTL- I?Ej/([U,oRD/YJ/72JR,
n 0,80;< /08!lr eh't/$ III6;;;' C/l- 9.M/-z
/lEMRIJ/J;G C;/j"SE ;t:f;/S-'j'/,stJ(J3)
::l 7'-9::2
!'- . JJ
IY/17JfJAlf.? h"j//A'v.c ./9"&Vc/A"/.60
;,f/,c J7S P/i'OP,ER I Y Of,t//I fRS 0# SE,f'-j,-7i'P 6/, #/fE ca-Yc,o.-f"v.tOD
/TBOoT/71.E~/':;h'//ir6 v'-7h'.E rEAlCE cW /I/As p/?oJ,E6T
/TWCJC/?D,BE /TSI1/NSIOC//? ,B$51 IH/.&/?.GSI /t:J#,/TP.E
T//.e /-It;/I/S 0# /.d/S p/?ocTaT <3/-,7'/i'I;V(; /;v The H/R
/7/'10 o/'lSCC/IT/NG Ot/R I//EtI/ ov,6R T#.c JY/T./-Lt;Y
/TT /VIGil/.
j,t/,€ /?,€t:jv E $7 1/1/-7/ sol'7E /0/11<1 o/' r7li'cJ(/;vo E/)C,ec;/s
/-1&1/>>& g,c ;f',Et;v//i'13 0, S'o/TS #0 @j..fi'/?E BE P/?i'VftofED
Ot/ER T/tE./-?/n dr7R.E j//TUEY~ W;; !3Uli..T ovR //c'.i"7fiSfi'/ //;I/:S'
J'..OC/i'7/d# W/l/I7/7E f//jw 0/ cJp,ER 1/7-E j//i"~I-&Y HoS o.;VE
07 otlR /'717;)/ /fE/i"So#5 ,61/1 /30f?LJ/H6/!.E/iE; ,DO /Vii/'
SPoil T/lfs t//ftiV.
R#c7J/L"R 60HCl?/?;V is filE r.E#CE 70 BZ C!o.Y<smoc]ED
/0 P/O/fiCI /Te/T/N'<SI s//r/TY C:Jo;:./ /5#fi.S. 0'AS C30'>~.&A/CE
Sf/c?UD,e.E (fcJ/yo//?oc,7J;;o cJr h/T///?I/rL /#17'/-<-70.50' /VtJ/
cJBo/RUC;; O(J/i' j/f,cw./ /;,v cJJ7./.ER !/eJ/?bS'SO W.c CH.A'"
. .f . hI
SEJ". 7/././l0f/e II / T "vOl /1//;/
w/ Etlk-r Of//? ft'tJ/'1,cS /.T;VD Ct>,M)/!?U6/.EO wi7J/ I/lis
VIEW ot/.ER T/I.& t/1TU-.9' iN n/NO. Co jJ"E.I;SE .DO )./0/ ,oAS//f'oy
7HAs r;:/tJRI, /-76 ytJu IJPS I/?())I dC//? 1?.E./?60/v,s /it/? .Bf/IUJlllif jf.ERE.
~;;,~d/
CITt/hIT f//<S~<11(. 9/9'/0
7/f~ ~~
iJ~-~ tJLlW!~
,j :< 7 J e 2>. VA J e ct.
Ch{.lJ.. Vrst<>., CA 7/'1ID
C,/R/~ ~~
!:J ~y / Jz--i / Vd:kf) ,
qJJ. y~ &<iy9/;?/d
~ C;#h~
S7. 7 St,.q v~/.. d-
e ~ '-1 (4- V, i-tif - '1/Cjd
(~
\l'~
U[}uOg;j ~~\ID@ OlJi1ll@ITiJl(O@mJ~~~W ~@lfU @~~mJ[li:o
I/..t/
,
THE em...IF CHUU VISTA PARTY DISCLOSlJdE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contnbutions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all ot'
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1.
List the names of all persons having
subcontractor, material supplier.
NATIONAL AVENUE ASSOCIATES, a
METROPOLITAN SHOPPING SQUARE,
ROBERT PENNER, M.D.
a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor,
General Partnership
LTD
~()T.l" rRNT'RRS
OF AMERICA. INC..
n ~~';~nrni~ ~nrpnr~Tinn
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is' a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
William P. Kruer, General Partner See Attached for Metropolitan
George T. Kruer, General Partner Shopping Square, Ltd. and
Mathew R. Loonin, General Partner Golf Cent~rR of Ampri~~r Tn~
Jerald A. Alford, General Partner
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or
trustor of the trust.
None
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City stalJ.,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No L If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
None
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Council member in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No..lL If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Pcrson is defined as: "Any indil'loual,firm, co-pannersltip,joinl venTUre, ossociation, social club,fraternal organization. corporation,
(!S((I/(', InISI, rccc;,'er, syndicate, this and an)' other county, city an.d counT7j~ city, nlullicipa/it)', district or other political subdil'isioll,
or allY other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
Si~e~
Dale:-l' / I' / q z-
, /
-
f.\.: 1.'_ \oDISCLOSLTXT]
JERALD A. ALFORD
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
IR("\'i!.t'd: J J.~O..')OJ
\\~g~ :)-/1/
-
.
-
\
!
I
,
i
!
l
,',
I
,
,
I
-
ATTACllMENT TO DISCLOSURE STATD-lENT
FOR
NATIONAL AVENUE ASSOCIATES APPLICATION
.
INDIVIDUALS OWNING PARTNERSHIP INTEREST IN
METROPOLITAN SHOPPING SQUARE. L TO. **
Ganeral Part:ner
Charles G. Kerch
Limitad Partners
Tom Hurlbert:
Gilbert Jacobs
Jer,y StadtQiller
Patricia Stadtmiller
Joe HaY"ard
Charles Borderdine
Paul Borderdine Trust
Trust Services of America in Trust for
Jerry Stadtmiller
Cat:herine Kerch Smith
Margaret Brydegaard
Al Stadtmiller Trust
.
**Information furnished by Charles G. Kerch
STOCK OWNERSHIP OF GOLF CENTERS OF AMERICA~ INC.
Larry K. White
Selleck Properties,
Donald A. Weber
45%
Inc. 45%
10%
.
\ l ~8 'f
3- /J
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item I Y
Meeting Date 04/20/93
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING Appropriation of $1,214,000 of
CDBG funds for construction of the South Chula Vista Library
proj ect
RESOLUTION J ?Oa'fAPpropriation of $1,214,000 of
CDBG funds for construction of the South Chula Vista Library
project
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director (,5",
Acting Library Director
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager ~
,J
(4/5ths Vote: YES..x... NO _)
BACKGROUND: In the Spring of 1991, the City used CDBG funds to purchase six acres of
land at Fourth and Orange Avenues for the South Chula Vista library. Subsequently, the State
Library awarded the City a 65%/35% matching grant for the new library. The grant reimburses
the City for 65% of the $1.9 million land acquisition. Those reimbursed funds ($1,214,000) are
considered "applicable credit" by HUD and can be used for eligible program activities. The use
of these funds for construction of the library was anticipated in the CIP budget.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing and appropriate
$1,214,000 of CDBG funds for construction of the South Chula Vista Library project
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
In the Spring of 1991, the City used CDBG funds to purchase six acres of property at Fourth
and Orange Avenues for the South Chula Vista Library. With the award of the $6.7 million
State Library Grant, the city was assured of a 65 % reimbursement of the cost of the land
acquisition. To date, the City has received $1,128,329 and anticipates receiving an additional
$85,848 within the next few months.
The $1,214,000 in CDBG funds can be used for any eligible CDBG activity. However, staff
anticipated using these funds for the construction of the new library in the CIP budget. The
Library construction project needs these funds now to move forward with the bid process.
Therefore, it is recommended to reallocate those funds at this time to library construction.
18'~ /
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 03/16/93
Since the State library grant directly reimbursed CDBG funds expended for the land acquisition,
HUD is requiring the City to return the money to the City's credit line account. These funds
will be immediately available for drawdown when construction begins. Staff discussed the
possibility of the City retaining the funds as "program income", but HUD officials stated that,
under the regulations, these reimbursed CDBG funds are considered "applicable credit" and are
required to be returned to HUD immediately.
A public hearing is required because this allocation involves an amount greater than 25 % of the
City's annual CDBG entitlement of $1,664,000.
FISCAL IMPACT: At the time the City was awarded the library grant, the reimbursement
was anticipated and accounted for as library construction funds in the CIP budget. The funds
need to be appropriated back in to the South Chula Vista library project in order to allow the
construction contract to be bid out. The only fiscal impact from returning the funds to HUD
is that the City will not earn interest on the funds between now and the commencement of
construction in Fall 1993.
Ji'--;.
RESOLUTION
I?PB'5'
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROPRIATING $1,214,000 OF CDBG FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
THE SOUTH CHULA VISTA LIBRARY PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a principal goal of which is to fund programs and services which will benefit
low and moderate-income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the City expended CDBG for the acquisition of six acres of land for
the South Chula Vista Library and was subsequently reimbursed by the State Library Grant Fund
for 65% of the cost of acquisition; and, .
WHEREAS, the State has or will be reimbursing the City $1,214,000 for the land
acquisition, all of which is considered to be "applicable credit" for CDBG eligible projects; and,
WHEREAS, the City anticipated this reimbursement and accounted for it in the
South Chula Vista Library construction budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES HEREBY
FIND, DETERMINE ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLWWS:
SECTION I. The City Council does hereby approve the appropriation of
$1,214,000 of CDBG funds reimbursed by the State Library Grant to the South Chula Vista
Library construction project (Account #648-6480-LB125).
SECTION II. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect
immediately upon the passage and adoption hereof.
SECTION III. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
Resolution; shall enter the same in the book of original Resolutions said City; and shall make
a minute of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is
passed and adopted.
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
/)
Ar{
IBruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
Presented by:
/f)'J
-
"
, /1-. ,,:0 .?-:..C( <::/~a....~.~-':;~~ :Q_
,'~ E ~ I . , -."I I? ,J.J . ) 0
~+~"~--~r~I-~~-_7/;Zo)r3 i i
Ng,: ~~W~/~~~~
"
.___.~_____ n__ ___._m~. . ..___ ~._. ....._
:: ~A:-_~
. r~__~~_.........
!-"4;.::;;'-~:::i~z3;~;:j~'5
~~_A*-f:;~'n~~.L-dd'~~ _~. ......_ .__m_
~ - ~ ~ ~ J
~~~...~. ~}4/~Oed~.,I
~?H'r-~' ----.-.-- - -
. ..-4~~.~ ~N~~.
:, ::t1!J~/- LI ~~z:i3- J
. 0 (7;2. .k~~ ~~ .,
J--~~Af.d~,d4~
." .
,
. '
),
I
6'Tvr 1- T.lfrJVK
'.J--:-1!1::33;;:J;-;;i;I:Zt~ --. -ft!-.. -
~'~7J;r~~'-~~ .,j/1~
~A"~'~__.A-,.;-~ '.' _ ~ S!.1.,p-
"!!l?'/. ~rA...u1a 7fi~-~;,.;;r;~/Pt 7". _____.;?~--~?;J!l
I/Sd .~~,p " ~~~~
. . ~ n
6.c-- .z....
.~:r7/~~W
~~._--~
B~_~~~.~~~.--? t:. I
.~/. ~.
, ~~-~~~ et~Qf1~~-----
- ..~ ~_/;{:t;.;d- . _
~ /1/'0 ~ ~ ~~. /IY~r..i'd
:_._"'.L~ ~.~':!.--.---~-:r~~ ' . - .I~ ~.~ }
:;:t;~~~'1tfJ~~,,:~~. .
- ----- _......-- -~--- ----~.._-------~-_._-----"._.._-_._-----_._._.__.__._--..- "
:z: 1-A'..~~::Y~:!::5
~~~~~~dd)fd--
1?J. ttV.-d7d.;tJ~~"p~/)~,u_Y ~J~~_
. _II"" .J) ~~ ~~..;...;. t9~
. '.-Jv 17~ ~I.~ M({I....798'. 73 U-
_~~ ~l . u~~~~ ',:_~u ~ .
~-~~, -~--I!u- -7:'--' _ I ~:A:I ~ i
,}{./~ 4.-' _.- ._ ~~!
~ diw~/t0:1::/~.ll:
. __,_._ __________~_. 0......---..-..-...., __.__..__
!Ffi> . r~I4/' -''-<,,-~' ~. ~;
j/-2-d -f'J
t .
,3
,
( ~~ ~~.~
~ n___n~;.,~n_~-n~:;~ ~_,~;~)~, -/~! n
~P-'n~ ~~;-:;r--'~.l
,b-."n~ ~~__~.~(. .
( a~~ ~~ 0-;-)_
~~.n~
::'n~_~_n'1 .
(. d.~.~~
<# ~" ,~t #
~~~. - f.,J'P.
"l
(
'6
..;,
.,
{
-~-"---'-'--~~--- ..
-
, .
~t;;~:
j
(
c
. .~._~_~L~U-U. ~-/if
~ ~/~.~~ /
~ ~~_~~~ ..- )n$,FE~1J a-~~-- l
.. ,IAJV,;;--st. ~~ ~_"P u.- .~ 4- "J..J2____:..J:_ $/-,-,,' ~
. ~~~;;;;::;::f!~~ ;
'Y~/:J.~ ~~. _n ------ .-
~
(
j
...,,..
w
(
t
.
'.
.
~~
...~re~
.~ l'
_ 2; .
(
'-
"
~
.
c; ~
~ '
1
i
+
~ '
l! .
-
.l!
..
t
<
.
,
, '
~
,
l.
~
.
8
~ i
i
.
.
i '
;
- - _._-~_.,~~-,_._-- -_._--~,.~-_._~---'--' -'- -
"
"
11 :,.
"
.
.
1 "
S
@~
5 ~
3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Honorable Mayor & City Council
John D. Goss, City ManagerfJ'
Chris Salomone, Community Development Director C 5.
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT: City Council Agenda Item Number 19
~/J
April 20, 1993
The Chula Vista Human Services Council (CVHSC) has requested that the City Council Item
Number 19 regarding the role of CVHSC and its relationship to the City be continued from the
April 20 meeting to April 27, 1993.
CS/JPA:ss
(SSlMisclDiskJ/2/contunce.mem)
/9-/0
Item
Meeting Date
~o
4/20/93
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
TITLE: REPORT on Key Concerns regarding Proposed Solid
Waste participation Agreement
SUBMITTED BY: Principal Management Assistant Snyder
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager!
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No-L)
Council Referral #2745
At the 3/30/93 workshop on regional solid waste issue$ and a
proposed Solid Waste Participation Agreement, staff was directed to
prepare a list of specific concerns with the proposed Agreement, to
send the list to the County Board of Supervisors, and to return by
4/30/93 with a follow-up report and recommendations. The list of
key concerns was time-sensitive in order to prepare Councilmember
Moore to represent the City (and other South Bay cities) at a
4/9/93 meeting being set for the purpose of negotiating meaningful
changes to the Agreement by elected officials in a regional,
consensus-building effort.
The list of key concerns (Attachment A) was distributed to Council
with an Information Report in the Agenda packet for the 4/13/93
meeting. Due to noticing problems, the Elected Officials Steering
Committee meetings have been rescheduled for 4/19/93 and 4/26/93.
The Steering Committee is expected to negotiate the terms of a
revised Participation Agreement and return to the full SANDAG Board
by 4/30/93. The revised Agreement will then be taken individually
to each City Council for action by 6/1/93.
Further Council discussion and action at this time on the key
concerns and recommendations will provide the Council's
representative with the City's official position in preparation for
the meetings.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council:
1) Determine that the City is not prepared at this time to
make a commitment of total flow of solid waste within its
jurisdictional boundaries to the County system;
2) Affirm to the Elected Officials Steering Committee that
the issue of the amount of flow commitment necessary to allow
the San Marcos landfill expansion financing to take place be
addressed independently of the long-term commitment of flow
for long range facilities planning purposes;
3) Approve in concept an organizational structure which calls
for the formation of a Solid Waste Commission with final
authority in policy matters and capital planning and financing
issues, and then places the Commission with the responsibility
.21)-,/
Page 2, Item
Heeting Date
r:J{)
4/20/93
for exploring the possible evolution of the Commission into an
entirely separate legal entity;
4) Direct staff to return to the Council with a revised
Agreement for action at the conclusion of the work of the
Steering Committee.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
DISCUSSION:
Not applicable.
During discussion at the 3/30/93 Council workshop, several areas of
concern with the proposed Solid Waste Participation Agreement were
identified by staff and the Council:
-Flow control commitment (short-term, long-term, authority to
commit)
-Governance/ organizational structure
-Term of the Agreement
-Liability (financial, closure/post-closure, CERCLA, etc.)
-Tip fee setting authority and rate equality
-Solid waste facility fees
-Long-term disposal options
Staff has developed those concerns into a more concrete discussion
of the major problems, recommended solutions and direct references
to changes in the Agreement, where appropriate. (See Attachment A.)
To augment Council's discussion, staff has also updated the list of
long-term disposal options (other than the County's waste disposal
system) currently acknowledged around the County (Attachment B).
It is noted that these are options which, when fiscally prudent,
could be available to the City under any organizational scenario,
i.e. as part of the proposed Solid Waste Commission, a separate JPA
with selected cities, entirely independent, etc.
Update of Recent Solid Waste Events
The process for discussing, analyzing, and negotiating the proposed
Agreement has been continually impacted by current events related
to political, legal, environmental and regulatory actions in San
Diego County, the State and the Federal Government. Since Council
last discussed this issue at the workshop in March, there has been
an important development at the State Water Resources Board level
which threatens the expansion of the San Marcos landfill.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board's approved permit for the
expansion has been appealed to the State Board. At a State Board
workshop held 4/12/93, the staff recommendation would essentially
have the permit rescinded. The Water Board is expected to hold a
public hearing and make a final determination on 4/27/93.
.2p,~
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date
,)./)
4/20/93
Overturning the Regional Board's approval would, in turn, affect
the permit issued 3/12/93 by the Local Enforcement Agency on behalf
of the State Integrated Waste Management Board.
Although it is difficult to make accurate predictions at this time,
such an action would probably mean being able to count on San
Marcos capacity in the total system needs for about 6-9 more
months. It is anticipated that the NCRRA facility (the Materials
Recovery Facility currently being constructed at the San Marcos
landfill) would be operating by January 1994 and permitted to
function as a transfer station. If needed, it would facilitate
continued system use of the Sycamore and Otay landfills to address
the problem.
This impending event relates to the proposed Agreement in both an
immediate and a long-range, philosophical way. Immediately, it
raises the following questions if the expansion was halted:
-How much bond financing would actually be necessary?
(Attachment C details the components of the currently planned
$53 million bond issuance. Some of the funds are
reimbursements to the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund for
expenditures already made out of reserves, improvements
controlled by regulations independent of the expansion, etc.)
-Does the County still maintain the position that a full
commitment of waste stream is necessary for any purposes other
than lona term capital facility plannina?
Additionally, this situation serves as an example of the major
underlying change embodied in the Agreement: an opportunity for
the City to play an increasingly important policy role in a
dynamic, complex regional system currently controlled by the County
and financed by the rate payers of Chula Vista and the entire
region.
Alternatives. Recommendations and Conclusions
Separating the flow commitment questions, there appears to be a
hierarchy of three primary organizational options available to the
City which demonstrates the relationship between risk, liability
and authority:
*1. Advisorv Role
This would be represented by the current situation where
the County and the Board of Supervisors remain as the
owners, planners and decision-makers of the system. At
this time, input is not formally solicited or organized
but a formal process could be devised. It is based on
the premise that a Supervisor represents the constituents
.2.P"';J
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date
rJ./)
4/20/93
in the district and the City has representation through
that arrangement.
PROS:
CONS:
-Minimum financial risk and required decision-
making on the City's part.
-May not be an option acceptable to the County
which has clearly requested active
participation in the system in return for
ongoing system usage at lowest possible cost.
#2. Solid Waste Commission
This is the "hybrid" organizational structure which is
represented in the proposed Agreement. It would leave
the County and the Board as owners and operators of the
system, but would share decision-making authority in the
areas of regional solid waste policy, including facility
planning, technology and the financing of capital needs
for the system.
PROS:
CONS:
-Allows City impact on future tip fees to the
extent that capital projects, and financing
and technological decisions are driving
factors in day-to-day operational costs as
well as long-term system commitments.
-City minimizes liability to General Fund
because this is an enhanced version of an
advisory role where some powers are delegated
by the Board to the Commission.
-May not be strong enough decision-making
role.
#3. New Leaal Entitv
This concept is represented by the idea that another
legal entity such as a JPA, SAD, etc., should be formed
which would allow the participants to assume a greater
and more equitable decision-making role in the system's
operations, long-term planning and financing needs.
PROS:
CONS:
-Increased authority and control.
-Increased financial liability to the City as
the new legal entity takes on the assets and
liabilities of the existing system. Unclear
if or how limitations could be placed which
would protect or prevent liability.
.;.&..1
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 4/20/93
01.1)
In sununary, the recommendations included in this report and
attachments highlight Option #2 with the caveat that the Agreement
be amended to require the Solid Waste Commission (once formed) to
examine in sufficient depth the necessity and realistic options for
evolving the "hybrid" advisory body into an entirely new legal
entity. This recommendation is based on the City's extreme concern
and caution about placing the General Fund at risk and setting the
stage for offering the public the most reliable, stable, and cost-
effective waste disposal system in the present and on into the
future.
Regardless of which organizational structure is chosen, it is
critical to note that the decision needs to be addressed before
long-range capital facility planning is finalized and informed
decisions on flow commitment can be made.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact as a result of Council's
immediate action on this item, although there will be fiscal
consequences at the time that final action is taken on the revised
Solid Waste Participation Agreement.
cJ~:5
City of Chula Vista
Solid Waste Task Force
Key Concerns
April 30, 1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS
#1. Flow Control Commitment Issues
Attachment A
A. Amount Needed for San Marcos Expansion
B. Amount Needed for Long-Term Waste Planning/ Term
of Agreement
C. Authority to Commit Flow
#2. Governance
#3. Liability Issues
#4. Tip Fees and Rates
#5. Solid Waste Facility Fees
#6. Long-Term Disposal Issues
.)I/~v
#1. FLOW CONTROL COMMITMENT ISSUES
A. AMOUNT NEEDED FOR SAN MARCOS EXPANSION
PROBLEM:
DISCUSSION:
SOLUTION:
RECOMMENDED
CHANGES:
No clear understanding of how much flow commitment is
abso lute ly necessary for County to finance $53M San
Marcos expansion.
City is unwilling to commit total flow (basically in
perpetuity) for the immediate problem at San Marcos.
City is willing to assist in solving financing problem
other ways, such as partial flow commitment, alternate
financing, etc.
Countv to clearly address auestion and answer will driye
City's recommended response and suggested language
changes.
Scenario 1: No waste flow guarantee necessary-
Delete reference to delivering all acceptable waste to
the system's facilities.
Scenario 2: Partial waste flow needed-
Wording for how to commit partial flow will also be
driven by settling the governance question noted in #2
below. Basic idea would be to commit partial flow, if
clearly needed for the San Marcos exoansion, only to the
extent necessary to allow San Marcos to move forward and
allow time to understand the consequences of the
governance choices.
One suggestion is to indicate that City will agree to
deliver certain tonnage or percentage of average annual
tonnage generated. May not be able to specify tonnage
needed until after cities agree to sign or not -- amount
needed from signatory cities would probably depend upon
how many signed. If so, include clause that amount will
be determined within 30-60 days following threshold of
signatures, not to exceed 50% of the City's 1992 tonnage
delivered to the Otay landfill...or any signatory city's
1992 tonnage. NOTE: THIS MAY BE A DIFFICULT CALCULATION
BECAUSE THERE IS STILL NO ACCURATE METHOD OF DETERMINING
EXACT TONNAGE AND JURISDICTION OF ORIGIN AS IT ENTERS
ANY LANDF I LL.
Reference: Section V.K.1- Deliverv of Acceotable Waste
to the System (page 11).
cJP~ ?
Page 2
B. AMOUNT NEEDED FOR LONG-TERM WASTE PLANNING/ TERM OF AGREEMENT
PROBLEM:
DISCUSSION:
SOLUTION:
RECOMMENDED
CHANGES:
City does not want to commit total flow in perpetuity,
i.e. 20 year rolling term.
City understands problem of needing to correctly size
and plan for financing of waste disposal facilities but
feels more control and flexibility needs to be retained.
Agree to partial commitment if necessary (see #1.A
above) in order to be able to explore commitment and
term options such as:
-Partial commitment for a 20 year rolling term,
i.e. allowing stability and longevity to the
system for planning and funding purposes
-Total commitment for a specified period less
than 20 years, i.e. City free to "move on" to
other waste disposal options although will still
retain some closure and post-closure (monitoring)
liability.
Either option is reasonable from a system planning
perspective. City's oreferred option would also be
driven by the aovernance choice discussed in #2 below.
"Best case" Scenario for City: No or minimal flow
required for the 20 year term of the San Marcos bonds
(IF THAT GOES FORWARD) with the City participating in a
Solid Waste Commission which then decides if it will
evolve into an entirely different legal entity, such as
a JPA.
Reference: Sections V.K.l- Delivery of Acceotable Waste
to the System (page 11) and V.O- Term ( page 18).
C. AUTHORITY TO COMMIT FLOW
PROBLEM:
DISCUSSION:
Some attorneys feel recent Minnesota court ruling
clearly restricts ability of municipalities to enter
into flow control agreements. Appl ication of that
ruling to this proposed Agreement in California is
unclear.
Waste management field is dynamic and volatile, with a
number of legal areas still untested or with significant
disagreement. Planning issues are critical and cannot
be put on hold pending judicial answers.
c2p.,.~
SOLUTION:
RECOMMENDED
CHANGES:
#2. GOVERNANCE
PROBLEM:
DISCUSSION:
SOLUTION:
RECOMMENDED
CHANGES:
ALTERNATIVES:
Page 3
Ensure that the Agreement contains language to protect
the cities and the County if and when subsequent case
law clarifies a city's inabil ity to legally commit waste
flow from its jurisdiction to certain disposal sites.
Reference: Sections V.K.2 and .3- Waste Flow
Enforcement and Power to Exerc i se Flow Contro 1 (page
12), as well as Section VI.I- Non-Severabilitv (page
25). City Attorney to supply suggested language to
protect City.
Agreement provides for a "hybrid" organizational
structure which is more than a (strictly) advisorv body
but less than a leqal entitv which would provide the
cities with more decision-making authority but
commensurately increased responsibility and liability.
City interested in structuring Agreement for equitable
treatment and maximum flexibility to impact meaninqful
decisions in the system, and limitation of liabilities
other than current ones, i.e. under CERCLA.
Agree that currently proposed "hybrid" structure allows
for the most risk-averse position at this time and
include provisions in language to require Commission to
carefully examine the pros and cons of evolving into a
JPA, SAD or other legal entity which would accomplish
desired goals.
Amend Sections V.A.1, .2, and .3- Establishment of the
Solid Waste Commission (page 6). City Attorney to
supply suggested language.
Not recommended:
-Full JPA now- May be a viable option now,
depending on how it is structured. However,
contro lover entire tip fee sett i ng (important
reason cited for wanting a JPA) is mistakenly
assumed to be a way to ensure lowest fees to
ratepayer. In reality, there is a floor to the
tip fee and it is driven by capital facility
costs and environmental regulations, as well as
the actual system operating costs (including
NCRRA) .
~~, '1
#3. LIABILITY ISSUES
PROBLEM:
#4. TIP FEES AND RATES
PROBLEM:
Page 4
-JPA with cities. not Countv- Has been suggested
as option to strengthen cities' position in
negotiating solution with the County. Does not
address the critical practical issue of needing
to plan for waste disposal (by setting stage for
continued posturing) and undermines mutually
beneficial aspects of regional cooperation.
-JPA with South Countv cities- Probably not as
financially attractive to cities to spread County
system costs over fewer participants. Could also
be contract for other waste di sposa 1 opt ions
although not an option being discussed by other
South Bay cities at his time.
-JPA with Countv and "landfill cities"- Also
undermines benefits of regional cooperation but
may be most reasonable alternative for discussion
if threshold is not reached with revised
Agreement.
-No chanae- Not a viable option to assume no
commitment of any kind to the County system and
expect to continue current relationship of being
able to use system facilities indefinitely. At
the very least, will require new information and
policy decisions regarding plan for future
disposal needs. May also involve significantly
higher tip fees for non-participant usage of
system in short-term, while deciding where to go.
Agreement does not adequate ly state how the future
system will deal with closure liability for all existing
and past users.
City Attorney will address specific liability concerns
not covered in Section V.P- Liability on pages 21-23.
Systemwide tip fees for all Member Agencies at any of
the system's like facilities are not adequately
described in the proposed Agreement, even though they
are referenced.
';P"'/P
DISCUSSION:
SOLUTION:
RECOMMENDED
CHANGES:
Page 5
A strong provision for systemwide fees at like
facilities. would benefit cities in the long run by
preventing any future potential to charge differential
fees based on geographic location. Subregionally-based
fees may appear to be potentially beneficial to South
Bay cities, but that benefit would probably disappear
within the next five years as a replacement landfill
site is purchased and permitted, and transfer and
recycling facilities are planned.
Strengthen or add new language to assure rate equality.
Amend Section V.N.1- Tip Fee Charoe (page 16) to read:
"The Tip Fee charged by the County for the disposal of
Acceptable Waste within the System shan be the same fee
charGed to an Member AGencies at 7ike facilities
throuGhout the Svstem reGard7ess of Doint of oriGin or
7ocation of the facilitv. and shall be sufficient to..."
#5. SOLID WASTE FACILITY FEES
PROBLEM:
DISCUSSION:
SOLUTION:
Current language regarding payment of solid waste
facility fees to host jurisdictions must be retained in
any revision to Agreement.
Regional consensus was reached on this issue outside the
negotiating arena of the Participation Agreement. The
concept and formula was approved by both the Board of
Supervisors and the AB939 Task Force (SANDAG). It is an
issue of fairness and the entire system benefits in the
long run by having a regionally acceptable method of
compensation rather than leaving the payment as
individually negotiated and tied to a local land use
decision.
A 11 ow no change to th i s part of the Agreement, i. e.
Section V.N.4 and .5- Solid Waste Facilitv Fee and
Mitioation Fee.
#6. LONG-TERM DISPOSAL OPTIONS
PROBLEM:
The Agreement only indirectly references that the
Commission would have control over policy decisions for
long-range disposal options, i.e. through the
establishment of the five year Capital Improvement Plan.
~O~J/
DISCUSSIDN:
SOLUTION:
RECOMMENDED
CHANGES:
Page 6
A number of long-term disposal options are available to
the City whether or not a part of this proposed
organizational structure (Sol id Waste Commission). Most
options are not realistic or appear to have serious
limitations at this time. However, time, circumstances
and techno log i ca 1 advances cou 1 d dramat i ca lly change
that picture.
If City is Member Agency and the Commission as a whole
decides NOT to pursue a long-term option favored by the
City, City can use the Agreement's Earlv Termination
clause (Section V.0.2, page 18) to withdraw from the
system. City will have financial liability for certain
closure, post-closure and capital planning costs, to be
determined at that time. Costs may be offset to some
degree by additional capacity created by the withdrawal.
A list of long-term disposal alternatives was briefly
described in the 3/30/93 Council Agenda Statement and is
currently being updated.
Retain ability to withdraw "early" if that clause has
meaning after decisions made about revisions to
governance, flow commitment and term of agreement.
No change.
02/)'),,2
Attachment B
Lonq-Term Disposal Alternatives
There are a number of possible alternatives currently being
discussed around the County although none will be available by July
1, 1993. In addition, these options may not offer reliable
alternatives in the near future (particularly to South Bay cities)
because of varying degrees of location, project completion,
environmental obstacles, or commitment limitations. It is
important to note that these options are independent of the Citv's
choice for a solid waste oraanizational structure.
The following brief description of some alternatives and their
strengths and weaknesses has been compiled from the experiences of
other cities in the County:
1) Rail haul to Utah- A recent offer to haul waste by rail
from the North County to a private landfill in East Carbon, utah is
currently being reviewed by a coalition of North County cities. It
is a newly developed landfill with about 190 million cubic yards of
capacity.
STRENGTHS:
-Willing to
contracts.
enter
into
long
term
-Also offers opportunity to purchase
capacity.
WEAKNESSES:
-East Carbon Development Corporation
(ECDC) declines to quote comparable
tipping fees and transport costs without
formal negotiations.
-More information would be needed about
the viability of hauling waste from South
Bay, i.e. rail availability, transfer
station, etc.
COST:
-Without RFP, difficult to accurately
predict. Estimated by City of Oceanside
at $58.47/ton for FY 94-95. If this is
reasonable base cost for Chula Vista, it
does not include transfer and transport
costs from South County.
2) Campo Indian Reservation- This is planned as a 600 acre
landfill on the Campo Indian Reservation and is a joint effort
between the Campo Band of Mission Indians, Mid-American Waste
Systems, Inc. and North American Recycling Corp. It will have a
total capacity of 40 million cubic yards and will be able to accept
3,000 tons of waste per day for more than 30 years.
~P"/J
2
There is rail and truck access, and construction will begin soon.
However, there is a strong possibility of litigation from area
residents over groundwater contamination which may delay the
availability of the facility, currently expected to be within the
next 12 to 18 months.
STRENGTHS:
WEAKNESSES:
COST:
-Of all facilities outside the County
system, this is the most easily
accessible location for South Bay cities.
-Projected tip fee information is not
available so it is difficult to compare
disposal, transfer and transport costs at
this time.
-Stability of contractual services on
Federal reservation would be of concern.
Unknown.
3) Eaale Mountain, Riverside Countv- This proposed landfill
at the former Kaiser Steel mine is presently in the State
permitting process and is not expected to be available for at least
two years, assuming environmental concerns and threatened
litigation are overcome. It .is the largest proposed disposal
facility in Southern California with an estimated capacity of 700
million tons. That capacity would provide 100 years of projected
regional disposal capacity at 20,000 tons per day.
STRENGTHS:
WEAKNESSES:
COST:
-Would provide adequate long-term
disposal capacity in Southern California,
for Chula Vista and/or cities in San
Diego County.
-Needs system of MRFs and transfer
stations located on or near rail lines
and direct rail routes do not currently
exist from the county.
-Unknown at this time.
4) Rail Cvcle to San Bernardino Countv- This is a proposal
to site a landfill in Amboy which has not yet been approved by San
Bernardino County and would probably be about one to two years
behind Eagle Mountain's schedule. The landfill has a 360 million
ton capacity. It would involve a comprehensive waste management
system including MRFs to be constructed along or near existing rail
lines, with waste residue from the MRFs transported by rail to the
disposal site approximately 225 miles from Los Angeles.
STRENGTHS:
-Would provide adequate long-term
disposal capacity in Southern California.
;l()'J'i
3
WEAKNESSES:
-Currently no planned transfer system to
allow cost-effective transport from South
Bay.
COST:
-Unknown at this time.
5 ) Oranqe Countv- The Prima de Sheca landfill located in San
Juan Capistrano has an extraordinary lifespan. Orange County
officials are actively seeking imported waste from the Los Angeles
area although current ordinances prohibit the acceptance of out-of-
county waste. The Board of Supervisors will consider a proposal in
April 1993 to amend the law and allow the acceptance with payment
of $10 per ton host fee. Several North County cities have
seriously pursued this alternative.
STRENGTHS:
-Current disposal availability.
WEAKNESSES:
-Lack of transfer system to make this an
immediately available and cost-effective
opportunity for South County.
-Present indication is that only short-
term (i.e. five year) contracts will be
solicited.
COST:
-Current tip fee is $23 per ton. Added
costs would be $10 per ton host fee, as
well as direct haul transport and/or
transfer costs. For comparison purposes,
short-term direct haul trucking costs
from North County are estimated at an
additional $16 per ton. Total South
County costs would likely be higher than
this $49 per ton estimate.
,1/)../5'
Attachment C
SANCAL PROJECT SUMMARY
San Marcos Landfill Expansion:
Tier I Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reimbursement for buffer zone homes already purchased
San E1ijo Ranch. . . . . . . . . .
Tier I property not yet purchased
$6.5 million
. . . . . . . . .
$4.0 million
Tier II Properties .
To be purchased
Tier III Properties.
To be purchased
Herzog Clay (SER) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reimbursement for contract on liner under construction
needed for closure plan even if no expansion
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
$10.0 million
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$7.0 million
$8.0 million
now;
Road Mitigation Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Required by San Marcos CUP, specific to expansion
Tax Increment- Economic Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.7 million
Reimbursement for solid waste facility ("host") fees paid to
City of San Marcos from 7-91 (original CUP approval) to 9-92
(revised CUP approval)
. . . . .
$2.4 mi 11 ion
Flare System . . . . .
APCD requirement
1 andf ill gas
North Pond, drainage . . . . . . . . . . .
For runoff: also closure requirement
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.7 mi 11 ion
at act i ve and i nact i ve sites; f1 ares off
. . . . . . . . . . .
$1.2 million
Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reimbursement for reserve funds
secure permits for expansion
Other CUP Requirements ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.5 million
Visual impacts, habitat replacement, revegetation; may not be
needed if no expansion
. . . . . . . . .. $1. 5 mill ion
spent over past few years to
Acquisition of Vista Transfer Station. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5.7 million
Reimbursement for site purchased when plan called for mu1ti-
site transfer system; will be sold if not needed
Ramona Buffer Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
To be purchased due to public opposition
San Ysidro Burn Site . . . . . .
Litigation settlement
. . . . .
$0.4 mi 11 ion
. . . . . . . .
. . . .
$0.2 million
,2/)'/"
TOTAL
$52.8 million
l