HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1992/04/28
,
jil doc!;,re under penalty of perjury that r atlf
em:~;!o'?ej by the City of Chula Vista in the
000::00 of tllo City der;, and that I posted
Lis 1I:;Hn:b)Not;;e on the Bulletin Board at
the f'Ublt~'~S Building and at CltY~n
DA 1'ED,,- :;l. -<- SIGNED C 1 ,a. ;:,;,"
V
Re~lar Meetinst of the City of Chula Vista City Council
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
Tuesday, April 28, 1992
6:00 p.m.
CAll TO ORDER
1.
ROIL CAlL:
Councilmembers Grasser Horton ~ Malcolm -' Moore ~ Rindone -' and
Mayor Nader _'
2. PLEDGE OF AlLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MlNlITES: None submitted.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Proclaiming Tuesday, April 28, 1992 as "NATIONAL YOurn: SERVICE DAY" - The
proclamation declaring Tuesday, April 28, 1992 as "NATIONAL YOurn: SERVICE DAY" will
be presented by Mayor Nader to Deric Prescott, Chair of the Youth Commission, and Ty
Meservy, Youth Commissioner.
b. Proclaiming the week of May 3-9, 1992 as .CIJL TURAL ARTS WEEK" . The proclamation
declaring the week of May 3-9, 1992 as "CULTURAL ARTS WEEK" will be presented by
Mayor Nader to Ms. Dency Souval, Chair of Chula Vista's Cui rural Arts Commission.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 12)
The Sl/Jff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enJJJ;ted by the
Cowu:il by one motion wiJhout discussion unless a Counci1member, a member of the publU: or CiI.y staff requests
that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, pkase fill out a .Request to
Speak Form. available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form
to speak in favor of the Sl/Jff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff
recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Action Items and Boards and
Commission Recommendations. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
5. WRITfEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter of resignation from Resource Conservation Commission. Jackie McQuade, 339 East
"J" St., Chula Vista, CA 91910.
b. Letter requesting consideration for the formation of a History Commission to spearllead the
work on a local history museum . Dr. Ronald Williams, Chairman, Library Board of
Trustees, Chula Vista Public Library, 365 "F" St., Chula Vista, CA 91910.
c. Letter requesting support to invite a high school student to be an ex-officio, non-voting
member of the Library Board of Trustees. Dr. Ronald Williams, Chairman, Library Board
of Trustees, Chula Vista Public Library, 365 'F" St., Chula Vista, CA 91910.
Agenda
-2-
April 28, 1992
6. ORDINANCE 2505 AMENDING SECI10N 2.14.080(A) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXTEND
THE DURATION OF THE AUlliORITY OF THE CI1Y MANAGER TO
PROCLAIM A STATE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY UNTIL THE NEXT
REGill.ARLY SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING (second readinR: and
adoption) - The Municipal Code provides that the City Manager's
proclamation of emergency is only good for seven days after proclamation
unless ratified by the Council at a meeting conducted by them. The
ordinance would extend the City Manager's authority until the next
regularly scheduled meeting or a special meeting called by the Council.
Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and
adoption. (City Attorney)
7. ORDINANCE 2506 TECHNICAL CLEAN-UP AMENDING TITLES I, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14,
15, 17, 18, AND 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FEES AND
THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE (second readinR: and adoption) - Phase I of
a comprehensive update of the Master Fee Schedule to transfer fees from
the Municipal Code to the Fee Schedule and make several principally
administrative and organizational changes in the Municipal Code and
Master Fee Schedule. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on
second reading and adoption. (City Attorney and Director of Finance)
8. ORDINANCE 2511 AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE BY
ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 15.54 ESTABUSHING PROCEDURES FOR THE
ASSESSMENT AND COllECI10N OF BRlDGEAND THOROUGHFARE FEES
(first readinR:) - The proposed ordinance would enable the City to establish
a fee district pursuant to Section 66484 of the Map Act and the charter
powers of the City. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first
reading. (City Attorney, Director of Public Works)
9. RESOLUTION 16604 APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR (FY) 1992-93 CLAIMS FOR THE FY 1992-
93 TWO PER CENTNON-MOTORlZEDTRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT
ACT (IDA) FUND AND TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX (TRANSNET)
FUNDS - The City submits an updated list of projects annually for inclusion
in the seven year implementation program of the non-motorized element
of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. As required by
SANDAG regulations, a tentative set of claims was submitted to SANDAG
on 2/28/92, which is subject to Council approval. In order that claims for
the projects may be considered for funding by the SANDAG Board of
Directors, Council must pass a resolution authorizing submittal of the FY
1992-93 Bicycle Projects Claims for available Transportation Development
Act and Transportation Sales Tax Transnet Funds. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
10. RESOLUTION 16605 CALUNG A PUBUC HEARING TO DETERMINE WHE1HER PUBUC
NECESSITY, HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE REQUIRES THE FORMATION
OF AN UNDERGROUND UTIUTY DISTRICT ALONG FOURTH AVENUE
FROM "E" STREET TO A POINT APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET SOUlli OF
STATE HIGHWAY 54 - On 11/12/91, Council approved Resolution Number
16415 accepting a report on the City's Utility Underground Conversion
Program and approving a revised list of Utility Underground Conversion
Projects. This is the top priority utility conversion project listed in the
Agenda
.3.
April 28, 1992
City's adopted program. On 4/8192, an Underground Utility Advisory
Committee (UUAC) meeting was held to consider the proposed boundary
of an underground utility district for the conversion of existing overhead
utilities. The district's limits extend along Fourth Avenue from "E" Street
to a point approximately 100 feet south of State Highway 54. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
11. RESOLUTION 16606 ESTABIJSHING DATES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO BE READY TO
RECEIVE UNDERGROUND SERVICE AND REMOVAL OF POLES AND
OVERHEAD FACIIJTIES WITHIN PHASE I OF UNDERGROUND UTIlJTY
DISTRICT NUMBER 119 ALONG MAIN STREET FROM 1.5 FREEWAY TO
INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD . On 6/13/89, Council adopted Resolution
Number 14128 establishing Underground Utility District Number 119 along
Main Street from 1.5 Freeway to Industrial Boulevard. In accordance with
Section 15.32.150 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, adopted Resolution
Number 14128 states that the Council shall by subsequent resolution fix
the date upon which affected property owners must be ready to receive
underground service and the date poles, overhead wires and associated
structures shall be removed. The conversion of existing, overhead utilities
to underground utilities is almost complete. Staff recommends approval of
the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
12. REPORT TRAFFIC CONCERNS AT MAIN POST OFFICE, 750 THIRD AVENUE . Staff
received letters from Mr. L. Colman requesting changes to the existing
signing and pavement markings on Third Avenue adjacent to the Post
Office. Staff recommends acceptance of the report and that no changes be
made to the existing traffic control devices and striping on Third Avenue
adjacent to the Post Office exit driveway. (Director of Public Works)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBIJC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to spellk
to any item, please fill out the "R~ to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior
to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form
to spellk in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individuDL
13.
PUBIJC HEARING
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT PCC.91.24: APPEAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVAL OF REQUEST TO REDEVELOP SERVICE
STATION AND ADD MINI.MARKET AND CAR WASH AT 1498 MELROSE
AVENUE. The application, submitted by Texaco Refining and Marketing,
Inc., requests permission to redevelop the service station at 1498 Melrose
Avenue with new facilities, including new dispenser islands and canopy,
1,800 square foot mini-market/cashier building, and a 750 square foot
mechanical car wash. The permit was approved by the Planning
Commission on 118/92 and has been appealed by Council. Staff
recommends postponement. (Director of Planning) Continued from
meeting of 3/24/92.
Agenda
-4-
April 28, 1992
14.
PUBUC HEARING
DRC-92-04: APPEAL OF TIiE PLANNlNG COMMISSION DECISION
DENYING A FREESTANDING SIGN DESIGN FOR TIiE BUSINESS
ESTABUSHMENT AT 830 BROADWAY - PACIFIC SIGN CONSTRUcnON
COMPANY. The Design Review Committee and Planning Commission
voted unanimously to deny a freestanding sign design to identify the
business establishment located at 830 Broadway. However, both the
Design Review Committee and Planning Commission approved a scale
down version of the same sign design to ensure proper addition of the
proposed freestanding sign with other signs within the immediate
commercial neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Planning)
RESOLUTION 16607 DENYING TIiE APPEAL AND APPROVING TIiE FREESTANDING SIGN
HEIGHT AND COPY AREA RECOMMENDED BY TIiE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE TO IDENTIPY TIiE
BUSINESS ESTABUSHMENT LOCATED AT 830 BROADWAY
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Couru:i1 on any subject tnilIter within the Couru:i1's
jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (Stote' law, Iwwever, generally prohibits the City Couru:i1 from
taking action on any issues not inl:luded on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Couru:i1 on such a
subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" availoble in the lobby
and submit it to the City Clerfc prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your 1Ul1fIe and address
for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker.
AcnON ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and ddiberations by the
Coundl, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Couru:i1 and staff
recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the altemative. Those who wish to speak, please fiB out
a "Request to Speak" form availoble in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Public
comments are limited to five minutes.
15. RESOLUTION 16608 APPROVING RESIDENT/NON-RESIDENT GREEN FEE SCHEDULE FOR TIiE
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE - At the meeting of 3/19/91,
Council approved the current green fee schedule for the Chula Vista
Municipal Golf Course. Council directed staff and American Golf to
develop and present to Council a proposal for a resident discount rate
before any future increase is considered. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation)
16. REPORT CARDROOM PROVISIONS: REGARDING RECENT CHANGES IN STATE
LAW PROVIDING FOR ADDmONAL GAMING OPTIONS - Pursuant to oral
and written communications received by Council, staff was directed to
investigate any recent changes in state laws that have gone into effect since
this issue was last discussed by Council. Council specifically directed staff
not to revisit the entire cardroom subject but to focus upon new gaming
options available as a result of such changes to state law. Municipalities
still retain substantial authority to impose controls and conditions upon
local gaming operations. Staff recommends not amending existing
Municipal Codes regarding cardrooms. (Chief of Police)
Agenda
.5.
April 28, 1992
17.
REPORT
WORK PROGRAM FOR A SCHOOL IMPACf MITIGATION STUDY IN
CONJUNCllON WITH 1HE CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
D1STRICf - In 1990, Council directed staff to complete a General
Plan/Zoning Consistency Study for areas of Central Chula Vista where the
1989 General Plan Update resulted in residential densities significantly
below those allowed by the existing zoning. During the public hearing
process for the first two phases of the program, the Chula Vista Elementary
School District objected to any proposed General Plan Amendments which
increased allowable residential density on the grounds that the City did not
provide for adequate mitigation of impacts to the elementary schools. As
part of the Council action on a zoning consistency study area on 2/25/92,
staff indicated that they would be preparing a work program for a study
which would address the impacts of new residennal development on
elementary schools prior to, or concurrently with, action on the remaining
zoning consistency study areas. It is recommended that Council direct staff
to fmalize the work program for the School Impact Mitigation Study and
return with a fmal work program and schedule. (Director of Plannmg)
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the CUy CoundI will ccmsUJer items whii:h have been forwarded to them for ccmsUJeration by (JIll!
of the CUy's Boards, Commissions and/or Committees.
None submitted.
ITEMS PUllED FROM 1HE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the CUy CoundI will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Colendor. Agenda
items pu11ed at the request of the publii: will be considered prior to those pu11ed by CoundImembers. Publii:
comments are limited to five mirwtes per individual
OlliER BUSINESS
18. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTrS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
b. Discussion regarding "Age of Russia."
19. MAYOR'S REPORTrS)
a. Ratification of appoinnnent for the Design Review Committee
20. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to the Regular City Council Meeting on May 5, 1992 at 4:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers.
REVISION TO TRANSMITTAL LETTER
FOR APRIL 28, 1992 COUNCIL MEETING
April 28, 1992
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
John o. Goss, City Manage~?
City Council Meeting of A~ril 28, 1992
In connection with Written Communication 5c on the agenda from the Chairman of
the Library Board, further research of the Municipal Code has indicated that the
Youth Commission has the ability to appoint ex-officio members to various City
Boards and Commissions. Subsection C of Section 2.46.100 (Duties and functions
designated) states that it is a duty or function of the Youth Commission to:
"Assign one or more of its members to sit with and participate in
the deliberations of the various boards and commissions of the City
in accordance with reasonab Ie ru les and regu lations that may be
adopted by said boards and commissions and thus be ex officio
members of said boards and commissions."
Therefore, staff will contact the Youth Commission and request them to appoint
an ex-officio member to the Library Board, and will so notify the Library Board.
NO ACTION IS REQUIRED BY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM.
JDG:mab
~ cowelL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM '-Ia..-
MEETING DATE 4/28/92
ITEM TITLE: Proclamation - Proclaiming Tuesday, April 28, 1992 as
"NATIONAL YOUTH SERVICE DAY"
SUBMITTED BY: Mayor Tim Nader
("/STRS VOTE: YES_ NO xx
The proclamation declaring Tuesday, April 28, 1992 as "NATIONAL
YOUTH SERVICE DAY" will be presented by Mayor Nader to Deric Prescott,
Chair of the Youth Commission and Ty Meservy, Youth Commissioner.
t!4-/
".,.~.. ,'-'- ',.n',_ ,.
_,',Glf ~
" COUNCIL AGBNDA STATBMENT
I'l'EM
MEETING DATE 4/28/92
J/b
ITEM TITLE: Proclamation - Proclaiming the Week of May 3 through
May 9, 1992 as "CULTURAL ARTS WEEK"
SUBMITTBD BY: Hayor Tim Nad~ (4/5'l'J[S VOTE: YES_ NO xx
The proclamation declaring the week of May 3 through May 9, 1992 as
"CULTURAL ARTS WEEK" will be presented by Mayor Nader to Ms. Dency
Souval, Chair of Chu1a vista's Cultural Arts Commission.
'I/:; .'f
.., ,..
;,.;"_~'i',',:_
RECEIVED
'92 APR 20 P 4 :05
CITV C. rH" , ""~A
. f Jr v :UL;): \ii~~ j
CITY CLERK'S OFFiCE
April 15, 1992
City Clerk
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Ms. Authelet:
It has been necessary for me to take on a second job, which
requires evening hours. As a consequence, I am unable to
continue in my post as a Resource Conservation Commissioner.
I therefore regretfully submit this letter of resignation.
I appreciate all the assistance I received in learning the
procedures and policies of the City, and I especially enjoyed
working with Doug Reid and the members of the commission.
Thank you for the opportunity to have been a part of community
input.
Sincerely,
~~<~
Jackie McQuade
pc: Doug Reid
Barbara Hall
Od
.l
/-, ' r'
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
,In l/),}.sj'};J.
t-f)
,.,.-. r
(' ~ { r f'; .
. Ocr 'r, i, C,(rJi\J._f.-. \ t..\
'Z))d ~-4 - ;kl?""rt:-Y
S~-I
~V?-
2"'_ ~
~--...;:.-....::.-...;
..............-:...~
~~~-
RECEIVED
'W APR 23 P3:27
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
CHULA VISTA PUBLIC LIBRARY
.'. ' r~:;j t, l .- i'i':.~ T i'i.
ell" ,)cr L''''.'-'"' .,..,,1 c.'
i \ ...-,IV ,- -.-'.-'C
em CLERY;: i!i ri\-...
April 22, 1992
The Honorable Mayor and city Council
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor and Council:
The Library Board of Trustees would like to recommend for your
consideration the formation of a History commission to spearhead
the work on a local history museum.
The Library Board of Trustees is involved in planning for the South
Chula vista Library, the possible joint use of the EastLake High
School and work on other new regional libraries and would like to
concentrate its efforts on these issues.
It would seem appropriate that a separate History commission work
on the issues arising from this w venture.
nCerelY'~
Dr. Ronald Williams
Chairman
Library Board of Trustees
c~,
- WRiTTEN COMMUNICATIONS
~.' ~. L(~) ~ t61;J~
~ ~~.-, 5b"/
, ,/ 365 F STREET/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(6191 691-5168
~v~
:..- ~
~......,;~--..;
~Zi::~";:--
ClN OF
CHULA VISTA
?ECEIVED
CHULA VISTA PUBLIC LIBRARY
APR 23 P3:27
y i;fiULA 'liST A.
CLEHK"j OFFICE
April 20, 1992
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor and Council:
The Library Board of Trustees would like to ask for your support
in our desire to invite a high school student to be an ex-officio,
non-voting member of our Board. We feel that this would be an
excellent manner in which to involve young people in library issues
and city government.
Our first choice for a representative would be EastLake High
School, since there is an issue before us now regarding the
possible joint use of the school library. The term would be for
one year and would rotate among the other high schools. A student
representing the youth of our community would add much to our
Board.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
~
Dr. Ronald Williams
Chairman
Library Board of Trustees
. /I~. 7-/' . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS L171.Jr./~rI} ')
cL, ~)/(r(y) 0--1,1-0/9,
U/. ~1. . 5c.-/
365 F STREET/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5168
I
.
.
.
council Agenda statement
Item:~~
'I/~Kj9~
Meeting ~.: April 21, 1992
-~l;.OIVD
Ordinance No '2.SD_';, Amending secti~~..14. 080 (A)
of the Municipal Code to extend the dur<<~~~.of
the authority of the City Manager to procIc!lIlllOa
state of local emergency until the next regula~e
scheduled Council meeting. \) /,(O~
Submitted by: Bruce M. Boogaard, city Attorney~~
Agenda Classification: (XX) Consent
( ) Action Item
( ) Public Hearing
( ) Other:
Item Title:
4/5ths Vote: ( ) Yes (X) No
If an emergency strikes the community of Chula vista, and the
City Manager declares a state of "local emergency", the City
Manager is conferred extraordinary powers under our Emergency
Services ordinance, codified in Chapter 2.14 of the Municipal
Code.
However, currently, our Municipal Code provides that the city
Manager's proclamation of emergency is only good for seven (7)
days after proclamation unless ratified by the city Council at a
meeting conducted by them.
Occasionally, there are gaps of greater than seven (7) days in
the regular meetings of the city Council, an~ often the
Councilmembers plan their vacations around these gaps. Given
this fact, and the fact that a serious emergency may affect the
ability of the Council to meet for a special meeting, it appears
reasonable to anticipate that we may have difficulty convening a
quorum to ratify the Manager's proclamation of emergency.
The attached ordinance would extend the City Manager's authority
until the next regularly scheduled Council meeting.
Recommendation:
Adopt the attached Ordinance.
emerg2.wp
April 9, 1992
A11J re Proclamation Duration
Page 1
~ fe,-/
Boards and Commissions Recommendation:
.......
None; None Applicable.
Discussion:
With the adoption of this proposed change, the Council may, if
they still feel it necessary or desirable,' still convene such a
special meeting under the existing rules for calling a special
meeting. However, if for any reason related or unrelated to the.
emergency they can not convene a quorum within the seven (7)
days, the authority of the City Manager, as the Director of
Emergency Services, should not be limited.
After the change, the Section will read as follows:
"2.14.080 Director-powers and duties.
A.
The director of emergency services is empowered to:
Request the city council to proclaim the existence or
threatened existence of a "local emergency" if the city
council is in session, or to issue such proclamation if
the city council is not in session. Whenever a local
emergency is proclaimed by the director, the city
council shall take action to ratify the proclamation
~itaiR seveR days thcreaftcr at their next reqularlv
scheduled Council meetinq held after the date of the
proclamation or the proclamation shall have no further
force or effect; . . .:"
"""\
Fiscal Impact:
Negligible.
emerg2.wp
April 9, 1992
Al13 re Proclamation Duration
Page 2
"""'"
~ ~-",2
Boards and Commissions Recommendation:
None; None Applicable.
Discussion:
with the adoption of this proposed change, the Council may, if
they still feel it necessary or desirable, still convene such a
special meeting under the existing rules for calling a special
meeting. However, if for any reason related or unrelated to the
emergency they can not convene a quorum within the seven (7)
days, the authority of the City Manager, as the Director of
Emergency Services, should not be limited.
After the change, the section will read as follows:
"2.14.080 Director-Powers and duties.
The director of emergency services is empowered to:
A. Request the city council to proclaim the existence or
threatened existence of a "local emergency" if the city
council is in session, or to issue such proclamation if
the city council is not in session. Whenever a local
emergency is proclaimed by the director, the city
council shall take action to ratify the proclamation
~ithiR se~eR days thereaf~er at their next reaularlv
scheduled Council meetina held after the date of the
oroclamation or the proclamation shall have no further
force or effect; . . .:"
Fiscal Impact:
Negligible.
emerg2.wp
April 9, 1992
Al13 re Proclamation Duration
Page 2
~~-02
8('C
04'0
~~O/.t,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING 'Q ~
SECTION 2.14.080(A) OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL ~
CODE TO EXTEND THE DURATION OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE ~~
CITY MANAGER TO PROCLAIM A STATE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY ~l,rOA'
UNTIL THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEEETING 'r
ORDINANCE NO. 2505
The City Council of the city of Chula vista does ordain
as follows:
SECTION I: That Section 2.14.080A of the Chula vista
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.14.080 Director-Powers and duties.
The director of emergency services is empowered to:
A. Request the city council to proclaim the existence
or threatened existence of a "local emergency" if
the city council is in session, or to issue such
proclamation if the city council is not in
session. Whenever a local emergency is proclaimed
by the director, the city council shall take
action to ratify the proclamation \:ithiR seveR
days thereafter at their next reaularlv scheduled
Council meetina held after the date of the
proclamation or the proclamation shall have no
further force or effect unless terminated sooner
bY the city Council at a special meetina called bY
the council for that purpose; . . .:"
SECTION I: This ordinance shall take effect and be in
full force on the h rtieth day from and after its adoption.
rm by
~-J
.
.
.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: /.I)./#:J!J 7
. Meeting Date:4/21/92 ~~~
~l:.(;U 'Ii
..., "'Ot.. tVD~~
Ordinance ....:;) Amending Ti_~ 1, 2, 3, 5,
6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 an~VQ.~^.of the
Municipal Code relating to fees and the Ma~we~Lf~e
Schedule. ~rIO~
Resolution 11.'51~ Adopting 'an amended Master
Fee Schedule which reflects inclusion of fees
affected by Ordinance
SOBMITTED BY: city Attorney
Director of Finance~~
REVIEWED BY: city Manager0" (4j5ths Vote: Yes_ No1.J
t/
ITEM TITLE:
Several fees have been added to or changed in the Master Fee
Schedule since its creation ten years ago, but the document has not
undergone a comprehensive review since 1987. Staff has divided
this proposed update into two phases:
Phase I
1). Transfer information regarding specific fee amounts
from the Municipal Code to the Master Fee Schedule.
2). Make several principally administrative
modifications in the Municipal Code and the Master
Fee Schedule for greater clarity and consistency.
Phase II 3). Update designated fees to account for increases in
costs; propose adoption of new fees.
Because of the importance of scheduling and advertising for public
hearings, staff is presenting this item in two parts. Phase I -
being considered now - accomplishes the administrative groundwork
necessary for the Master Fee Schedule update to proceed. All
changes to the fees themselves have been scheduled for Phase II of
the update to allow sufficient time to notify the public and other
interested groups (e.g. Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business
Association, Building Industry Association, etc.) of the proposed
amendments.
There is no fiscal impact associated with this phase of the update.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Adopt Ordinance amending several sections of the Municipal
Code relating to fees and the Master Fee Schedule.
Note: Item 1 is directly linked to the following resolution
~
7,/
which provides for several corresponding changes in the city I s
Master Fee Schedule and should. thus. be adooted in concert
with Item 2. ~
2. Adopt Resolution adopting an amended Master Fee Schedule which
reflects inclusion of fees affected by Ordinance
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
Transfer of Existina Fees
As originally established in 1982, the Master Fee Schedule is a
centralized listing of the fees charged by the City for services
and administrative acts and other legally required fees. The
schedule serves as a resource for the public to determine the costs
of various types of City services without the need for extensive
research or a specialized understanding of municipal government.
For the schedule to serve that purpose, it must be comprehensive.
In its current form, the schedule omits several fees which have
been authorized by previous council actions and are included in the
Municipal Code. If the schedule is purported to be an
authoritative collection of City fees, the general public will
assume that if a particular fee is not listed in the schedule, it
does not exist. In order to eliminate such confusion, all fees
currently listed in the Municipal Code should be transferred to the ~
Master Fee Schedule.
The process for such a transfer is as follows:
1. The Municipal Code is amended to remove the actual amount of
the fee and to refer instead to the Master Fee Schedule.
2. The Master Fee Schedule is amended to include the amount of
the fee and a cross-reference to the code.
Thus, the code retains the authorization for the fee, but the fees
themselves are all listed in a single document. Aside from the
convenience this provides for the public, it also lessens the
possibility of inconsistencies in the application or updating of
the fees on the part of City staff.
Administrative Modifications
Since the scope of this project was envisioned to be comprehensive,
staff has highlighted several secondary issues that also deserve
attention at this time. These changes are principally
administrative in nature and do not affect the level or assessment
of fees. In general, these changes fall into three categories:
vague or confusing language in the code, organization of the fee ~
j.tJ4
7-..2.
.
.
.
schedule, and various other issues involving legal clarifications
or amendments.
3.
Chapter 1.20 of the code provides for general penalties and
for discretion on the part of the prosecutor in dealing with
those penalties. However, several code sections describing
violations of the code have variously referred to: violations,
infractions, misdemeanors, and specific fines or jail terms to
be imposed. On the advice of the City Attorney, staff
recommends amending all such references to make the proscribed
code violation "unlawful." (Note: Although the penalties for
code violations do not fit the definition of fees and are thus
not included in the Master Fee Schedule, staff feels that
these code amendments are similar enough in character to the
others contained in the attached ordinance to consider them
within a single agenda item.)
Another legal issue which has been addressed through this
update concerns certain fees the City currently charges which
have been authorized through Council resolution but not
through the Municipal Code. The City Attorney has advised
that, notwithstanding any prior resolutions, such fees should
also be specifically authorized by language in the Municipal
Code to avoid potential challenges.
~.7~
Phase II
In consideration of the legal concerns raised above, there are some
new fees to be proposed in Phase II for which additional
authorizing language may be necessary. This language has been
included in the Phase I code amendments so that the authorization
would precede any imposition of the fees and any potential
ambiguity can be avoided. As the fees themselves would be
presented through a public hearing in Phase II of the update, this
language would have no independent effect on the City's fees.
"""
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A .
"""
A:\MFS113.GWY
Attachments
.......,
p:vt(
?-tf
.
ORDINANCE NO. 2'!iol.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ~ISTA
AMENDING, ADDING, AND REPEALING US
SECTIONS OF TITLES 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9,. 10, . ~IVG
13, 14, 15, 17, 18 AND 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL IJfVD
CODE RELATING TO FEES AND THE MASTER FEE IiDOp
SCHEDULE. -'IO~
The city Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain
as follows:
.
SECTION I: That sections 1.30.080, 1.30.120, 1.30.180
2.09.020, 2.16.030, 2.50.130, 2.58.010, 2.60.060, 2.60.150,
2.64.020, 2.66.310, 2.70.010, 2.70.030, 3.45.010, 5.02.040,
5.02.150, 5.02.190, 5.04.160, 5.06.020, 5.08.060, 5.10.350,
5.14.030, 5.14.060, 5.20.040, 5.20.070, 5.26.030, 5.35~105,
5.36.080, 5.36.090, 5.36.160, 5.36.170, 5.38.030, 5.38.120,
5.40.010, 5.48.060, 5.56.100, 5.64.040, 6.02.010, 6.02.020,
6.12.020, 6.12.030, 6.12.040, 6.12.045, 6.16.030, 6.16.050,
6.20.030, 6.20.040, 6.20.050, 6.20.060, 6.20.070, 9.06.050,
9.06.130, 9.11.040, 10.24.140, 10.56.300, 10.60.020, 10.72.050,
10.84.020, 12.08.100, 12.12.100, 12.20.100, 12.20.240, 12.24.060,
12.24.070, 12.28.050, 12.28.060, 12.40.020, 12.44.020, 13.14.020,
13.14.030,13.14.090,13.14.110,13.14.120, 13.14.130, 13.14.150,
13.14.170, 14.16.020, 15.04.290, 15.08.015, 15.08.030, 15.08.050,
15.08.060, 15.08.070, 15.08.075, 15.08.078, 15.16.030, 15.16.040,
15.20.020, 15.20.040, 15.24.015, 15.24.060, 15.28.025, 15.28.040,
15.28.050, 15.32.040, 15.32.050, 15.32.060, 15.32.070, 15.36.020,
15.44.050, 15.44.070, 15.44.090, 15.48.060, 15.50.060, 15.51.020,
17.02.010, 17.08.050, 17.10.070, 17.16.270, 18.04.040, 18.16.240,
18.24.050, 18.28.010, 18.28.020, 18.28.030, 18.28.040, 18.28.050,
18.28.080, 18.28.090, 18.48.050, 18.54.100, 19.06.010, 19.07.010,
19.08.040, 19.12.030, 19.12.140, 19.14.030, 19.14.070, 19.14.160,
19.14.260, 19.14.360, 19.14.440, 19.14.486, 19.14.490, 19.14.510,
19.14.571, 19.14.577, 19.14.582, 19.14.590, 19.14.600, 19.48.040,
19.48.080, 19.48.090, 19.58.370, 19.58.380, 19.60.020, 19.60.070,
19.60.080, 19.60.500 and 19.62.040 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code are hereby amended as shown in Exhibit "A", attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
SECTION II: That sections 2.58.020, 2.58.030,
2.58.040, 2.58.050, 2.58.060, 5.10.040, 5.10.110, 5.10.120,
5.10.130, 5.10.140, 5.10.150, 5.10.160, 5.10.170 and 6.28.030 and
Chapter 5.15 of the Chula vista Municipal Code are hereby repealed.
SECTION III: That new sections 1.04.080, 2.58.015 and
6.12.060 are hereby added to the Chula vista Municipal Code as
shown in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as if set forth in full.
.
'1.-/
....
./
/
f
,p
\
SECTION IV: This ordinance shall take effect and be in
full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption.
-..,
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Q)-~
D. Richard Rud ssistant
City Attorney
Lyman Christopher, Director of
Finance
--,
""'"',
1-2
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ItellLL
Meeting Date 4/28/92
Ordinance ~I' of the City of Chula Vista amending
Title 15 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code by adding a new
Chapter 15.54 establ i shi ng procedures for the assessment and
collection of bridge and thoroughfare fees
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public wor~~
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-x-)
The proposed ordinance would enable the City to establish a fee district
pursuant to Section 66484 of the Map Act and the charter powers of the City of
Chula Vista.
ITEM TITLE:
RECOMMENDATION: Place ordinance on first reading.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Chapter 15.50 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code deals with reimbursement
districts for public improvements but specifically excludes public
improvements that are installed in conjunction with a proceeding for which
assessments are levied. However, in some cases this is desirable and the
ordinance before Council addresses that.
By adoption of this Ordinance, the City Council would enact procedures
pursuant to whi ch it may establ i sh a fee to overl ay Assessment Di stri ct No.
90-2 (Otay Valley Road) to be assessed and collected in the event that
properties within the proposed Assessment District are developed at a level of
intensity higher than that assumed in establ ishing the assessments for the
Assessment District.
The Ordinance itself is proposed to be enacted under the authority of both the
Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and the charter authority of
the City of Chula Vista. The Subdivision Map allows a city to enact an
ordinance to establish procedures for the assessment and collection of bridge
and thoroughfare fees as a condition of the approval of a final map or as a
condition of the issuance of a building permit pertaining to properties within
the defined areas of benefit.
The Ordinance itself is an enabling ordinance, i.e., it establishes procedures
pursuant to which a specific bridge of thoroughfare fee may be established.
If enacted, the City Council would be authorized to establish a bridge or
thoroughfare fee within a defined area of benefit pursuant to the following
procedures:
~"-J
Page 2, ItelR ~
Meeting Date 4/28/92
1. Based upon the recommendation of City staff to establ ish a bridge or
thoroughfare fee within a defined area of benefit, the City Council would
be required to schedule a public hearing to consider the establishment of
such a fee and area of benefit.
2. Notice of the public hearing would be provided to all affected property
owners. The notice woul d descri be the proposed area of benefit, the
estimate of the cost of the bridge or major thoroughfare facilities to be
financed through the assessment and collection of fees, and the proposed
method of apportionment of the fees.
3. At the time and place of the publ ic hearing, the City Council would
receive evidence and testimony from interested parties regarding the
proposed fee and area of benefi t. Owners of property proposed to be
subject to the assessment of the fee may fil e a wri tten protest against
the estab 1 i shment of the area of benefi t, the boundari es of the area of
benefit or the improvements proposed to be financed. If a majority of
the property owners wi thi n a proposed area of benefi t fil e a written
protest against the establishment of the area of benefit or the bridge or
thoroughfare fee, the proceed i ngs must be abandoned and the City Counc il
may not initiate proceedings to establ ish the same area of benefit and
fee for a period of one (1) year.
4. Assuming that a majority protest does not exist, the City Council may, by
resolution, establish the area of benefit and the bridge or thoroughfare
fee. The resolution is thereafter recorded in the Office of the County
Recorder in order to provide notice to affected property owners of the
fee obligation.
The fee would be payable as a condition of approval of a final map or as a
condition of the issuance of a building permit for property within an
establ i shed area of benefi t. The Ordi nance contai ns provi si ons which woul d
authorize the City Council to accept an alternative consideration in 1 ieu of
the payment of the fee, e.g., construction of all or a portion of the
improvements to be financed from the fees. Additionally, the Ordinance
contains provisions which would allow the City Council to provide a credit
against the payment of fees. Such a credit could, for example, be provided
where the bridge or major thoroughfare improvements to be financed from the
proceeds of the fee is initially financed through the issuance of assessment
district or community facilities district bonds.
It is proposed that following enactment of the Ordinance an area of benefit be
establ ished for the properties within the boundaries of Assessment District
No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road) for the purpose of providing for the assessment
and collection of a fee to reimburse the Assessment District for the costs of
construction of Otay Valley Road. The fee would be based upon a specific
dollar amount per daily vehicle trips estimated to be generated from a
particular parcel assuming development in accordance with the General Plan.
'6 ... ,?,
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 4/28/92
~
If a property withi n the Assessment Di stri ct is permitted to develop at a
level of intensity which would cause the generation of more daily vehicle
tri ps than that refl ected in the assessment on such property, the property
owner would be required to pay a thoroughfare fee representing the increased
daily vehicle trips resulting from the actual development of the property.
This fee would be used to redeem Assessment District bonds prior to maturity,
thus lowering the amount of the annual assessment installment payable by other
property owners within the Assessment District.
FISCAL IMPACT: None to the City.
Exhibit Schedule:
A. Ordinance
B. Map Act, Section 66484
C. Chapter 15.50 of Municipal Code (Ord. 1764)
D. Council Report on Ordinance 1764
DDS:fp/AY-081, AY-OOl
WPC 5977E
g'-:J
W. "1~'\\
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE CHULA
VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW
CHAPTER 15.54 ESTABLISHING
PROCEDURES FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND
COLLECTION OF BRIDGE AND
THOROUGHFARE FEES
The City Council of the City of Chula vista does ordain as
follows:
SECTION I: That Chapter 15.54 of the Chula vista city Municipal
Code is hereby added to read as follows:
Sec. 15.54.010 Purpose.
The pu7Pose of this Chapter 15.54 is to make provision for
assess1ng and collecting fees within specified Areas of
Benefit (defined hereinbelow) as a condition of approval of a
final map or as a condition of issuing a building permit for
purposes of defraying the actual or estimated cost of
constructing bridges over waterways, railways, freeways, and
canyons or major thoroughfares pursuant to Section 66484 of
the Map Act and the charter powers of the City of Chula Vista.
Sec. 15.54.020 Definitions.
Whenever the following words are used in this Chapter, they
shall have the following meanings:
A. "Area of Benefit" means a defined geographic area
established pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 hereof.
B. "Bridge" means an original bridge serving an Area of
Benefit or an addition to any existing bridge facility serving
an Area of Benefit at the time of establishment of the
boundaries of such Area of Benefit. Any such original bridge
or existing bridge must provide a crossing of a railway,
freeway, stream or canyon for which a bridge crossing is
required pursuant to the transportation or flood control
provisions of the General Plan of the City.
C. "Construction" means, as to any Improvement, design,
engineering, plan checking, inspection, surveying, acquisition
of right-of-way, environmental review, preparation of plans
and specifications, administration of construction contracts,
actual construction of such Improvement and any appurtenances
thereto or the acquisition of any such Improvement and any
such appurtenances, and any other work incidental to the
acquisition or construction of such Improvements.
1
'-'/
D. "Major Thoroughfare" means a roadway as shown on the
Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City the
primary purpose of which is to carry through traffic and to
provide a network connecting to the state highway system and
which roadway is in addition to, or a reconstruction of, any
existing such roadway serving an Area of Benefit at the time
of adoption of the boundaries of such Area of Benefit.
E. "Circulation Element" means the circulation Element of the
General Plan of the City heretofore adopted by the city
pursuant to Chapter 3 of Title 7 of the Government Code,
together with any additions or amendments thereto hereafter
adopted.
F. "Improvement" means any Bridge or Major Thoroughfare.
Sec. 15.54.030 Establishment of an Area of Benefit.
A. The City Council shall set the time and place of a public
hearing to consider the establishment of any proposed Area of
Benefit. Notice of the public hearing shall be given pursuant
to Government Code Section 65091. Such notice shall contain
preliminary information related to the boundaries of the
proposed Area of Benefit, the estimated cost of the Bridge(s)
or Major Thoroughfare(s) to be financed from the fees proposed
to be assessed within the proposed Area of Benefit and the
proposed method of apportionment of fees to be assessed and
collected within the Area of Benefit.
B. At any time not later than the hour set for hearing
objections to the establishment of a proposed Area of Benefit,
any owner of property to be benefitted by the Improvements
proposed to be financed through the assessment and collection
of fees within the Area of Benefit may file a written protest
against the establishment of the Area of Benefit, the extent
of the Area of Benefit, the Improvements proposed to be
financed or any combination thereof. Such protests must be in
writing, must contain a description of the property for which
the protest is being filed sufficient to identify such
property and must be signed by the owner of such property. If
the person signing such a protest is not shown on the last
equalized assessment roll as the owner of the property for
which the protest is being filed, the protest must be
accompanied by written evidence that such signer is the owner
of such property.
All protests must be delivered to the City Clerk and no other
protest or Objection shall be considered. Any protest may be
withdrawn by the owner who made such protest if such
withdrawal is in writing and is delivered to the City Clerk
time prior to the conclusion of the public hearing.
2
f..S
C. If, at the conclusion of the public hearing, there is a
written protest, filed with the City Clerk, by the owners of
more than one-half of the area of the property wi thin the
proposed Area of Benefit, and sufficient protests are not
withdrawn so as to reduce the area represented by such
protests to less than one-half of the area of property within
the proposed Area of Benefit, then the proceedings to
establish the proposed Area of Benefit shall be abandoned, and
the City Council shall not, for one year from the filing of
the written protest, commence or carryon any proceedings for
the establishment of the same Area of Benefit or the financing
of the same Improvements under this Chapter.
If any majority protest is directed against only a portion of
the subject Improvements then all further proceedings under
the provisions of this Chapter to construct or acquire that
portion of the subject Improvements so protested against shall
be barred for a period of one year, but the City Council may
commence new proceedings not including any part of the
Improvement so protested against. Nothing contained herein
shall prohibit the City Council within such one year period,
from commencing and carrying on new proceedings for the
establishment of an Area of Benefit to finance a portion of an
Improvement so protested against if the City Council finds, by
the affirmative vote of four-fifths of its members, that the
owners of more than one-half of the area of the property
within the proposed Area of Benefit are in favor of going
forward with that portion of the Improvement or acquisition.
D. If, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the City
Council finds that a majority protest has not been directed
against the establishment of an Area of Benefit or all or a
portion of the Improvements benefiting such Area of Benefit,
the city Council shall decide whether or not to establish the
Area of Benefit. If the City Council decides to establish the
Area of Benefit, it shall announce its decision by resolution,
a certified copy of which shall be recorded in the office of
the County Recorder of the County of San Diego. Such
resolution shall contain a description of the boundaries of
the Area of Benefit, the costs, whether actual or estimated,
of the Improvements to be financed by the assessment and
collection of fees within the Area of Benefit and the method
of fee apportionment.
Sec. 15.54.040 Fee Requirements.
Any fee established pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter
shall be subject to the following limitations and
requirements:
A. Except as provided for in this paragraph, any fee shall be
applicable to all property within the Area of Benefit and
3
g..,
shall be payable as a condition of approval of a final map or
as a condition of issuing a building permit for the property
or portions thereof. If an Area of Benefit is established
which includes lands not subject to the assessment and
collection of a fee established for such Area of Benefit, the
city Council shall make provision for payment of the share of
the costs of the applicable Improvements apportioned to those
lands from other sources.
B. Payment of such a fee shall not be required for:
1. The use, alteration or enlargement of an existing building
or structure of the erection of one or more buildings or
structures accessory thereto or both, on the same lot or
parcel of land; provided that the total value, as determined
by the building official of the city, of such alteration,
enlargement or construction completed within anyone-year
period does not exceed one-half of the current market value,
as determined by the building official of the City, of all
existing buildings on such lot or parcel of land, and the
alteration or enlargement of such building is not such as to
change its classification of occupancy as defined by Section
501 of the Uniform Building Code; and
2. The following accessory buildings and structures: private
garages, children's playhouses, radio and television receiving
antennas, and other buildings which are accessory to one-
family dwellings.
Sec. 15.54.050 Consideration In Lieu or Credits.
A. Upon application by the subdivider or applicant for a
building permit, the City Council may accept consideration in
lieu of fees required pursuant to this Chapter, provided:
1. The City Council finds upon recommendation of the City
Manager that the substitute consideration has a value equal to
or greater than the applicable fee obligation; and
2. The substitute consideration is in a form acceptable to the
city Council.
B. The city Council shall give a credit against fees imposed
by this Chapter for properties within the boundaries of
assessment districts or community facilities districts formed
to provide financing for the Improvements for which the fee is
assessed and collected. The amount of such credit shall be
determined by the City Council and established by resolution
thereof.
Sec. 15.54.060 Deposit and Use of Fees.
4
8,7
Fees assessed and collected pursuant to the provisions of this
Chapter shall be deposited in a Bridge or Major Thoroughfare
fund. Such a fund shall be established for each Bridge or
Major Thoroughfare. Money deposited in such a fund shall be
expended solely for the construction or reimbursement for
acquisition or construction of the Improvement serving the
applicable Area of Benefit and from which fees comprising such
fund were collected. If such fees are to be utilized in whole
or in part to reimburse the costs of acquisition or
construction of an Improvement financed from the proceeds of
bonds issued for an assessment district or community
facilities district, the City Council may, in the resolution
establishing the Area of Benefit and the fee, direct that all
or a specified portion of the proceeds of the fees collected
be utilized to prepay assessment installments or special taxes
or to redeem such bonds prior to redemption.
SECTION II: Effective Date.
This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a newspaper
of general circulation within the city within fifteen (15) days
after its adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
JOHN P. LIPPITT,
Director of Public Works
BRUCE M. BOOGAARD,
city Attorney
Introduced and first read
City Council held on the
thereafter
at a regular meeting of the Chula vista
day of , 1992, and
Adopted at a regular meeting of the Chula vista City Council held
on the day of , 1992, by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
5
<j.g'
"I,
1\i
.s::
'"
'"
'"
Q)
"
~
Q)
"0
"
:c-g
g.a
'"
'5.~""
'E~S;
Q)~......
E-o
>-~
[Q)'"
Q):f;~
~ Q)"
....U>1ii
J2 ~U5
~j!! ~
'~'2~
~m~
'" ~ Q)
Q)o_
-Q)l}
g g>.s::
Q)"O
.<:'-
-"i
a;-c-o
.s::- "
.;:;1lQ)
~.QE
'>-g~
e"
a."
.."
mo.
~ Q)
".s::
~-
Q) "
~ .-
Q) '"
",>-
~~
,,0
'gE
U
~
"5
u
'",
"
a.
Q)
-5
m~ ~~ 'E"d' ~
go CO E :J C c:
->.c 0.2(0
"OE'-2>>- E ~"
CD ... ~ a:5l2.S:!
c: '-.c Q):J c:
~ ~.~ (I) -5,€'(ij
Co > camE
. ii E '';:; .c: 0.-0
~$ ~ ~ -0 CD ffi :c_5
"lil'>"- Q)-5"
E-lijlil' :!IEo ~
.g~:!::Q; ~e~ "_~_ N
",;-'0= ~i~ - ~~
E-ci.am ~"Oo 'u :'l:co
'(0 c:: e- 'Q,cQ) Q) S <DOl
0..2:::1$ ......
_ .... f/) c: 0 e-= 't:l c: -
~~~5 ~!t:B: ~ ~~Q)
00>= E c:: c: "C if)_
_00<<l:::l:J 0 U):J
c:~_ ..00::::3 E _'t::
Q) l:.,'C m U) 0 E Cf.l ....u
.E!l" Q)Q),,0"6 :cW.
>,'- 0 0 t/) .c. - - i Q)
l[!j~-5~:;;!l-goiij "0"
!SC1:l_CO.;::J"CSVJQ)S '>e-~
....s::g-C: ~Q.c:Q):J==- -
.- -"'OO:J.c:Q)OU'- a.~
:1"0 c: Q) --... ~ -
_C-Ol/).5motUQ)ns Ciig.
l!-"-g"'''~~C'"OOi- ".s::
~"'Q)r::..2Q)g~Q)Q):f;O CO
;._c:O.oCQ)~t:CI)C:""CU ~
:t::ns(f.l--O Q)Q)OOE~
'l!!'1:5-ae"ffi CD Q) ~(;j CD~ nQ)
IliJ <<I" >,.t:.c:.c: Lt) c: - v CO..c: c
- >...0 (/):: _ e Q) :J e - Q)
= Q) c:. Cl) en 0 0'8 _..c: -= co.5 E
._= ~.E.2 (1)': CD~~ ~... <(
:;'00 E ~O.e ~ c.9 8 ~-g.......
&C~ Q)(/)E~Q).2.c m_Q)"
.g-gCi) >,... coo Q)~! f/)...
.Q).2-O c: 0.::: c:.c: 0- ~ct1
=:- -<m"-=-->-tt1
-o.E~1U C:OtU(Ocno:!::.:2
E~ui~U.-fij=~u..ffi
8'0 >--g.e Oi-g= '"
.a>su:J ~ 'tii-c~ l5
~~ Q)"'- ~C?c'>-:E'Q)o
i< enO m.--~ 0 (1)-en-
mboE a;i5..~ m
'~3=~ ="O-6'~
-t;8o~ ofij'O -c
~(ijl5 ~'gCDE'5 ~i~:s
~.aCD C:J .- m;::;-o
~"'en Q)_mJ:: :0="'"0
Q)Q):~m :JQ)en~ bC:Oo
_"Oc: 0-"'"(1)"," ._(1) ~o
CtI.5:'cu m~=.2 000$_
J::J::-o .g~.5:~ l555S,e
.51 l;l ~ ",'- Q) ~le E.!\l
jQ)~ ",~-g~ E8.~.fIl
0...13.2 m~t5o. :JQ)o'"
.-t: J::(I)~Q) 8.ci5..~
-j" "0=-8.<: - Q)
~ C 0. ~ CU - C1l ~.5 J::
~.Q ~ ~ ~ ~C _="0 ~ ~
et:- =_~Ct1 (1)~~
o.8.E 8~.g ~ ~.5c <6U1
'0 e e ~_ ~... c: l!l C .;! t::
0.- ooO"'~ ~CJoo.....
..~(1)i :J...o.o o,j;;l5~:s::
(l)I1)Et5 .Q~(I)<D (ijOo.(I)O
~~m~ ~~~= Q):OEmm
o_Q)8 o._CDS 5S'[8.~~
~ai=(I) enC$(I) en Q)(aj9
C'Ot:.5C1l ~~CtI<a Q)m-soCf.)
. -g tl g m tl~.e -51l'5~g
~"Omc~ -'5J::~ SO"'C:M
c_3-500E:2 C'Om~- c:~.Q...
S > J::Q)"'om "E~:!:~.e
... ~-.c15 0 ~_"O t: w moo.
. m"O CJ c: :E 15 >'S: Q) J:: Q) (I) cu
lI.oQ)".- ~-t::'" 1ii.s::uo;~.<:
_ "0(1)= ~Q)Q)c"OC:'-"OCtlo
a~3c_m "'Co.._cm..t: ~
li"J::_ .200.c:::m...~Q)c"O
II (I) ~ ~ ~ > co.o u - (I) -5 >-~
en(1)m_ i~Q).!~!~E~:i
~.~~(ijS O'Q)-5o~=:se~-
'-(ij..em el515Ct1=~(I)-",~
'ac"E.c:::Q); o..E Q)8-"'Q)....-
(I).J::. l!?....J::. mea
.a~Q)+:,S ~oQ)cu>-Q):::Q)Ui
. (I) "0 In Q) 'E c! (ij Q) 0 >-.-
a:.a2$fa .s::'-~-".s::"olil'
o.t- al Q) == -g 0 -u.2 t- .2 ! -
:s =..e "OQ).-> t: Q)
(I) 0"0 '_.J::..J::.~ 0.5=
>- 0 Q) ca .~ - ~ 0.. 0..J::. >-
~ c(U~t5 Q):o:B,S 5 en_en:j..e
i.<-~~ (a_:J~~ ~2.,5 6
08'" UJ..e"'~ cO._
.s: ~ c:CtI8..Q) 'cuas1S..
Q)Q)~ Q)>-0Q) E(j)O
o..9! m .8 [0. -; ~ = i
. (ij(ij<6E ~<6l5E~~l5 ~~~$
. >o:JC:cu -~cQ)mQ)'~ -.J::.oc:
D ...t5O:J c:,umE EO. EUJoC1l
~ o..m~l!? '~~-a.~~Q)UJ Q)"OiE
.&I ~~B5.. ~e(ij~~Q)i E;fijii~
~ 15-;'"0 (I) cu~as o~ Co enQ)_ E ~
D ccc:Q) C:~C:~enOM .J::.m'-o.
i o's;... m $ l!l 5S &l!l :J ~ >- - 0 1ii E
~ m <6 - 0.."0 :J 0 _ 0 >-LO Q)';:
~...>-o _._Q)o~:JC: ..e~~o
== c:a;cuE ~13='~-~& :2c:'ai"O
u 8"O~Q) Q).-C:Q)~~CtI Q)gc:c:
i! c(1)E c.J::.o..t:'" .J::.t5(1)m
~ cu(l)e>- C1loo~-o-Bmm en(1)..em
. (I) _ m - Q)- ..t: 0 c:(/)_
c CUm<6o.. !g.~~S-~ 'fij o~
o Q)8..>-Q) -CD:JC~~~ Q)Sm-o
C) .9!...~.~ 15.c:::i.Q(1) ~_ .c:::_....5:
m:J~:J" _...(I)UJE>- ocm>-
a _ ~~ ii E ~ e'S 2 ~ ..e :B m Q) m
~ oo......;(1)ocuo~oo"O :Joo=E
. 'E - en >..~ E '(i) 00 o.:J >. Q) a. ... - -
. Q)~>.miiQ)'-enQ)a.UJ1S..~CtI5..o;
~ EECtlEUJQ)~c:.c:::~>.o~Q) ~~
>'(1)~Q)l1)c:,-~-~CtI"O,-..eC:~Q)
. Ctlo..Q)o"'oo..ooOE~CtIC1l=~cun
. 0.. _c:cu~oo+:-.c:::Co.'5.-"O-
& Q)~CtICt1$CtI"'oUJi5..enmen~enc:o
jl;~~~5S~~!~~~~~~~~~~
.~..e>oEo"O~~.J::.CtI~:J=m(1)CtI
~~E~CtI~~~~g..e:J~1i).J::...eCtl.c:::=~
IQ)enQ)~:J-;.J::.eoo oocu=ooo~
'-c:en io....20e(1)c:...00Q)-
. ~.5~~...;0.J::.=S=g.2~~~~
C) Em..eQ)en"'5~",".J::.0~~,-omQ)
c: :;: en<a.5:'*tii l5'2-~- ~.Q ~ZQ) E
1~~O~E~...t~Ee~a~o.,~g
!~~IB~~~~~c~~~I~~ii
o.~~000Q)~C:ffiml5C:8~CtlCtlC1lEo.
~El585SS~~oB'~C:8 l5~moC'O
.. m o~-o'-Q)l5Q)E "0 ...~~Q)
w~ocu_~ o~ ~Q) 00.0_._Q)
OCOooOCU=C1l-~- ~OCtlQ)'u~-
~.~Ctl1i)E~~SE~~o~E~~CtIc
6 8 00'- .,; .. "0 -5 ! 0 " " "0
CC: (1)l1)~~Q)C- .J::.'-Eo
g."O~.Q 0':= ~:-=.c:.Q 0 ~==
Q)u-g "00000- -0) (1)Q)
?Eii:J -~en"05SCtlj9~-(1)"'E
'.-EJ::l T'""..e>.Ct1 ~'-N...Q.
-CtI OOoo-_CtlO~Q)O~-OQ)C1l
C:'.;::::lCUJ O~'-.c."Oo.Q) -"O..c:
:;::008:E Q)"(ijo'Soo~ >.:;:)-
CtlQ) - UJ(1)o:Coc- "'2o~
15 is l5.e B~.Q ~ ags .0.5: fij
I
~ iS~~~ ~ ~c15 b~l5~~~~E>' !15~~"E~ m~e ~ ~&~~~e~~ ~.e~~l5 l5l5
c -'';=CtI- = l5000. 3 '~:J(1):J'';= -_:J'(ijoocu ..._C1l '.;::::l :mCtl~.J::.~Q)~E .Q"OCtlCtlQ) -
. ~~UJo :;:: _1i)CtI 8"OffiUJ..e~l!l ~co-_& Ctlo~ ~ 'cc:ooUJc:~~ t5C:CtI~en ~(1)
. $~m~ ! "08E !a~o~'~~ ..e~~~o.~ ~~$ ~ m~~~~"OjB maern~ ~~
en _ _ ... Q) - Q) CtI CtI E b'- -'S:~:.;::::l 00 0.- CtI a 00 0 ~ UJ "0 c:: C:"O c: c: c: (ij cu .- "0 c:
. O~CtlE S aE"O ~...c:~t5Ct1-~ ~~j~>~ -08 s ~-aa-ga~~ 1"'~l5~ Q)~
c 'ECtlmoo:J l5 ~offi "O.e:J~E~!~ ~m"C1lt"O CtI"O~ c:~(1)Bl1).c::: (1)"015 _~~m"O E~
l! Q)C: 00 _ _- (1)C1l8~oob-O > _Q)..e .J::.(1)0 oweno-o .J::.~... OC1lQ)ooQ) Q)
- E~~<6 ~ WQ)~ ea"O ~~C15~ ~~emo..:J oea:J E~CtI-~:J=- 0 =enUJ~= -0-
~ >--o~~ 00 C:-5l!l :JC:CtI~ :Jc:(1) CtI=eUJ ~Eoo "OCtI~iCtlooo~'gm ,coo~~.J::. ~~
~ ["O-c~ ~ 1'00.. ~~'515~8.Qs g'gasiio.i c:~~ i!~c:i~g~cu8mm~j9~~ c:_
c Q)Q)"O<<S"o ~ ~..e:Jcu CtI'S15 Q,CtI~s5r/) :EQ)~ c:- C:Cf.)~._';::en-l1)UJE'2"O.c::: CUCtl
S -5~g~ ~ i~;,'G~~~15~~g :Jg~'gii jl5Q) ;~~J~~~~~!i~~m~~ ~c:
. ~0-0..J::.~ 1i) Q)E..eUJCtI.J::.~~f"Em= i~~CtI,-...o. C:...~ (ace> Q)0~8m~~00~'-0'- ~:E
"'00 ~ 'OO~i(1)- ~"".o-"':J ~. ~-~... o.u"'" CtI ~>~ ....Q)l1)0-<<S_
i.illi Cli!~I;tfi~;fl~:li!lz Iti l:ill~~ltll~~II~ r~
11~.5 ~ fij '0 i'~: ~~ B Q).2 ~tii~.5:~I(a ffi en ~$~ :8s ~ l!l~'i ~:g tl;.E Q)15 ~ Q.c: B'~J!! ~ 5-!
!~~~l5~ ~iUJ~~g~~~~~~E~(ij~~~~~i ~~5 :~m~~~i~1i);~~ffi!:m ~~
.Iig~~ ~o..~~~~C:UJc::J~c$Q)CtI~~-~~Q)ii .2S~ iC~(1)~~E08~15O~~=~ ooS
.>"'-55 Q,CtI 8~0'- -OO-m c:c:w......eQ) _..e =c:cen:JenQ):E t5 o.CtI5ECtI 00
f2 CtI ~-"5 ~ E ~....s C:o g ~~ ~~ 00~J!!0.~'~~ ~ ~15 ts ."E",~ m .~~ ~~-Q)'- ~~ ~~ 2.~.E ~ns e=E :s ~
.B-E- OQ)w-...._-~ .--BQ) ooo.wWooUJOO ~oo -Q,~- CtI..eE---Q) c:-CtI o~
_Ilij~il illlil:!j~J'5z!il:l~IJI~I~~ jl~~~lli~R~~~I~~ i51$
~..5"E~= =E"O 00-~...c:a5cCtl:J~ OQ)"O 0 o..cuCtl (1) :J~~ "'cu>' c:c:m~c: <<S~
;=10;$1 ~$"~~!510~"~i~~:!;g>ZZ.-u~Q)1l~"'Zi;!l-g6~~li.~~~I~~1
ill~i ~gE~I;~IQ)rl~jl-5u~i~~-U~8.!~~;~~-i:~:~,,~~JI~!ui!j
iii~l~ lil~!~lii!;li~0~!il:II:I~j!I~!~lifl;JI18!!lltI8!l5
c~ CtI ~..J::. ~Q)<a"'"S!C: (1):J .-Q)"0500 "0>. enCJQ50 - -"Oc:- ... en...:J"'o (1)
-:i~~1 B1~CtI~"O~~~~i5S~~Ej~;~~$i~~~Q.(1)~i~i-8'i~ffioi~~.E-~~~
! UJcu~C: ...c:~c:C:enQ)mC1)C:~C:OO OOmooeco..-ea~Ctlen~~ C:~(1)00 t5BR c"OC1lm'~C:
o~tQ)B~ ~[~lij~j~~~o;loJ~i_!E."Q)em~m~~m1l1\ilij--5I~E"Elti~-5~~~
~~-~tl..l~I~!.I;lill;!~~I.'l~:I!~~I=1\i~~iIJlllilil!I~~
!1!,,'tijo.~!~!~I!.J::.t-Q)~~f5S~li!~~~~~~~.J::.t-l1)~~IJ::t-Q)-5oo!ffi'g~fo~'~~~i~~~]ji~o
'- :.;::::l~ ~\UQ)~ 2:'Q)_ -"OC:or->- -:= - Q).- (1) ~CtI- ~oE CtlC>-C> CtI
E~(ijen15 Q) ~.J::.5 C:.J::.w(1).c::: :J_ ~~_'~c:O c:C: C:(1)00 "OUJ(1) ...C1l CtlO 00'- ~
-o>cc > ~-.J::. :J--..e~Ctl8~ O.c:::O"o- B:E:J .~_m~Q)"Ooo-o.c:::m ooQ)Q)~mU
e-0~8 ~ '-en0 8150oo~~ ~ ~~C"E'(i)5S X~i ~.c:::~C:.J::.Q) l5-~U~1i)=~~02
Q)OE _-_~Bcu_ c:mCtlb~mJ::l_Q)~R 'SE-Q)~ 0g~a~"O~-.e0~-0Q)~OO~~
. ~~e~~~ial!lie&cugB~~fij~~~~~~~~o..~15$jS$(/)S~ii~j~;<g~~~~<g
I'll ~~C:.j m i31i)CU g>.;!Q)ffioC:~l1) ~!~5~~ ~Ea E asE~)(ffi~.gB -g=..eQ)~ (.)
~-80 .c::: ~c:fi 'so~a~J!!:8.s:: -oc:o.. > m=o. = ~=Q)Q)OO=~~ ->.E~c: (1)
... = _ CtI m~- 80.. - C>~8Q,"'m 000. 0 Q)UQ)Q),-om'- U~'-(1)~
i.e '5 .e '5 a. 8 ~ .s:: 1!! .5" .. '5 .9l a. .. .e "Og" .! )j.!\l '" . .0 .0 0 U '" a. ~5)( :;/ ~ ~T-5 B
III
!
iii
GI
U
:e
"...
~ ~~~ ~~m ~ ~~~~oi~~~~m~ 1m
mm._ W~ _~C ~~~~mo~-~
"E'" .,0. "0 "'ti~51I"~,,,o"''''_ ,~o'"
s O~E ~x~ = ~~w~Ccc~~Q-~c_~
c. E c 0 E. "0 'm ~'O ~ ~ c: E ~ Ci5 <<I ~ ~ ! ,2 (I) 5
~ ~mb~~~~ 's 8~'5~~mi~~~m-~~g
co ~ ~:o li ~.e fa [ .5 >. S (I) '0 ~ c;;.8 &! E:€ ~ .a "j
I i~.e~~j~ ~gg;~~<<I~*~~~~~C:8.~B
~ wm>c:o- o.-m,c:~m._<<Io _mQ) '00
~ ~Kf~'i~'~ ~~~j~:il~i~~I~~'Ki
> E-o'-"'- (I) n.s::.o-_x ... ~E><o(l) ...
o c_Q)mc:oo mC:~o~S<<lmw~~ m(l)8E",
~ 'iOmc:~~~E ~8C.'c:~o~8~mmEm~ ec;;
~ S~.s:;.~E! ~~~om~~c:~!E82(1)~~8
OlE ~~=o(l)o= ~~~c:Um8~~-~-0~m~~,,~
(1)- men-om m -c: ...c~ w
c: ~u~c:lm~ ~miE~~~~~e8E~~~o'
.2 -;; 2 -= ,2 -:e I/) tS"'C ~.~ c: U :J Q) fa Q) Q).5)(.5 b'O
~ _C;;(I)Ug~(I) m~~:J.-eQ)&,~cEEQ)8c:o
~ C"8fl~c~al! "'0n~~C8="~~~~~m"~8i
(I) ca c: V'l m .- T:' a> as Q)::: .....:::> 0." E - _
~ ~omC::JQ)_ 5~(I)~U g~m~_cQ) "'~m~
- ~ >8"'1~ "~"'o.,,,_,,,~~- .0 -
o ':Jc;;i ~. Q) '-E-.-...ou...m m(l)(I)c:>.(I)~
=~o.8~Q)o. ~ i8=~~~~c;;~~...~e'Oo~~
ffim(l) c~~~s ~ S~=2OO~~ESSSc~3e
~=o~!~~~c~ ~g~~~~e~~~.8~OO~~~~~
~ --OC-O~ ~._~-oc ~CC ~~~ ~-
~ - 0> >0- m o>'.t; - m 13 ~ ~ - 0 ~ as (I) 0 m Q) 0 So- Q) a. t:
a.cc~~ccu- ~ 2~~alu's;: - ...J-~''''~ 0
(I).-a.c_._~o.c ~~ ~~aso '2oE-c.~
"Eoo ~-oo~-~o-_c - ~o - ~ _o~
., 8.0,", 0 8.~ c~.~!!! .....-:=E o~~as >oQ) 0::>_.9 0-:;:: E
_>0 -"0- "'Q)ClJ-~ C c~-Q) ~ 0
~[~~~i~~l2g8gt~j~~as~~~~a~m~
iQ)>o~~~>o as~oo~'.t;oomUas'~Q)E>oas~~oo~
~u ~~oQ)a.(I)C U c~2Q)-oo~~E(I)~~.-
~-c~O=c~Q)a8c2~-~-~oasasi ~~-~
_Q)W~~Q)_~_ o_c~'-~ooo Q. ~__ _
oo>ecmO)~~~= -:;::~ ~ccQ)oe(l) coc.~o
~~as~~~mSsg~ec8gd~8~d~oias~~O)S
._-~-O-(I)-Cf)~O(l)C;; Oc~" _0"0 -CI')C~_~Q)
"'E-B"OeoosqCl')-"E~_._:l :oms::OM ~.gQ)asas~O)
o.~ 0 c Q) ~ CS ~ ~ 0 (I).~ E & =' ~ t: -~ ~ 5 - a. 0) ~"C '5:g
<""'-<~is<"C~=~EmQ)o~Q)gCl')Q)SCf)~~CZ~
g ~ 0)- (I) Cf) 0 i-Ci.~ ~;(ij~ Cf)oo a:.c 2~ ~
.- ~ Q) Cf) 15 Q) -- Q) ~- ~ - as i - 0 c::.
~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~F ffi _~ dl- t.g ~:= g _~ ~ (l)E __~ ..,;
___~__c ~ oo~c::. o"OCC_~- ~~._
~:2 0)0) ~.s;:'- (I) ~e-~~ u-:;:: ~ c'-:=) U Q.Q)e,.U(j)
--(/) - U\ ~ 0)- O)~ 0 -..!.. o~ ~ C 0 >0 m >0 II 2 ~ 0) 2 C
C E~~ ~~b 9 ~~~E(/)cQ)~~Q)~ ~(I)
8 EEe ~~~ E m~~~=,gm~~cQ~ c~
~ g'~i ~~~ ~ a8asI85~~~8~E 8~
Q5"
co
0>
~
'0
'"
.!l
E
(f)
om~~ ~!~i~~~eoZ ~giE
~o'-O) -C-c...!::_Q 8.-E a. '5 ..c:EcaQ)E
S~:2(/)OC ='Cf) (/)om c~"O~
cWCf)~(I)'-~~U'5~(I)oEcmQ)"C~c
=' C --.c ~ U "0 ~ (I) Q..J::. "0 c.. > m 0
8:e~ g>~ m ~ ~ ~ K~=-g cu ~(ij &.5_~t:
Q)~g~O)(f)c&a(l)cuO~~c~~ .caR
~~-:;::u2g~asQ)oo=E~-C)ec-~o"~
-~:o ~-c..~0) 'o:::m~casQ)>O t:~
o >. c ~ 0 0 _ - c S a. 0.. 0 := _ 0).c?2.e Q)
Cf) as 0 c.s;:- CU~-(jl) RQ) Cf) ~;:~ Q)"Cro C Q)
~Euo--~ CI')(f) -Cf)Q)0) ~ .--
g>oasoo~~~e~~~g.J::.6=.J::.c~o
~ECf)~~~(I).Qos~~~-ooO).Q~"C
~~cu-E~C)ooQ).J::.~~'5S.J::.Cf)SU-_o
~8~"'8 =,Q)3~C)(f)>o~-c~Q)E=
~ 0.. O)o...J::.o-~Q)~~oooQ)oo=(I)
ooca~"Oti~~~.c~~~~'~~:~~S~E
O=~~~~Ee~=~-o(/)E~:=Ec~
~S~E~o(l)'E~~~~~~as~.g~'ffi~
CU(f);:~c_E8~.ae~~~o-o..CI')Ec
OQ)CUOOOCQ) ~asocl)8. em'" 8'"
m:EoQ)oQ)~"C.eE=cCf)g~E(I)a ~
~(I)~-ooEcg~o~cc>.o..o~c~Cf)8
~=o~~~~g~oQ)%8eg~U~~.J::.
~~~e~co..iO~(/)E~~Q)cu~Q)'&:i
8~~Rcu~~~~BB(I)~I~~gmQ)i~
oc~Q)as~--o~Q)Cf)~ -.J::.~.J::.~oE
.Mas-.J::.uuo'(jl)o.J::.oQ)Eas~o==c'_
D~_o~ eQ)~~~=c~goocas~Q)~
ccogC~>'=OE--~asQ)-Q)~~~~~
.OCf)-:;::'~cuaso"'m"C-- Q)O)-Cf)~_
~-=-as E_~Q)cEQ)c.J::."Om~Q)~~
oig~~~ Ec~asQ):2g-.~t:2io~
.500 5 8~ ;~~~ ~~~ e~~~ ~e~~~
O)um~Q)m~~~asoo..o"O-co.. _
I~~~~e~~&;~~~~l~g~~~~
.C=~Cf)-~cCf)~~>CUQ)Oo..~c-uQ)
;i~~Rt~~~~~I~~i~~~~~~
D€8-o~;uo~;~oEe"Cc:o,~~~o~
" ~ 0..= _ O.J::. >. ~ _ c Q) == "C 0 _
~~bE~mQ)~-~~~.J::.~!~~~asmo
"O.oQ:l_~.J::..J::.O> 0) R ~-~Q)CCf)
ZQ)E:=~I-I-~~~g=,EQ)m~I-~~E.
~>.E>. Cf)~~._OQ)>"'Q) ~ ...
;; [~ ~ &~ m ]j :5 ~~ .e :2 ~ ~ ~
. cQ)a.~ :2Eca~(f)Cf)g>'_Q:l'5s
C't.mas~ O)_:C~.c Q) &.: ~ >.c-:;::~C\1 ~ go
1.-Q)-.5~--_~ oas~~as.-.e~~
O).~~~ O.J::.Q:lQ)O~$.Q~ Q)Q)
~~-5~ m~5=s~~c..[ ~=5
5~~~ Bigo.~~~im ~ss
0>
co
~ mg~!~~~!~.~as!!m !~ !~! ~~!i~~! Q) C!~~~o~"C ~ Z"OQ:l~~E~
~ "'~Q)_~~'O:::_'-=OO__Cf) -~ -~1- "C~__ Q)- E !-~ ~c~~ Cf) !5E.J::.~Q)
& :~8~~~8m~i'i~~g8 m~ m~~gs~~~~~~ ~ ~~iiiif~ i i~~~~~~
.J::. ..c.... Q).c Cf) c~o -._- Q) 0) Q) O)-'-"i'-"C (I).c 0."0 c Q) c.- Es::. U::I- E ~~. c c >=
~ io~m~5!fi~ i~i~ ~g~~~~i~~~~:~~ ; E~~~i~.eZ ~~cli~~e8
I 1111~i~!~I~~i~ 1~11!~I!~I~rll t (!~lt~;I~ijlili!!i~
~ ~om ~~Q)oQ)~.E&-;l5.. g_2.~ucm<Jaso..oaQ)~-5 -E E~.s._~Q)>~-1BcuffiCf)~eu-;"5"C~
t l~ill~I!!;~}i: ~j~iilli!!lll! !~ljl~lilllll~lli81Iil
>. Q)"CO "O~~Q)"'Ecum-~Q) o-Q)o~- 05t=,~S cc (/)Q) O)O)"'Q)"'''C c~e ~U-o..
~ =05~'5m ~~~~~::Ia c.~5c~~&~~&"CmEE ~~ggc~~.~~.c~c&mco!Q)2~E
'0 d~ ~ S e ~ i ~ l! 8: ~ Cf) ~~ ~ Q) 0 ~ i.~:g ~ -~ e 2? R! ~ SOt u 2 ~ cu i : =6 i ~_~ ~ . ~ 0 a ~:ia'o;
n -2 E i ~ ~~ E ~ m cu g._~ ~ m ~ 5 ~ ii ffi.g.c ~ ~ ~S e E ~ ~~ 8.s ~ >.~ ~ = m E.~ i a ~ -s.;; ~ 8 ~:5
~ CU...-.J::.-, Cw.cQ) ~-.J::. Cf)~~Cf) CO)~(I)Q)(f)o..oo -cucoC-o~...Q)Cf)Q) ~cu(l) Eo>
F !!~r~J~~i~o8.~: m~a$I.8~~~~~~Q)~l5.. ~B~iim~~~~~~~jiE~j~8s
~ u as "i ~ & ca ~"2 :t cu C ~ EO::: c -g::: Q) -~ ~ ~ 0 f/J = ~ E :t Ego 0.. ~ o..'~ ~ ~ 0.. g 0.. Q.S"i U Q) E tf) U
Q) ~~~So~ ~O)~ioQ)E O~::locaQ)~Q)(I)asc_~~ ocuumcu~cQ).~=E~Q)S.J::.c2?.J::.Q)Q)2
c~ ~c C)c~->E -U.8 .J::. .J::.-Q):t--- m~~ "'VOC_O'- .J::.VO>C -EQ)-
~ acu~~~~:~~~~t>.~ ~2 i~='O~ecae~~E 5~.~~.e~~c~~Q)~=:g~~~m;~
m Q)~m'so~mEcuQ)o~cu>. E-"E-o-~~_"C-o~ >,='0)="OcQ)0._~S-'-u~0..Q)oo~~8
~ Q)- c: _ m_u 0.. Cf).J::. O)COO_c-.s::::. ~~ ~ Q)--CI')O)-._ coO) _
: ~~~~~!~~0~im~~[~~C:8i~.~~8~~~1~S! ~~~Oi'5~~~~~ii~=~:glo_EEfio
o mEQ)-.c-~ ~CCf) _~~a. a.~~(I)~~o_:=~- ~Q)Q)Cf)..oc.s::::.~aso ='_.-o~~~ ~_
~~~~agm~~:~gm!sS~~~g~m.g5i~~g~g~ ~~~gQ)ooias~5~o~~0~~~~'~~8'"
~o).J::.w__Q)C:_.J::.ctQ)-nc~~w;.J::.Q)asQ) CUw - "C~~._~O) u"CW&Q) EO--"'E
~Si;~~~i~i~I~~I~mi~ti'~~1:i;~I! €'~J'~~.~l~*~~~~~oy;f~EI
"El:2(ijC~~'o:::~c:~m~'~~~6:2Bas~..o-oEE"C~gm~>'1 ~~~o..(f)j~oSOE~g~Bb~.J::.~~~~o
g> Otf)~U-o-ma.~(/)~o>cm>- 'S- w -g ~ --z 0 -n -:=~-_uc
~ ~Kg-~~~i~~ ~.=~ &g ~5 K~~ K'~i-~ K~~~~~ e ~~i~.~ [v;-~ g.~~ ~.~ ~~-~i~~~j-
~~ ~ ~ ft-a ~ c ~ e:g i ~ .~~ ~ -; ~ i ~ ~.~!.; ~ ffi 2? E ~ ~ ~ ~ a.~~ fi ~.~.~ E ~ ~ ~.~ 5 &=g ~ 1ij 8 ~ ~
'~0~~im~0~~lcu~~.s::::.~(f)~j~-g~~i~~i~~~~'~o~~co'I~.~~j~al~E8~~~sK:~~~~!~~
.--- -WEC-- ~Cf)cuas'-- ._~ ---~_.- 0 - WCf)OOQ) Q) as O)~..._~U
"C~~:t~5~~~~E~_cu~.J::.~~m!"'E~m~~oo~i~gue5Eo)SO_E>!.e~~0..~~c~o~o
c~o ~"'~EO)Cf)Q)Q:l(f)W vw_o~_o._~ OQ)Cf)tf) Q:l Q)o..-->'COCCf)OO-O-.J::.(f)C~--O-~-
~~~~:.aQ)g(l)~~~E~~~~~~~Q)~:~!:5~"C~~~tf)~~~~~Q)s~~&.~~'5m~..o~o~o!
~~1-8~~~~~a~I~~.~g=l-tmFS5~1-~~~g~~!c~~~g~K~~~&z€~~iOi~;;
~8 !j~t~~8~!!~~i~ ~a I~~ ~0~~5~oi 8 K~8g'~I~~ : ~~:!i~~
c --m.-ou ..0--0-= Q) OQ) 'O:::~- ._.s::::.Q)wi~ m -tco..-~o <J ---m- Q)~
liff~~~lI=~j~;'~~or~~!~~i~mi~'~i~~j~Ei~~~!~Ei~j~EJ~j~l~~il~i
"'C 0 c:... 8. m.s::::...o v ~ ....'!:: ... ~ ~ c C ~ ~ ~ 0 Cf) v Cf) - ... 0 -- >'t c: ~ .., m - 0 >< ....
~~ Q)cu! .c~="'~ascu"CasQ)8. ~'S c~(f) ~>O~~ffiE'5 ~ ~~>'~'8.m- ~ &Q)~~Q)'~o
m~ .cm_o_ as Q)Q)CQ)> cu~ CU<J ~ ~ 0._ ._Q) ~ ~ -
.E~ 'O=.5~g"iiii~==8lug,~ Elll 1S.~j =:g.Eg.g8~.,,)1ii.E:gh,,,'Olu '" ~.2lll,ll;;HIBITB
05
Sf
-
~
~
'"
u
-c
.,
"
"
.,
E
~
co
co
e
~
Ie
~
section shall, at the time of making application for such permit, pay an
annual inspection fee of sixty dollars for the fi rst pool under one ownership
and on the same property, and a fee of thirty dollars for each additional pool
on the same property and under the same ownership. The annua10perati ng
permit shall be effective for a twelve-month period from the date of issuance.
In al1Y case W1ere the applicant has failed for a period of thirty days to
file the application and obtain the permit required by this section, there
shall be added to and collected with the inspection fee a penalty equal to ten
percent of the fee; and for each additional month or fraction of a month after
the expiration of said thirty-day period that the applicant fail s to file such
application and obtain such permit, there shall be added to and collected with
the inspection fee an additional penal ty equal to ten percent of the
inspection fee; provided, however, that in no event shall the total penalty
added to the i nspecti.on fee pursuant to thi s section be more than sixty
percent of the inspection fee. The imposition or payment of the penalty
imposed by thi s section shall not prevent the imposition of any other penalty
prescribed by state law or city ordinance, nor shall it prevent a criminal
prosecution for violation of this chapter. (Ord. 2001 S 1 (part), 1982: Ord.
1700 S 1 (part), 1976.)
15.48.120 Public pool-Renewal of permit-Penalty for delinquency.
A permit issued pursuant to thi s chapter shall be renewed annually.
Application for the renewal shall be made to the county health officer. At
the time application is made, there shall be pai d to the county health officer
the annual fee prescribed by Section 15.48.110. The annual fee, if unpaid
longer than thirty days after the expiration of the previous permit, is
delinquent, and thereafter a penalty shall be imposed in the manner prescribed
in Section 15.48.110. (Ord. 1700 S 1 (part), 1976.)
15.48.130 Enforcement of Sections 15.48.110 and 15.48.120.
The county of San Diego, -a<:ting through its officers and. employees, shall
enforce the provi sions of.Sections 15.48.110 and 15.48.120 ane! carry out such
inspection activities pursua..t.to the agreemerit .for pui1.Hc health services
entered into on December ,,7 ,-,1952; provided, ~.owever;th,((. the, -city shall
undertake. appropriate legal _ action for any vio1atiofl of $ili.d sections.
(Ord. 1700 S 1 (part), 1976.)'
','"
". ~ .
CIi..pt.er -15.50
+.',;,',
i- (!
<,,',.
REIMBURSEMENT REQUIREMENTS At~D PROCmURES
FOR CONSTRUCnONlF PUBLIC IMPROVB1EN1"S
Sections:';
15.5!J.010
15.50.020
15,110.030
15.!iIUl40
15.!;(),(1!i(J
15.5!.L iJiiiCi
15.50.117C
15.50.080
Purpo se and intent.
Nature of improvements.
Defi ni 1',fon5.
R!.que:;;t fof' reimbursement agreement.
Coundl acttof1 011 request.
C.osi:,s of flirllr4t10n of reimbur5l!ment di strict.
iErtirn<:te cf~Cle director of pu!olic wrks.
[~(ltic:1l! lmd heari IIg on establi shllll?H'!t of reimbursement di strict.
g-~/3
EXHIB IT C
591
.
.
.
.
15.50~090
15.50.100
15.50.110
Action by city council.
Limitations on reimbursement agreement.
Obligation of developer or subdivider to claim moneys.
15.50.010 Purpose and intent.
I n the course of development of propertie s, Wlether through the
subdivi sion process or the development or redevelopment of previously
subdivided properties, it is frequently necessary or desirable to require the
developer to install certain public improvements, 'Wlich improvements exceed in
size, capacity or number that W1ich is nonnally required to benefit the
,development or Wlich are located off-site of the development and W1ich benefit
1>roperty or properties not within the subdivision or development and llhich
improvements are dedicated to the publ ic. It is the purpose of the council to
e stabl i sh requi rements and procedure s for reimbursement of ei ther the
developer and/or the city by those property owners WlO subsequently benefit by
said improvements to .the extent of their benefit. It is the intent of the
council that all such property owners WlO subsequently benefit and WlO have
made ro contribution to the costs of said improvements, either directly or
through any publ ic improvement proceedi ng s for Wli ch asse ssments are 1 evi ed,
shall make such reimbursements. Said requirements may be imposed either prior'
to, concurrent with, or subsequent to the construction of said pUblic
improvements. It is further the intent of the council that thi s chapter shall
be in addition to and supplemental to the reimbursement procedures as set
forth in the State Subdivision Map Act, the Streets and HighWiYS Code and
other provi sions of the Municipal Code. (Ord. 1764 S 1 (part), 1977.)
15.50.020 Nature of improvements.
The State Subdivision Map Act provides in Sections 66485 and 66486 for the
adoption of a local ordinance W1ich establi shes requirements and procedures
for reimbursement and a requirement for entering into an agreement with the
subdivider to reimburse the subdivider for that portion of the costs of such
improvements equal to the difference beheen the amount it "-Ould have cost the
.subdivider to install such improvements to serve the subdivi sion only and the
actual cost of such improvements. Such improvements include, but are rot
limited ~to, streets (access or major thoroughfare), bri dge s, drai nage, Witer
and sanitary seier facilities. In regard to drainage and sanitary seier
facilities in the subdivision situation, the city must adopt a plan as
designated in Section 66483 to impose a reasonable charge on property within
the area benefited by such drainage or sanitary seier facilities. In a
ronsubdivi sion development project, the city may follow the same procedure as
establi shed for reimbursement of subdividers WlO have constructed improvements
of the nature set forth herein. In addition, the director of public "-Ork~
shall define the area of benefit and establish assessments as provided
herein. (Ord. 1764 S 1 (part), 1977.)
15.50.030 Definitions.
A. "Actual or total estimated cost of public improvements" means the
estimated total of the construction, engi neeri ng, right-of-WiY and
overhead costs of the public improvements to be constructed by the
developer and the costs of the fonnation of a reimbursement di strict. If
the scope of the project is altered during construction. the city council
may increase the estimated cost by not more than fifteen pe!'l=ent without
further roti ce. '," '.. ....
592
<;)>1 'I
GHIBIT c..
i.
B. "Benefited area" means the entire area \'ohich receives a benefit from the
public improvement. The benefited area shall be that area llhich, in the
opi ni on of the 1 egi sl ati ve body, upon the recorrmendation of the di rector
of pub1 ic Wlrks, and after a pub1 ic heari ng, is benefited by the
construction of the public facility.
C. "Developer" means the person llho is responsible for constructi ng the
p,ub1ic improvement and has borne all or a portion of the costs thereof.
D. 'Excess costs" means the amount that is the difference between the amount
it Wlu1 d have cost the developer to install such improvements to serve hi s
development only and the total costs of such improvements.
E. "Public improvements" means those improvements as set forth herei nabove
including, but not limited to, streets (access or major thoroughfare),
bridges, drainage, ll8ter or sanitary sewer facilities and any accessory
improvements necessary to the functioning of said public improvements, but
shall not i nc1 ude any pub1 i c improvements llhich will benefi t only the
development i n ~ich they are located or are installed by a pub1 ic
improvement proceedi ng for llhich assessments are levied or are authori zed
requi rements for the subdi vi sion of 1 and. Pub1 ic improvements shall a1 so
i nc1 ude the co st of acqui si ti on of any nece ssary 1 and or ri ght-of-ll8Y for
the construction of the improvement.
F. "Reimbursement di strict" means the benefited area within \'ohich either
developed or undeveloped property shall be made subject to a reimbursement
charge or assessment for the purpo se of reimbursi ng the developer for the
excess costs of the public improvement.
(Ord. 1764 S 1 (part), 1977.)
.
15.50.040 Request for reimbursement agreement.
Whenever a developer N10 is requi red to install or rep1 ace such public
improvements or llhenever the city may have participated in the costs of such
improvements \'ohich either the developer or the city feel s will be of benefit
to property other than hi sown, \'ohich properties are not subject to an
assessment for such costs under a public improvement proceeding, the developer
or the city may request that the city council form a reimbursement di strict.
The request shall be in writing and filed with the city clerk \'oho shall place
it on the agenda of the next regular meeting of the city council. (Ord. 1764
S 1 (part), 1977.)
15.50.050 Council action on request.
The city council shall consider the developer's request and, in its sole
discretion, may direct the city manager to begin the proceedings for the
formation of a reimbursement di strict. . Such direction to the city manager
\Shan be conditioned upon the developer-applicant depositing with the finance
,.department a sum of money sufficient to cover the city's. costs in the
'formation of the reimbursement district., (Ord. 1764 S 1 (part), 1977.)
.
\
15.50.060 Costs of formation of reimbursement di strict.
A. The costs of the formation of the reimbursement di strict shall include as
estimated by the director of public Wlrks:
1. The costs'of all notices pub1i shed or mailed pursuant to thi s policy;
2. The cost to the city of the director of public Wlrks, preparation of
the estimated costs of the facilities, determination of the benefited
area and estimate of the proper assessment.
F'-/5'
EXHIBIT c.
5i3
.
B. The developer shall deposit the sum of 'One thousand dollars to reimburse
the city for its administrative costs in conducting the initial
proceedings for the formation of the di strict. The developer shall be
required, hOWlver, to pay the actual administrative costs for the
formation of the district. In the event a reimbursement district is not
formed, the actual costs shall be nonrefundable, but should they be less
than the deposit, the balance shall be refunded. In the event a di strict
is formed, the costs shall be considered an incidental cost of the
improvements to be recouped by the terms of the reimbursement agreement.
lOrd. 1764 S 1 lpart), 1977.)
.
15.50.070 Estimate of the director of public IOns.
Upon receipt of the deposit by the director of finance, the director of
public IOrkS shall prepare and file:
A. A map describing the benefited area Wiich identifies all parcel s within
the area;
B. The total cost of the facilities including incidental expenses;
C. An estimate of the excess costs;
D. An estimate of the assessnent and spread thereof necessary to equitably
pay the excess costs.
In those situations Wiere an excessive amount of time and labor lOuld be
involved in the preparation of such documents and estimates, the director of
public IOrks may request that special engineering services be retained to
expedite and facilitate the preparation of the documents and estimates. The
cost of any such engineering service shall be paid by the developer. The
developer seeki ng a reimbursement agreement, pursuant to the provi sions of
thi s chapter, mu st prove to the sati sfacti on of the di rector of publ i c IOrk s
that the costs reflect a balanced and fair sum either through a unit cost
breakdo"" or presentation of proof of formal bidding. The director of. public
IOrks may in any case require that the developer submit his project for bids.
lOrd. 1764 S 1 (part), 1977.)
15.50.080 Notice and hearing on establishment of reimbursement district.
Upon receiving the director of public IOrks' estimates, the city clerk
shall set a heari ng before the city council and:
A. The ci ty clerk shall cause a notice of the heari ng, in substanti ally the
following form, to be publi shed once in a newspaper of general circulation
in the city at least ten days prior to such hearing:
"NOTICE OF HEARING
.
"The City Council of the City of Chu1a Vista will hold a public
hearing at ........... on .......... at the City Council Chambers at City
Hall located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vi sta, California, to consider
the establishment of a reimbursement district for the financing of certain
.. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. wi th1 n the Cf ty.
"All property wi thi n the de scri bed area may be subject to a fee to pay
. the cost of providing 'such facilities, to-wit: That property more
parti cul arly de scri bed by pl at on fi le in the offi ce of the Di rector of
Public Works.
%,/6
594
.
EXHI B ITC.
.
"All persons desiring to testify with respect to: the necessity of
said public improvements, the cost of said public improvements, the
benefited area or, the amount of the excess costs, may appear and be heard
at said heari ng. "
B. The ci ty clerk shall, at least ten days prior to the heari ng, al so cause a
copy of the above notice to be mailed to each owner of real property
within the benefited area as shown on the last equalized assessment roll.
Such notice shall be accompanied by a map of the proposed benefited area
and a statement by the director of public w>rks describing:
1. The estimated cost of the public improvements; and
2. The estimated or actual excess costs necessary to pay for the public
improvements; and
3. The estimated or actual costs Wiich will be assessed against the
property Wien the property is developed and makes use of the public
improvements.
(Ord. 1764 S 1 (part), 1977.)
.
15.50.090 Action by city council.
After the public hearing, the city council may, in its sole di scretion,
direct that a reimbursement agreement with the developer and/or the city be
prepared containing such provi sions as the council deems to be necessary,
desirable and equitable. The provisions may include the following conditions:
A. Collection from other persons including public agencies using such
improvements for the benefit of real property not withi n the subdivi sion
or development area of a reasonable charge for such use;
B. A requirement for a contribution to the developer and/or the city for that
part of the cost of the improvements that benefit real property outside of
the development area or the subdivi sion and levy a charge upon such real
property so benefi ted as a reimbursement for such costs pl us simple
interest thereon at seven percent per year to be pai d to the developer
and/or the city;
C. Establ ish and mai ntai n reimbursement di stri cts for the levy and collection
of such charge or costs from the property benefited.
Once the allocation of the cost has been approved by a resolution of the
council of the city, it shall constitute a statement of charges due from the
owners and their successors, heirs or assigns of the various parcel s of
property as their share of the public improvements. The director of public
Nirks shall respread the assessment after final costs have been calculated and
shall cause the resolution to be appropriately modified prior to its
recordation. >
The city clerk shall record a copy of the council resolution with the
county recorder. The resolution shall include the ownership of record, the
legal description, and the amount of charges for each lot or parcel within the
di stri ct.
The reimbursement shall be collectable by the ci ty at ei ther the time the
property is to be subdivided or upon a request for a building permit for
development of the property. (Ord. 1764 S 1 (part), 1977.)
(e
15.50.100 Limitations on reimbursement agreement.
> The reimbursement agreement shall be subject to an annual seven percent
interest charge as provided in Section 15.50.090, six percent of Wiich shall
be payable to the person Wio is entitled >to reimbursement during the term of
594
If"' /7
EXHIBITC
(e
.
.
.
the agreement, and one percent shall be payable to the city during the tenn of
the contract and placed by the city in its general fund to cover the
a<ininistrative costs of the city in its expense in handling the collection of
such funds. At the conclusion of the tenn of the. reimbursement agreement, the
total annual seven percent interest charge shall be payable to the city. The
tenn of any reimbursement agreement shall be establ i shed by the city council
based upon the reasonable expectations of the development of benefited
properties or the utilization of the public improvement by such benefited
properties; provided, hOllever, that the maximum tenn of any reimbursement
agreement shall be for a period of tllenty years. After tenni nation of the
tenn establi shed by said agreement, the same reimbursement charges shall be
imposed, but the funds collected therefrom will not be paid to the developer
or its successors in interest, but shall be deposited in the general fund of
the city.
If, duri ng a tllenty-year period followi ng the fonnation of the di strict,
any person either files a tentative map or a tentative parcel map or applies
for a building pennit on a lot for Wiich a charge for public improvements has
been established in accordance with this chapter, and such person or his
predecessor in interest has not paid such charges to the city, the establi shed
charge shall be paid prior to the filing of the final map or parcel map, or
the issuance of the building pennit; provided, hOllever, such payment shall not
be required in connection with building pennits having a total improvement
val ue of ten thousand doll ars or less; provi ded, hOllever, that improvements
Wiich are a modification or addition to si ngle-family structures shall not be
subject to an assessment under a reimbursement agreement; and provided
further, that the money paid shall include the principal charge plus interest
in the amount of seven percent from the date. of establ i shment of the charge.
(Ord. 1764 S 1 (part), 1977.) .
15.50.110 Obligation of developer or subdivider to claim moneys.
All moneys collected under the provi sions of thi s chapter shall be
deposited by the director of finance of the city into a public improvement
reimbursement trust fund or a subdivi sion map act reimbursement trust fund.
The di rector of fi nance shall refund to the person or persons Wio pai d for the
improvements for Wiich the charges lIere collected, or to their assignees, all
moneys 5\) collected; except, hOllever, that one percent per year of all such
moneys collected shall be retained by the city to defray the expenses incurred
in admi ni steri ng the tru st fu nd.
The city shall notify the developer or subdivider of the existence of
moneys deposited in said fund. The notice shall be made to the address
contained in the reimbursement agreement and no further inquiries shall be
required by the city. If any such money remains on deposit with the city
without being claimed by the party rightfully entitled to it within one year
after notice has been made as pro vi ded herei n, such money shall be forfeited
to the city, and then it shall be transferred to the general fund of the
city. (Ord. 1764 S 1 (part), 1977.)
595
8'> /91'
EXHIBITC
,
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
For meetin!1
Item No.=1'5 12
9/20/i~
of 91.J,;j.fi'J;J
FM TITLE Ordinance 175Lj - RelatiTX1 to !equirerrents an:! J?rooedul:es for Reinbursement of
Persons Constructing Public !JT1provements Benefiting P:coperties other than those
CMned by the Developer or constructed at the ~tlSfl of the City conferring
Similar Benefits
B~lITTED BY
City Attorney
SECQ;-jD READING A:\iJ ;.\uut'IION
EM EXPLANAT ION
(4/ 5TH I S VOTE REQUIRED YES_NO~2U
or many months, the staff has been working on a procedure for the
stablishment of reimbursement districts. Said reirwursement districts
'ould enable developers who install public improvemlmts benefiting pro-
lerties other than their own to recover a fair and I:easonable amount of
loney from the benefited properties. The procedure would be in addition
,0 or supp lr"mental to currently available assessment: district procedures.
t would be applicable to improvements which have a\ready been constructed,
Jut which other property owners would desire to utili~e for the benefit
)f their proposed development.
;uch an ordinance has nOW been prepared and is ready for action by the
~i ty Council.
Agreement__
EXHIBITS
Resolution..__ Ordinance~
Plat
-
Notification List___
Ot,hc(
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached___ Submitted on
~,./?
EXHIBIT D
(~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ItY.~
Meeting Date 4/28/92
Resolution I~~~~ Approving the FY 1992-93 claims for the
FY 1992-93 2% Non-Motor;p,zed Transportation Development Act
(TDA) Fund and Transportatio Sales Tax (Transnet) Funds
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-X-)
Annually, the CHy of Chula Vista submHs an updated list of projects for
inclusion in the 7-year implementation program of the non-motorized element of
the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. As required by SANDAG
regulations, a tentative set of claims was submitted to SANDAG on February 28,
1992 subject to Councn approval. In order that cl aims for the projects may
be considered for funding by the SANDAG Board of Directors, Council must pass
a resolution authorizing submittal of the FY 1992-93 Bicycle Projects Claims
for available Transportation Development Act and Transportation Sales Tax
Transnet Funds.
ITEM TITLE:
REClH'ENDATION: That Councn approve the resolution as stated in the Hem
t Hl e above.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS REClH'ENDATION: On March 19, 1992, the Parks and
Recreation Commission indicated its concurrence with the FY 1992-93 TDA
Claims.
DISCUSSION:
Annually, the 2% Non-Motorized Transportation Development Act (TDA) Funds are
made available for the regional planning and construction of bicycle and
pedestrhn facn Hies. TDA funds currently contribute about $1,500,000 per
year to the implementation of non-motorized projects in the San Diego region.
Also, with the passage of Proposition A in 1987, an additional $1 million of
Transportat i on Sales Tax (Trans net) revenues per year is avan abl e for the
implementation of said projects. The following is a listing of the project
claims that were submitted to SANDAG for FY 1992-93 funding.
Proiect
1. Bicycle Path Study for the Greenbelt Trail System
2. Sidewalk Safety Program for FY 92-93
Total
Cost
$ 70,000
293.000
$363,000
A brief description of the above projects is as follows:
9-/
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 4/28/92
Bicvcle Path Studv for the Greenbelt Trail Svstem:
The City's General Plan designates a greenbelt and trail system along
the Otay River Valley east to the Otay Lakes, north to the proposed
Sweetwater Valley Regional Park and west to the bay. This study will
establish a preliminary alignment and design criteria for a bicycle
path within the general corridor of the greenbelt and trail system.
The Public Works Department, the Parks and Recreation Department, and
the Planning Department will closely coordinate the administration
and development of the study. The Planning Department's role is
necessary to ensure conformance to the General Plan and coordination
with other ongoing projects, including the Otay Ranch Project and the
State Natural Communities Conservation Program.
This study is estimated to cost $120,000.
approved for.this project in FY 1991-92.
the subject of this year's request.
Sidewalk Safetv PrOQram
Thi s project i nvo 1 ves the i nsta 11 at i on of pedestri an hcil it i es in
two critical locations: 1) along the south side of "E" Street
between Corte Maria Avenue and Hilltop Drive, and 2) both sides of
Thi rd Avenue between Orange Avenue and Main Street. These streets
are high traffic volume and speed routes. Installation of standard
sidewalk will provide a safer route system for pedestrians.
$50,000 of TDA funds were
The remaining $70,000 is
The appl ication includes a request for grant monies to pay for curbs and
gutters in conjunction with sidewalk installation.
Staff has been advi sed informally that such portions of the s idewa 1 k project
may be disallowed if officially submitted, because they are not for the
"exclusive use" of pedestrians and bicycles. Staff is attempting to
administratively convince SANDAG staff that the expenditures for curbs and
gutters are lawful and in accordance with TDA regulations. Funding for other
items in the claims will not be jeopardized as a result of pursuing funding
for the curbs and gutters item.
Projects submitted to SANDAG must meet but are not 1 imited to the following
requirl!ments:
1. Projects must be included in an adopted regional plan.
2. They must follow CalTrans bike route standards (if bike route projects).
3. Must contain appropriate cross sections.
Projects are also subject to prioritization, criteria such as elimination of
problem areas on routes to provide relatively safe travel use, service to high
use activity centers, connection to and continuity of longer routes.
9-~
Page 3, Item ~
Meeting Date 4/28/92
The FY 1992-93 claims totaling an estimated $363,000 will be reviewed and
prioritized by the Bicycle Facilities Committee which is composed of
representatives from each SANDAG member agency. Based on the Committee's
recommendations, the SANDAG Board of Directors will authorize allocation of
the available TDA and Transnet funds.
On March 19, 1992, the Parks and Recreat ion Commi ss ion i nd i cated concurrence
with the FY 1992-93 TDA claims discussed above.
FISCAL IMPACT: Potent i a 1 total revenue to the City of $363,000. The actual
amount is dependent on which projects are approved for funding by the SANDAG
Board of Directors.
SMN:KY-036
WPC 5963E
CJ~;; / q,t!
RESOLUTION NO.
/6(P1J1f
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE FY 1992-93 CLAIMS FOR THE FY 92-93 2%
NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND AND
TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX (TRANSNET) FUNDS
The city Council of the city of Chula vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, annually, the City of Chula vista submits an
updated list of projects for inclusion in the 7-year implementation
program of the non-motorized element of the Regional Transportation
Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, as required by SANDAG regulations, a tentative
set of claims was submitted to SANDAG on February 28, 1992 subject
to Council approval; and
WHEREAS, in order that claims for the projects may be
considered for funding by the SANDAG Board of Directors, Council
must pass a resolution authorizing submittal of the FY 1992-93
Bicycle Projects Claims for available Transportation Development
Act and Transportation Sales Tax Transnet Funds; and
WHEREAS, the following is a listing of the project claims
to be submitted:
COST
$80,000
293.000
$363,000
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve the FY 1992-93 claims
for the FY 92-93 2% Non-motorized Transportation Development Act
Fund and Transportation Sales Tax (Transnet) funds.
Bicycle Path Study for the
Greenbelt Trail System
Sidewalk Safety Program for FY 92-93
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Presented by
C:\n\2% TDA
95/ ,.'1
.
.
,
~~~
~
'-~-=~-
"
CllY OF
CHUlA VISTA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
February 28, 1992
File # KY-036
San Diego Association of Governments
First Interstate Plaza
401 "B" street, suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Attention: Mr. Dennis Thompson
CHULA VISTA'S FY 1992-93 TDA CLAIM SUBMITTALS
Enclosed please find the FY 1992-93 Transportation Development Act
(TDA) claims for the City of Chula vista. The resolution approving
the claims is scheduled to be considered at the April 7, 1992 City
Council meeting. A copy of the adopted resolution will be
forwarded to you by the City Clerk's office.
Should you have any questions, or require additional
Pleas~ c~~~. Nuhaily, Civil Engineer,
RD L. SWANSON
Y PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR\
ITY ENSINEER
information,
at 691-5173.
SMN:rb/nm
Attachments
(SMN\TDACLAIM. LTR)
9-7
?7F... ~()IIRTH-.6.VI=/r:I..H.lL.6. VIC:Tlt..._r..6.III=l"'lRbJl.6. Q1QltlflFi.1Q\ Fi.Ql_J:.n?l
ANNUAL TDA CLAIM FORM
FY. 92 - 93
I
A. CLAIMANT: City of Chula Vista
B. TYPE OF CLAIM: (check one)
CC ) Article 3 - Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (99234)
( ) Article 4 - Support of Public Transportation Systems (99260)
( ) Article 4.5 - Community Transit Services (99275)
( ) Article 8 - Multimodal Transportation Terminals (99400.5)
( ) Article 8 - Express Bus ServiceslVanpool Services (99400.6)
( ) Article 8 - Local Street and Road Projects (99400)
C. AMOUNT OF CLAIM:
Operations
Capital
Planning $ 70.000
Other (specify)
TOTAL: $ 70.000
D. CONDmON OF APPROVAL:
It is understood by this Claimant that payment of the claim is subject to approval by
SANDAG and to such monies being on hand and available for distribution, and to
the provision that such monies and the interest earned on such monies subsequent to
allocation will be used only for those purposes for which the claim is approved and
in accordance with the terms of the allocation instructions.
F. PAYMENT RECIPIENT
E.
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVEI
CONTACT
/)
(Signature)
Mr, Samir M. Nuhaily
(print or type name)
Civil EnRineer
(Title) .
276 Fourth Avenue
.....
N~
City of Chula Vista
(Claimant)
276 Fourth Avenue
(Mailing address)
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(City and zip code)
ATTN: M... T.ym~n r.hri ~:l..tnphp,..
(Name)
Director of Finance
(Title)
(Address)
Chula Vista. Ca 91910
(619) 691-5173
(phone)
February 28, 1992
(Date Signed)
KC========================C===C==========
SANDAG USE ONLY:
1. Claim number
2. Date approved
3. Resolution No.
4. Amount Approved for Payment
5. Amount Approved for Reserve
JfRequired:
7. Date Approved by MTDB
8. MTDB Resolution Number
q-8'
TDA APPLICATION FORM
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILmES
Claimant:
City of Chula Vista
Amount of Claim: $70,000
Length and Type of Project:
Bike Path
Bike Lane
Shared Route
Related Facilities
Other
Study
Project description: Prepare a comprehensive study to identify route location,
opportunities and constraints for a bicycle path within Chula Vista's
Greenbelt Trail System as proposed in the General Plan.
Note: })Iease attach location map. proiect limits. and IIPpro,priate cross sections.
I. Project Eligibility (Check and fully explain in comments)
A. Is the project included in an adopted regional, county,
city or community plan?
B. If the project abuts other jurisdictions, is it shown on
adopted plans of adjacent jurisdictions?
C. Does the project follow CALTRANS Bike Route
Standards from the CALTRANS Highway Design
Manual, Section 7-1000; Bikeway Planning and
Design Standards?
D. Id6l1tify other sources of funding for the cooperative
projects:
Yes No
x
---y1 L
----..NIL-
n. Status of Project (check and fully explain in comments)
A. Preliminary engineering completed
B. Resolution passed by governing agency
C. On adopted Capital Improvement Program
D. Maintenance* and liability
E. Estimated date of completion !':nmmPT nf 1 qq,
_NIL
..L
....
_NIL.
*Comment on how proposed facility will be maintained.
9-9
m. Evaluation Criteria (Check and fully explain in comments) Yes No
A. Does the project eliminate problem areas on routes
which would provide relatively safe travel use'?
1. Intersections, driveways N/A
- -
2. Bridges _NIL
3. Narrow road segments N 11:-
-
4. Removal of parking _ NIL
5. High traffic volume and speed _NIL
6. Other _ NIL
B. Does the project provide service to high activity
centers'?
7. Employment _N~
8. Commercial _NIL
9. Educational N I.!:-
-
10. Public transportation interface _NIL
11. Government or social service centers N/A
-
12. Cultural or recreational _NI.L
13. Other _ NI.L
C. Does the project provide connection to and continuity
of longer routes'?
14. Interregional _ NI.L
15. Regional _ NI.L
16. InteIjurisdictional N/A
-
17. Local _ NI.L
18. Community N/A
-
D. Special Circumstances:
E. Comments:
Chula Vista's General Plan designates a Greenbelt and Trail System
along the Otay River Valley east to Otay Lakes, then north to Sweetwater
Park and west to the Bay. The study will establish a corridor and
preliminary alignment for a bicycle path within the Greenbelt and
Trail System.
For Fiscal Year 1991-92 the Bicycle Facilities Committee and SANDAG Board
of Directors approved the allocation of $50,000 for this project. Said
approved allocation was not adequate to complete the study. Additional
funds totalling $70,000 will be required as outlined in this claim.
9-/~
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT TITLE: Preliminary Alignment Study
of Bicycle Path within Chula
Vista's Greenbelt Trail System
DATE:
PREPARED BY :
CHECKED BY :
03/1 8192
AWS
SMN
NO. ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Consultant Fee LS LS $100,000.00 $100,000
SUBTOTAL $100,000
CONTINGENCIES $20,000
TOTAL $120,000
Approved Allocation in FY91-92 $50,000
Additional Needed Funds . <$7()OOO
.--,",..'.
I:f-//
.
I'1Y:lS 011
)Z
.."\
I
I
)
r--..-f
.1.,
.. .i
i
:, i
.... "
: :.
:: :; i
'.,: I'
. -
...;\ ...... i
.. r j. ...... \
. '. .....- .'., ~- " ..)
~ ,~.\~::?' ~
......'\ '.; \ \' .,. . .
. '\ 0 :...---- __: i '--::,.
L.....-..-..-..-.--..-..--..,..I ~I"":lrrr..
9-/.2.
~
..
H
..
~
..,
~
Ilo
2
~
>-
rJ)
...J
~
E-
tl
l:1J
~
Z
UJ
l:1J
~
d
>-
o
~
~
:r:
~
~
l:1J
...J
U
>-
U
-
~
~
<
~
~
('.J
i":I
~
..
..
III
i
Cl
..
IIQ
~
Cl
/) -J
;J'
..../
,
ANNUAL TDA CLAIM FORM
FY 92-93
",
,
A. CLAIMANT: CITY OF CHULA VISTA
B. TYPE OF CLAIM: (check one)
( ) Article 3 - Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (99234)
( ) Article 4 . Support of Public Transportation Systems (99260)
( ) Article 4.5 - Community Transit Services (99275)
( ) Article 8 . Multimodal Transportation Terminals (99400.5)
( ) Article 8 - Express Bus ServiceslVanpool Services (99400.6)
( ) Article 8 . Local Street and Road Projects (99400)
C. AMOUNT OF CLAIM:
Operations
Capiuu $263.000
Planning $ 30.000
Other (specify)
TOTAL: $293.000
D. CONDmON OF APPROVAL:
It is understood by this Claimant that payment of the claim is subject to approval by
SANDAG and to such monies being on hand and available for distribution. and to
the provision that such monies and the interest earned on such monies subsequent to
allocation will be used only for those purposes for which the claim is approved and
in accordance with the terms of the allocation instructions.
F. PAYMENT RECIPIENT
E.
AUTHORIZED REPRESENT A TIVEI
CO/F
(Signature)
Samir M. Nuhaily
(print or type name)
Civil Emdneer
(Title) -
276 Fourth AVenue
"".
N~
City of Chula Vista
(Claimant)
276 Fourth Avenue
(Mailing address)
Chula Vista. CA 91910
(City and zip code)
ATTN: Lyman Christopher
(Name)
Director of Finance
(Address)
Chula Vista. CA 91910
''11_ t; Ii?
(phone)
fe,,,. tK, ir2..
(Date Signed)
(Title)
C================================E=======
SANDAG USE ONLY:
1. Claim number
2. Date approved
3. Resolution No.
4. Amount Approved for Payment
5. Amount Approved for Reserve
Jf Required:
7. Date Approved by MTDB
8. MTDB Resolution Number
,-/;J
1/
,
,.
TDA APPLICATION FORM
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Claimant:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Amount of Claim: $293,000
Length and Type of Project:
Bike Path
Bike Lane
Shared Route
Related Facilities
Other Sidewalk safety program
Project description: Installation of pedestrian facilities in two critical areas in
the City of Chula Vista. The locations are along the south side of "E" Street between
Corte Maria Avenue and Hilltop Drive, and Third Avenue between Orange Avenue and Main Street.
Note: please attach location maD. project limits. and lijlDra,priate cross sections.
I. Project Eligibility (Check and fully explain in comments)
A. Is the project included in an adopted regional, county,
city or community plan'?
B. If the project abuts other jurisdictions, is it shown on
adopted plans of adjacent jurisdictions?
C. Does the project follow CALTRANS Bike Route
Standards from the CALTRANS Highway Design
Manual, Section 7-1000; Bikeway Planning and
Design Standards'?
D. Identify other sources of funding for the cooperative
projects:
Yes No
x
&A
JU.A
n. Status of Project (check and fully explain in comments)
A. Preliminary engineering completed x
B. Resolution passed by governing agency ..!...
C. On adopted Capital Improvement Program ..!...
D. Maintenance* and liability ..!...
E. Estimated date of completion summer of 1993
.Comment on how proposed facility will be maintained.
9-/1
. , m. Evaluation Criteria (Check and fully explain in comments) Yes No
A. Does the project eliminate problem areas on routes
which would provide relatively safe travel use']
1. Intersections, driveways .-!..
2. Bridges .L
3. Narrow road segments x
4. Removal of parking ..:L
S. High traffic volume and speed ~
6. Other
B. Does the project provide service to high activity
centers']
7. Employment .L
8. Commercial L
9. Educational x
10. Public transportation interface x
11. Government or social service centers JL
12. Cultural or recreational .L
13. Other
C. Does the project provide connection to and continuity
of longer routes']
14. Interregional JW,.
IS. Regional N/A
16. Interjurisdictional N/A
17. Local J#A
18. Community Jill.
D. Special Circumstances:
E. Comments: Please see attachments
9-/5
ANNUAL TDA CLAIM FORM FOR FY92-93
SIDEWALK SAFETY PROGRAM
I. Comment on fro~ram's Eli~ibility
These two projects will provide funds to install 5' PCC
sidewalk along "E" Street, from Corte Maria Avenue to Hilltop
Drive and along Third Avenue between Orange Avenue and Main
Street. (Please see attached plats)
II. Comments on Status of Pro~ram
This program will be included in Chula Vista's FY92-93 5-year
CIP program.
Sidewalks are maintained by Chula Vista's City Staff.
III. Comments on Evaluation Criteria
Sidewalk is missing on the south side of "E" Street from Corte
Maria to Hilltop Drive and on both sides of Third Avenue
between Orange Avenue and Main Street. These streets are high
traffic volume and speed routes. According to Traffic
Engineering, pedestrians are using the gutter to walk along
these routes, making it a hazardous situation. Installation
of standard sidewalk will provide for safe routes for
pedestrians.
9-/(,
~
~-
.i~,
, -
,.....
i'-
~,;
,-
CfTY OF CHULA VISTA
ENGINEERING DN/S/ON
COST ESTIMATE
PROJECI'l1TLE: Sidewalk Safety Program.
Along the South Side of "E" Street
Between Corte Maria Avenue
and Hilltop Drive
DlTE :
1'REPAfE) BY :
C>ECKED BY :
02/26/92
AWS
SMN
NO rrEM QUto.NrITY i,NT i,NT PACE AM()I..NT
1 Removal of Curb and Gutter 850 LF $5.00 $4,250
2 Gradina of Embankment LS LS 5,000.00 5,000
3 Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk 850 LF 30.00 25,500
4 5' Retaining Wall 2, 200 SF 20.00 44,000
5 Driveways 2 EA 600.00 1,200
6 Street Lioht 1 EA 3,000.00 3,000
7 Relocation of Utilities LS LS 2,000.00 2,000
8 Slope Irrioation LS LS 3,000.00 3,000
9 Slope Plantina LS LS 3,000.00 3,000
10 Traffic Control LS LS 5,000.00 5,000
SUBTOTAL $95,950
STAFF AND CONTINGENCIES (25%) $23,988
TOTAL $119,938
SAY $120,000
9-/7
""'" Q
......
::0
~
I~
I:t,
I~
h
~
Vi
'i-
!!o..
~
eo(
;g
-.........
3:"
....
~--
I~
...............
~
'\.. ~
J
I-
I
.
v
\.
d
-
.~'
~
r------
"",~ I /
",~ I I 0
&4"""" TOVclN LN. ~
",,, <
.."
""
'!"UII''''' I I Pl
I: l!I~'
: Illl ~
.___.,----J , I __J ' r--
I I ~-~_J --,.-..,..-"'t..-l,.
: BONITk~! ! I \ ",
.........
I---.. __
-
I
.0(\
~
:::.. O~
.:~'. I _..' ~
~:=::- N ,-:;- ~~
i
-
f*
It: ~
I~ ;:;'-....
'.;;;0. -"""7
~
C
... "
-ro
-
rJ
.
,...;.
\.
'-'
l&
.~
"~
s':~
~~>.
.....
~
/ /
lI'Cll,;rrM )~ "
~
)
~
"- ~. C I. 1 \
I Oa:t: -
.
, I , : I ~
I i I
I I I , I
! I l , I I I
, I l !
, I
I , , &. I I
.
PROJECT LOCATION: ..............
I I I I
I I I I
l I! !
~ II T
J)llAWN BY lAWS PROJECT 'l'rTLE
SIDEWALK SAFETY PROGRAM -
ALONG THE SOUTH SlOE OF "E" STREET
BETWEEN CORTE MARIA AVENUE
AND HILLTOP DRIVE
J)A'1'E I 02/~6!92
9-/8"
.
,
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT TITLE: Sidewalk Safety Program -
third Avenue, Between Orange
Avenue and Main Street
o.\'I'E:
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY ,
02126/92
AWS
SMN
NO. rrEM QUANTITY UNrr UNrr PRICE AMOUNT
1 Removal of Existin2 AC Sidewalk 8,400 SF $2,00 $16,800
2 Removal of Existinc AC Curt- 2,600 LF 5.00 13,000
3 PCC Sidewalk 14,000 SF 3,00 42.000
4 PCC Curb and Gutler 3,000 LF 15.00 45,000
5 Relocation of Street Li2hts 8 EA 2,000,00 16,000
6 Traffic Control LS LS 5,000.00 5,000
SUBTOTAL $137,800
CONTINGENCIES 1::5o/c) $34,450
TOTAL $172.250
SAY $173.000
,
9-/1
'.
----
"
.
. .
. .
\' I , ' ...."
, \ , I .)-
. ...-
......., \ ""'I
.. ....- I
,'-' I
I
I
,
I
I
---;-{-
\ , T T """T' ,. _ _ _
\ I I 'I, ,
I' I I I ~ \ I
. \ 1'1' , I
\ I I I: "
, "
--
, Q.RANGS
.'-
- - -
- - -
.
-
.
.
.
.
i&.c::
>:.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
::
::
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
c:
0::.
--
==
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
\ .
\" ........""
\~.... ... ....
. '
\..."
-
-
-
----
- - --...- .
~- - -
- -
D:C:::r:Ci
1Ii~
~ UJJULllLlJ iii
~
lTIillilJJJ
~ ITIJIII[]
z rrTTTT1TrTl >-
~~~
C(
DIlIDTID ~
[ill[]] [II] omrr
[[[[J ~ DITIIJ[[
i ITOIJJI]] [[[]]]]]] DllII
5 i ZE~1l1]] OJ ffi][[] DIJIillI
.. Project Location:
5 []J:II]]J]iI DIJIIJIIJIIIj] [JII]J] ........................
~ [[[[]]I]] DIillJI[
. [[[[[]]]kJ
: 5 .. iI
. . .
w: rI1l1lT"TlTl
~:
-----.
,
,
---.I
----..
,
,
,
J~
r
SIDEWALK SAFETY PROGRAM-
THIRD AVENUE, BETWEEN ORANGE
AVENUE AND MAIN STREET 9-,)'(l
Dun BY' A WS
DATE: 02126/92
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Itell
I()
ITEM TITLE:
Meeting Date 4/28/92
Resolution 1~~p5;eClaring City's intention to
underground utili ties along Fourth Avenue from "E" Street to a
point approximately 100 feet south of State Highway 54 and
setting a public hearing for the formation of a utility
undergrounding district along said street section
cyt/
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-X-)
On November 12, 1991, the City Council approved Resolution No. 16415 accepting
a report on the City's Utility Underground Conversion Program and approving a
revi sed 1 i st of Ut il i ty Underground Convers ion Projects. Thi s is the top
priority utility conversion project listed in the City's adopted program.
On April 8, 1992, an Underground Utility Advisory Committee (UUAC) meeting was
held in the Publ ic Services Building to consider the proposed boundary of an
underground util ity district for the conversion of existing overhead
util ities. The proposed boundary is shown on attached Exhibit "A". The
district's limits extend along Fourth Avenue from "E" Street to a point
approximately 100 feet south of State Highway 54.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution as stated in the item
title above.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Underground Utility Advisory Committee (UUAC), consisting of
representatives of SDG&E, Pacific Bell, Cox Cable TV, Chula Vista Cable and
the City agreed to propose to the City Council the formation of a util ity
undergrounding district for conversion of the overhead facilities along Fourth
Avenue within the limits mentioned above.
The proposed utili ty undergroundi ng di stri ct along Fourth Avenue is about
3,800 feet long running from "E" Street to a point approximately 100 feet
south of State Highway 54 (please see Exhibit "A"). The estimated cost for
undergrounding the utilities is $2.4 mill)~n. South of the proposed district,
underground i ng of overhead ut il it i es hCi'S been completed. The Average Da il y
Traffic (ADT) count on Fourth Avenue ranges from 23,400 between Highway 54 and
"C" Street to 17,600 between "C" Street and "E" Street.
Staff recommends the formation of this conversion district along this section
of Fourth Avenue because:
1. Fourth Avenue is a major entrance into the Ci ty of Chul a Vi sta. The
undergrounding of existing overhead utilities will contribute to the
creation of an aesthetically pleasing access into the City from the north.
/tJ-j
Page 2, Itl!ll I tl
Meeting Date 4/28/92
2. Fourth Avenue is classified to be a six-lane major street between Highway
54 and "C" Street and a four-lane major street between "C" Street and "E"
Street.
3. The City will use SDG&E allocation funds based on Rule 20-A Distribution
Formula to fund this project.
4. Undergrounding has been completed on Fourth Avenue south of "E" Street
thus making the proposed district an extension of an undergrounded
section.
Section 15.32.130 of the Chula Vista Municipal code requires the City Council
to set a publ ic hearing to determine whether the publ ic health, safety and
general welfare requi res the undergroundi ng of exi st i ng overhead utili ties
within designated areas of the City and to give persons the opportunity to
speak in favor of or against the formation of a proposed district to
underground utilities. The purpose of forming the district is to require the
utility companies to underground all overhead lines and to remove all existing
wood utility poles within the district and to require property owners to
convert their service connections to underground at their expense. The
conversion work by the property owners involves trenching, backfill and
conduit installation fl"om property line to point of connection. Chula Vista
City Council Policy No. 585-1 established a mechanism that reduces the
property owner's cost for the conversi on from the di stri but ion 1 i nes to the
residence. The mechanism is based on the following provisions:
1. Funding is limited to single family residential properties.
Funding is limited to
supp 1 i es/ i nsta 11 s such as
point of connection.
3. Fundi ng shall not exceed the est imated cost of trenchi ng and condui t
installation for up to 100 feet of the private service lateral.
facilities which customer traditionally
trenching and conduit from property 1 ine to
2.
Approval of this resolution will set a public hearing to be held at 6:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of the Public Services Building on June 23, 1992, in
accordance with Section 15.32.130 of the Municipal Code for the formation of
this district.
Section 15.32.140 of the City Code requires the City Clerk to notify all
affected persons and each utility company of the time and place of the public
hearing at least 15 days prior to the date of the publ ic hearing. Notice is
to be given by mail to all property owners and occupants of property located
within the boundaries of the proposed district. The City Clerk is required by
this section of the Code to publish the Resolution of Intention, setting the
public hearing in the local newspaper no less than five days prior to the date
of the public hearing.
)tJ-~
Page 3, It" ItJ
Meeting Date 4/28/92
The install at i on of standard Ci ty street 1 i9hts in thi s stretch of Fourth
Avenue is proposed as a CIP project in 1992/93.. The work is to be done in
association with a similar project along "F" Street from Church Avenue to
Second Avenue.
This installation along both streets is estimated to cost $84,000 and is
proposed to be Gas Tax funded.
A transparency of Exhibit "A" showing the boundaries of the proposed district
is available.
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of pole removal, undergrounding overhead facil ities
and private property conversion funding as outlined above, is estimated to be
about $2.4 million. SDG&E's allocated funds (Rule 20-A) will cover the
estimated cost of the project.
MI/mad:KY-078, AY-087
WPC 5936E
/~-.3 /I()..r
RESOLUTION NO. /64>tJ5
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER PUBLIC
NECESSITY, HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE REQUIRES THE FORMATION OF
AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT ALONG FOURTH AVENUE FROM "E"
STREET TO A POINT APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET SOUTH OF STATE
HIGHWAY 54
The city council of the City of Chula vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, Chapter 15.32 of the Chula vista Municipal Code
establishes a procedure for the creation of underground utility
districts and requires as the initial step in such procedure the
holding of a public hearing to ascertain whether public necessity,
health, safety, or welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead
wires and associated overhead structures and the underground
installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric,
communication, or similar or associated service in any such
district, and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 1992, an Underground Utility Advisory
Committee (UUAC) meeting was held in the Public Services Building
to consider the proposed boundary of an underground utility
district along Fourth Avenue from "E" Street to a point
approximately 100 feet south of State Highway 54, and
WHEREAS, it has been recommended that such an underground
utility district, hereinafter called "District", be formed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city Council of the City
of Chula vista as follows:
1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held
in the Council Chambers of the city of Chula vista at 276 Fourth
Avenue in said city on Tuesday, the 23rd day of June, 1992, at the
hour of 6:00 p.m., to ascertain whether the public necessity,
health, safety or welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead
wires and associated overhead structures and the underground
installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric,
communication, or similar associated service in the District
hereinabove described. At such hearing, all persons interested
shall be given an opportunity to be heard. Said hearing may be
continued from time to time as may be determined by the City
council.
2. The City Clerk shall notify all affected property owners
as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and utilities
concerned of the time and place of such hearing by mailing a copy
1
/~r>
of this resolution to such property owners and utilities concerned
at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date thereof.
3. The area proposed to be included in the District is as
shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by
reference.
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\RS\Intent Underground Utilities
2
I~-~
I I: 8
c: 30Vd 338!: . ,1/
o ' ., - "TI.... .;~ l"4J 11
....~ .. h S ":. ~ '=' ,r .-~
- --ur=g..::. 'I"~ ~ .
CD l, 2: I $'/ ..' _:~'
~ - 1:' ' =- '. ~,. , 4> '"
" I 8~ lo~..,..
CD. . ,. .
......,_ .. ~ '.t:P
.- _..lit". I l._ '----:'..JIIII
I: 74.2' f " . '-'~ ~~ r ~
Cll ; 75 05 ~.
"H.e- ............. ..~~ T - :~::e
I :
I. " : JIJ
I b'?: ..' I"
}:'T:;C::: 90 ,;roe
'~ ;'1 r~",=~ @ @I
- ~ ~ .:-j i ,5 U ;;,Iii,
Ir........... .
.3.;09' I?cOll I.
1 (
E?
.
.
o
O.Ta""
9'/.
POll"
. .
. I
~JZ.:.."
. "','" .. OK'
~~~?::I~ ~it't'-~.
f7
@:>
8
0.."
.!t
~ ~"1
-.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
it _:; '!
~ .
" :.OO~
-r33I:1Is:a~""'-----7 - I
\... r ;: '!J
'.
'.
'.
::
'.
'.
.
..~.; i -,.
~, "'
.
.
.. ..........
(il\ .
~.,.~_. -
ell> ell>
1.'J6&.
60
:il
.
_ ~ ~~:H,tiMt-O.::.O ,:,.
"I" .
,. ,'- 'H
.. d~~ -~'. ,'''
J I ',,'" -i e
a, ~.J/:~
~ . ...ti..;.
-+."f.~ I
, - rm~ !!'i ~
a:
::::)
o
u.
l.J:) .,.,~...
ef"
D _: ...(~ IIIlI ~o,
. "'*
~''; .; Gl:
,/ .. : :;-,:' :..L
'...Owlll ~.."". _ 1
<J
/
I
.... .~il"
<!l
,
_.._ :1!11
II'" =-
@....s _
, ,=
- ':"'
--
=~~
6V
~
1/--
. -
'" .
QUO a
I
I . I
1$0":"
'C -(I
-.
J
~
..
$
.
.1331:1J.S'
I . I
:..4
..
?..i
.
:,.:-)
/ !"S"
J8'- JBI
,Og:
R
T,
i
e>
. .
'~5 t... e
CD
.. oe..:. 3','~'
0 CD 0
_OJ
e>
...
.
,.
.
.
- ".
i!
_l."~i. . __ .&
. .
.
a,'>, :
I.::C: ". "',"
-;-.o.~ :.
t
@ j.......
:,'"
..
.
lis"-
w :'"
::::) .
z ::
w :
>'!.. :-.92:
<C ..a....&...=- -
,.t :
.
.:
. 16'1 :.
.
.
.
i6' _=-
~ ..
~ : .
. .
.. .
~. .;.u
(t7/): :
.
.
. ..
I~~ !
. . . ~ . 'il
';' l~
.... b
10.
I
I~
..- ~~
-- ..
". ::10
,f'<'. 9
'''.l. ..,
!liDL(3
I~ I. "u
,""'~ @
! i .r:- 9. ."of
j
Ji
@
@ '..
I'"lGAlMll~
.:-.~-
~" !
" I
. ILi,' '"
J...:al!J'_
aZ@
o
>
@
.
@
I'
@)
o
~..
~@) ".
i.
_Iw,
,?O :.".~
-
.
I ':"~JF>' IJ'l "
1';'1 ~ I@) ',""
$ I~r..
I~' 81E> t..o ..
· POfIZ$ I
,.,1' 8 CD I.'
. ,
,... ""0
~ 1....0
.,>ulS>...0 I'N
._,
"" ."'"
I~' 'CI; Ie) \1..
., 64 .
@ @) ..
".~." as ~:,~:'
";,,,'-',.
~~_ ~:~J
,., It.- 'J"".'
I (I. '1.<' ,...,.
. ~ ", ......."1 ,. ~.
t,.... ~ ", "
.1
I'
10-7
. ~
-- .
_M.
.",-- f-.-
.1
c_
I
,-,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
J ~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11 -
.
.,
,
,
.
r
..
>-
a:
c
Q
Z
::::)
o
lID
."
CJ
-
a:
,"
U)
-
Q
C\I
LL
0
- C'I
UJ C'I
C!l
-< .-4
Q.
.
0
Z
I ~
E-t 10
0 >-
- <
~ ~
E-t =
rn c.':l
- ....
~ =
r"l
t:.:l~ E-o
z=:> <
E-o
-z l1.h
~~ j::l<C
z> :z: .
=:>< <
I-
0 E-o-
~= r"lCO
r"l-
t:.:lE-t ~:I:
~~ ~X
~=:> w
~O .r"l
z~
=:> z
r"l
~ r"l
~
E-t E-o
- r"l
...:I ~
-
E-t
=:>
N
-. '"
. -
::!; ....
.. ...
>- -
IIQ N
a ..
Illl
..
Q l!
,
.
..
..
..
~
Q
~@-' i
14.._Ae.. I
I
.A VISTA
@.rVAf...
)
~ -Ii
8.p5AC. I
Ii
I I
r-~
---.J
4Sl!
.$1
'fSJ
4$1
1_
AtJS "."-111'_
~ ~.. I"
B3HiS
. ,
,
18
'PARK j
j'V/
15
o.
I
~be
,,,.,,
,,--
~
.110
@
~, "''7
....B
,,- i.OO~_
....,. .
..p
..."
;;1.............i......
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
5 fJ~
5 "-\" ~o
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
;;
. ~ 30Vd 339
.
I
:r
l-
ll:
::2.
o
'"
.' ..,IU
t7S A V MH91H
3J.VJ.S
~
w
~
PeR. 20A<
@
(,l
@
5.30 AC.
as (
4..~
: I<;.~
."'.t. N~'."'~:.I'~
"
: ... ~
./75 @) ~
: -- !'
: ..- a
.~ : ~ ~
...
(.)
. -
.;, Ilc:
...
o
-
Cl
~
e-sc:
. .
-4nriUn,'
.
-
!!
@
-",.~.-..
"'7'."'''''-"' ...
'"
u.
o
'"
w
Cl
<(
...
c-:I
c-:I
.-4
.
o
Z
I
E-4
o
-
~
E-4
00
-
Q
c;:,~
z:::>
-z
Q~
z>
:::><
o
~=
c;:,E-4
~~
~:::>
Qo
z~
:::>
l;>-4
E-4
-
~
-
E-4
:::>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..,
::!E
..
>t
ID
a
Cl
"II'
10
Z
r:ol
r:ol
~
E-<
r:ol
l:I:l
N
CD
....
...
-
....
N
..
IlIl
~
Cl
.'
.
('
RESOLUTION NO. 16415
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ACCEPTING REPORT ON THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
UTILITY UNDERGROUND CONVERSION PROGRAM (STATUS SUMMARY)
AND APPROVING REVISED LIST OF PROPOSED UTILITY
UNDERGROUND CONVERSION PROJECTS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, on September 17, 1991, the City Council accepted staff's report
on the Utility Underground Conversion for Fifth Avenue between "L" and Naples
Streets; and,
WHEREAS, at the same meeting, Council directed staff to prepare a status
summary report on the entire Utility Underground Conversion Program (UUCP) and
to speci fi cally address the issue of undergrounding util i ti es in conjunctton with
the reconstruction of Fifth Avenue between Naples Street and Orange Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, as a result, the proposed conversion program is limited to the
conversion of utilities along the following major thoroughfares:
SeQment
. Northerly City 1 imits to "E" Street
. "H" Street to "L" Street
. "L" Street to Orange Avenue
. Broadway to Corte Maria Avenue
. Third Avenue to Second Avenue
. 1-5 to Industrial Boulevard
. "C" Street to "E" Street
. Industrial Boulevard to Fourth Avenue
. Monserate Avenue to Nacion Avenue
. Fourth Avenue to Third Avenue
. Fifth Avenue to Third Avenue
. Oleander Avenue to Brandywine Avenue
. Ridgeview Way to East "H" Street
. East "H" Street to Apache Drive
. Bonita Road to Camino Del Cerro Grande
. EIO Broadway to Third Avenue
. First Avenue to EIO Nolan Avenue
. EIO Nacion Avenue to WIO Lori Lane
. Third Avenue to First Avenue
Street
l. Fourth Avenue
2. "E" Street
3. "F" Street
4. Palomar Street
5. Broadway
6. Main Street
7. "L" Street
8. Otay Valley Road
9. Otay Lakes Road
,
,
10. J" Street
(
WHEREAS, the City's Advisory Committee (UUAC) has reviewed and approved
staff's recommendations at its October 9, 1991, meeting; and,
ItJ-1
"
Resolution No. 16415
Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, this 12th day of November, 1991, by the following vote:
YES: Councilmembers: Grasser Horton, Malcolm, Moore
NOES: Council member: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: Nader
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: Rindone
~~tJ}j -diem p
Leonard M. Moore
Mayor Pro-Tempore
ATTEST:
(}o~
Beverly A Authelet,
/'
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ss.
I, Beverly A.Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16415 was duly passed, approved,
and adopted by the City Council held on the 12th day of November, 1991.
,
Executed this 12th day of November, 1991.
~
f
\
/IJ-/P
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Itell / /
Meeting Date 4/28/92
ITEM TITLE: Resolution I~('()(P Establishing dates for property owners
to be ready to receive underground service and for the removal
of poles, overhead wires and associated structures within
Underground Utility District No. 119 along Main Street from
1-5 Freeway to Industrial BOU~~V~.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work~ ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager &r (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-X-)
On June 13, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 14128 establishing
Underground Util ity District No. 119 along Main Street from 1-5 Freeway to
Industrial Boulevard. In accordance with Section 15.32.150 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, adopted Resolution No. 14128 states that the City Council
shall by subsequent resolution fix the date upon which affected property
owners must be ready to receive underground service and the date poles,
overhead wires and associated structures shall be removed. The conversion of
existing, overhead utilities to underground utilities is almost complete.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Set June 30, 1992, as the date property owners within Underground
Utility District No. 119 on Main Street from 1-5 Freeway to Industrial
Boulevard shall be ready to receive underground service.
2. Set July 31, 1992, as the date poles, overhead wires and associated
structures shall be removed within Underground Utility District No. 119
on Main Street from 1-5 Freeway to Industrial Boulevard.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
On June 13, 1989, the City Council approved Resolution No. 14128 establishing
Underground Utility District No. 119 along Main Street from 1-5 Freeway to
Industrial Boulevard. The conversion of existing overhead utilities to
underground is almost complete. All customers are currently being served by
underground utilities.
Duri ng a meet i ng of the Utility Underground Advi sory Conunittee on April 8,
1992, the utility companies informed Engineering staff that they can meet the
following schedule for the underground conversion districts:
Date for Customer to be Ready
to Receive Underground Service
June 30, 1992
Completion of Undergrounding Work
and removal of overhead facilities
July 31, 1992
/ /-/
Page 2, Item I)
Meeting Date 4/28/92
The date customers shall be ready to receive underground service is a
formal ity in this case since they already receive service from underground
utilities. However, this date is set to be in accordance with the Chula Vista
Municipal Code.
A transparency showing the district boundaries is available for Council
viewing.
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of undergroundi ng overhead uti 1 it i es wi thi n
Underground Utility District No. 119 is estimated to be $430,000. This cost
will be covered by the SDG&E allocation fund. Since private properties are
currently being served by underground utilities, the owners will not incur
additional costs.
WPC 0075Y/5962E
MJ I: KY -078
I j-,).,
RESOLUTION NO. I~~d~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING DATES FOR PROPERTY
OWNERS TO BE READY TO RECEIVE UNDERGROUND
SERVICE AND REMOVAL OF POLES AND OVERHEAD
FACILITIES WITHIN PHASE I OF UNDERGROUND
UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 119 ALONG MAIN STREET
FROM 1-5 FREEWAY TO INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore by Resolution
No. 14128 established an underground utility district along Main
Street from 1-5 Freeway to Industrial Boulevard, and
WHEREAS, it is now desired, pursuant to said resolution,
to fix the date on which affected property owners must be ready to
receive underground service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula vista that the following dates are hereby
established ordering the property owners to prepare properties for
receipt of underground utilities:
1. The property owners in Underground Utility District
No. 119 on Main Street from 1-5 Freeway to Industrial
Boulevard be ready to receive underground service from
San Diego Gas and Electric Company on June 30, 1992.
2. Poles, overhead wires and associated overhead
structures must be removed with of Underground Utility
District No. 119 on Broadway by July 31, 1992.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Clerk of the city of
Chula vista be, and she is hereby directed to forward a certified
copy of this resolution to all affected utility companies and
property owners.
/fiAl:; by
Ruth M. Fritsch, Assistant City
Attorney
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\n\UUD lIervice
1/-3//1-1
_..m.....m...."....t I
- ,OS' t-.....................
= = SlOWI' AlOJ O!)310 N'O'S
-. .--: to ----
'O^1a = 1'1I~U.SnONI =. 'J.S l:I3.1.SI110H
~1II1111"1AI1I1II~~ I -
ill -
= E I
= =
= =
= =
- -
= = I
- -
= =
= =
= =
= =
= =
= -
= =
= =
5 i
= E I
- -
I i
E Ii
- -
= =
5 E
= = I
5 =
:. = 5
.... = =
a: = =
5 :: _
- - ..
= = t:
UJ:=Z
.5 5 ~
25:: I
~55)-
-' = = ...
~= 5 U
i ~ 0
Ii: z
55z<
l;~! ~
= - t
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
. - -
.. =S
.. = :-
-1 - -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
Ii!
-III1I1I11I1I11UlWi ~
-/ 5 ,o~ =
/
0)
,..
,..
-;Z
-;
"
J
...
CI
.
.
o
Z
I
~
o
- ....
a: cc
~ -
UJ I ~
- L- (I)
I: Ow E
<( "W !
I: Z a: Q
~ _~ z
_OUJ CC
mz
-::)z
::E:O- w
>< a: <( ~
W ,,:E t;
a: I a:
W e!
o !
Z
::)
>
~
-
..J
-
~
::)
o
~
I-
W
W
Q:
I-
en
'3^,,"
S 0.1. IW'I11 '11
.
..
.
N
2
= .
= .
=.
! .
= .
E ·
- .
- .
~.
:.
Cl.
z.
=-.
Cl
..~
..-
C:l u!
~ i'"
~ .. ~
\oJ ....
~ 0 u
-
.
..,
.
:&
..
><
IQ
a
Q
~
:unSl:I31.NI
1/-5
Q
a:
CC
>
w
....
::I
o
UI
II)
z
w
w
==
...
w
UI
N
m
......
,...
...
......
'It
..
IIiI
Eo
l3
MAILING LIST FOR MAIN STREET CONVERSION DISTRICT
Lincoln Property Company
P.O. Box 19693
30 Executive Park #100
Irvine, CA 92714
RTA International, Inc.
1650 Industrial Blvd.
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Caltrans-TrafficjElectrical Division
P.O. Box 85406
San Diego, CA 92186-5406
Attention: Herb Patchel
city of San Diego
Maintenance Yard
1220 Caminino Centro
San Diego, CA 92102
Attention: Ernie Shaffer
Scott Buttler
6847 Fashion Hill Blvd.
San Diego, CA 92111
CMll\ADORESS)
,
~~
MAILING LIST
Dottie Bacarti
Pacific Bell
5601 Grossmont Center Dr, Rm 226
La Mesa, Ca 91942
Brenda Nehme
Pacific Bell
5601 Grossmont Center Dr, Rm 226
La Mesa, Ca 91942
Paul Thompson
San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
4901 Morena Blvd, suite 210
San Diego, CA 92117
Bill LeVeau
Cox Cable San Diego, Inc.
5159 Federal Blvd
San Diego, CA 92105-5486
Christine Andrew
Cox Cable San Diego, Inc.
5159 Federal Blvd.
San Diego, Ca 92105-5486
Gary Potter
Chula vista Cable
253 Third Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
Ken Morehead
Chula vista Cable
253 Third Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
Patricia Barnes
San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
436 "H" Street
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
(MI\UUAC.MTG)
//-7
/7
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Itell
Meeting Date 4/21/92
10<
ITEM TITLE:
Report on traffic concerns at Main Post Office, 750 Third
Avenue .. ~
Director of Public Works ~
City Managei1], (4/Sths Vote: Yes___No-x-)
/Y' Council Referral #2548
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Staff received letters dated February 19 and March 7, 1992 from Mr. Lawrence
P. Colman, 368 Hilltop Drive, requesting that the Chula Vista Police
Department not cite drivers which are making U-turns around the south end of
the del ineators on Third Avenue in front of the south driveway to the Main
Post Office and that changes be made to the existing signing and pavement
marki ngs.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council accept this report and not make any
changes to the existing traffic control devices and striping on Third Avenue
adjacent to the Post Office exit driveway.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Staff made several changes to the striping in the 700 block of Third Avenue in
front of the Chula Vista Main Post Office in early 1989 in an attempt to
reduce the number of accidents in the area and to mitigate the reduced sight
distance due to the post office mail box drop off area. Staff and the Safety
Commission met with the Postmaster, Richard Esslinger, and made several
changes to the post office drop off area, the exit driveway, main parking lot
and Third Avenue.
In an effort to improve sight distance and reduce congestion in the drop off
area, both south mailboxes were moved northward, closer to the third mailbox.
Vehicles are not allowed to exit the post office drop off area and attempt a
left or U-turn to go north. The exit (south driveway) to the post office has
also been modified to only one lane out. Vehicles are not allowed to exit the
post office and attempt a left turn to go north. The left turn restriction
for vehicles exiting the post office parking lot, has been in place since
February 1989. Since that time, there have not been any reported accidents in
the area while traffic congestion has also been reduced.
Mr. Lawrence P. Colman, 368 Hilltop Drive, has requested that staff do
something about the exit driveway and the enforcement of the left turn
prohibition. It is also being requested that a traffic signal or a three-way
stop be installed to mitigate the situation. Staff does not recommend any of
these suggestions.
I,). -I
Page 2, Item I~
Meeting Date 4/21/92
The existing signing and striping is considered appropriate for the
conditions. The mailbox drop off area and the post office exit driveway each
have their own no left/U-turn signs. Both the exit driveway and the mailbox
drop off area are clearly marked and identified so that a motorist knows that
the only legal movement out of the post office is to make a right turn and go
south on Third Avenue to K Street.
The perimeter of the painted median on Third Avenue is marked by two sets of
solid double yellow centerline stripes. In addition, on the inside of the
painted median are six (6) raised delineators, and a no left turn sign mounted
above a pair of yellow reflective markers. The signs in the area are not
considered to be excessive.
Mr. Colman mentions in his letter that instructions given to drivers in the
California Driver Handbook issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles need to
be considered. Staff has investigated this concern and found that there is
clear mention and illustration that the meaning of two sets of solid double
yellow lines signify a painted median and that it is not permitted to drive on
or over thi s part of the roadway. You may not make a 1 eft turn or U-turn
across the painted median.
In the 12-month period previous to the installation of the signs and
delineators in February 1989, there were 3 reported accidents involving left
turns out of the post office. In the 36-month period since the signs were
installed, there have been no reported accidents at this location involving
vehicles attempting the prohibited left turns out of the post office. With
average daily traffic counts of approximately 23,220 vehicles per day combined
with an 85th percentile speed and posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour,
staff does not recommend any additional changes to the signing and striping of
Third Avenue in the vicinity of the post office mailbox drop off area and exit
dri veway. Traffi c congestion on Thi rd Avenue and the post offi ce has been
reduced and traffi c safety has increased with the 1 eft turn prohi bit ion and
current signing and striping.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
Attachments: Area Plat
Existing Striping
Letters dated February 19, 1992 and Marth 7 19j-2
Memo from Chief of Police dated April 2::$, 1~92 NtJr Se.4A1A1E4
Memo from Chief of Police dated March 25, 1992
WPC 5944E
).). - .J..
~.. ..,.o:-..~.:.
0,..,
,-
,
--I "-
---1 i
I __j
-,-
--I I
-j--r-l
i I : ~
, I I ,
'.J,. ...I.
I
, I I
It:
~ '
-I
-
- ~
-
-
, -
-
-- -0')
H
-z
rt-
I
,
i ill
I I
...L.
~
N I- ---
I ~ _"
~~ \ ~ - - - - -- -
3 'I ~..v---l I
-r-\' I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
...I.
"n3'r
i
I
I
I
I
.J,.
I
I
I -r-r-I Tl
r I I I I
I I I I I
I ...J....l. .J,.....
...I.
I
,- ---- -----
I
P
Ii
..J.
--, I I
I
I , , ,
,
, 1/)1" I I I , I "~
, I , I --'--'-
, ,
, , --'
- - - -
- -1&.1
-
1&.1 >
--'l uc(
c:t
~:~. ~~>il
-
",-
I
,
-
I
IIi I I _L__
I I I:
....L .....
--- .;.
I ~
-------;
I -
--
! --
.
-;
->
-
I '
I
I __
_m r 4t
Q:
I. , 'i'-
I ---u
,- --
,-
- -~-
,
I
TU
-
I I__
I I I I I r- ,
I "I L.....___
I I l~__
----',_.J.__- .l---T---
:-----1
L__-"'-_-J
-- 1-------
I
---'- I _:;
-- --, --
..1__+___ a:
-- --~
-::~- ----t---- ...:J:
.r -r- ___~----- ....
-~- L______
--'
-- I
,-- ...J
-------
I I
,
AW
" : II
-
I
-
I
,--
, I
I ,
I ,
, , ,
" - - - I ,
I
I ,
-- I I ,
,
, , I ,
, , I .....
.,
-\-
, 1"-
-
- - - - t
,
1 1 I t
: I It: :
I I r ~__ J..,-,..
I L__ _I I I I
. I _I I I
J _ -' _ _ I I I
- lIt I I
: I I I I
____.J
---or --: ~
- - - -, --- ~ J - - -- - - - --G
---r ---- I
1'1 h
.
-- -
I
I-
u~
~UJ
COO::
':)~
C/')
-----.-r--
....
iLl
I=!
~
.1
i
I
I
I
I
-- --{
--..
--
I
l&J
~
-
----- ---en
-- 0
~
------ .r:]
~ )-(-~--~~
..L
--,-
, -
-
~
r---
~
-
-
I
q
------
I _'
-j--- ---- - ~
'---. 1 ___ c.
- .'"
HJ..~O N
~-
-L..L
..l.
"
I
1 --::I
---
E-i
~
~
P-.
I
Iii
.
~
~
~
~
..
~
<I:
~
~
I...,
~
;:,
c
~
...
...
..
..
~..,;~,
....... '; '.
.'
I i I j 1i'L--.@- _ -=- _
I ' __- _
. ~
~ .
I I · ~ "...:..
I
I:. ... 0: /:
: I:' 1 ~~. :/
I', ~"/
1'1 '-" /
i I
I I I I
I.
I .:
. ",
I
" .
Zj
~
r .
"
1
I"
, --:~i"':'!
'... ";' ../
- ~ ~
"
. '""
~> t
I~'
.~
I~
"
/ .2.-J.j
~
~
Z.
-
Q.
-
Q:'
I-
'"
~
Z
-
I-
.0
-
><
LI.I
,
..
..
....
....
....
-
....
.ll
ell
..
'"
~+.-.
..
GO
..
~
April 23, 1992
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
John D. Goss, City Manager ,;('
Rick Emerson, Ch i ef of Po 1 i' ce Q.~~
Traffic Control at Main Post Office on Third Avenue
In connection with the agenda item for the April 28, 1992 Council meeting
regarding the above subject, I thought you would be interested in knowing that
Mr. Lawrence Colman, who protested a traffic ticket he had receiving for making
an illegal U-turn at this location, was found guilty and fined $BO.OO.
Apparently the Traffic Court Judge felt that the City's existing signage at the
Post Office is clear with regard to turning movements.
This is transmitted for your information.
mab
co 1man
/,;1. -.5
LAWRENGE P. GOLMAN
368 HILLTOP DRIVE
GHULA VISTA, GA 92010
(619) 421)-271)1
r(t,CE:v;: ',:"1
;!i'f 01:' CHU1:; VIS! A
!-:NGHJ;:e:FHNG DEPT
/992 FE8 I 9 PM 3: 46
February 19, 1992
Richard Emerson
Chief of police
City of Chula vista
276 4th. Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Citizen/Police Relationships
Dear Chief Emerson:
I am writing to inform you personally of the matter which I
discussed before the Chula Vista City Council last night in open
communications. But first, I want to congratulate you upon your
appointment as Chief of police of our great city, and to wish you
much success and personal satisfaction.
In my nineteen years as a resident of Chula Vista, I have
always - until recently - felt that the Police Department was
always acting in the best interests of our residents. Over the
years, whenever I or my neighbors have needed help from your
department, your staff and officers were always outstanding in the
conduct of their responsibilities. I believe that you are lucky
to have such a fine staff and such fine officers. I felt that
there was truly a supportive relationship between the residents of
Chula Vista and the police Department. I sincerely want to do
everything possible to preserve this traditional supportive
relationship, which is an integral part of the quality of life of
our city. No doubt you share this objective.
However, you may not be aware of changes made by the Interim
Chief of police in the period following the retirement of Chief
Winners in mid-October '91, changes which you have now inherited.
According to your own officers, the "numbers" expected of your
Traffic Control Officers were greatly increased in the late Fall
of 1991. I was not aware of this until recently, when I became a
victim of their new, aggressive tactics on two different
occasions.
I was issued a citation on January 7, 1992 at 6:55 A.M. by
Officer L. Davis (#300) for making a turn which I had made a
thousand times before on Third Avenue past the Post Office. I have
since obtained the statistics on citations for sign violations in
the past six months in the 700 block of Third Avenue (See attached
letter of February 6th., 1992). The aggressivity to which I refer
is obvious in the statisticsl Your Officers averaged 2 citations
per month in August, september, October and November, 1991. They
averaged 19.5 such citations per month in December '91 and January
'92l In oecember and January you took approximately $3,500 in
fines away from the citizens and drivers of Chula vista just for
this alleged offense, during economic times when nobody can afford
such fines.
/.2. -"
Chief Richard Emerson
Chula vista police Department
February 9, 1992
Page 2 of 3
I call it an alleged offense, because our very talented
Traffic Engineer, Mr. Frank Rivera, was not aware that the police
Department was issuing citations for this particular turn on Third
Avenue. He had not anticipated that such a turn would be treated
as an offensel The traffic flow changes made when Richard
Esslinger was Postmaster in 1989 were designed to ease the flow of
traffic in and out of the Post Office, not to create a trap for
unsuspecting motorists - a trap which your officers are now taking
advantage of in order to meet their new citation quotas.
The second "incident" which I experienced involved tailgating
of my car by a police car all the way east on "F" Street from
about 4th. or 5th Avenue one evening in late January. I had
committed no infraction, and I did not even know that the car
which was aggressively intimidating me was a police car until I
turned off Hilltop Drive into my home. He then continued south on
Hilltop Drive. He could have passed me at any time, if he had
been in a rush. He could have pulled me over, but he did not do
so. Instead, he acted in an aggressive, threatening, intimidating
manner, for no apparent reason.
My fears were reinforced when I was told by one of your
Officers that the feel the same ressure and a ressivit INSIDE
t e pollce Department t at I as a cltlzen ave fe t outslde t e
Department. Some Officers are very unhappy over this change in
the way they are being directed and supervised.
Surely the number of traffic citations issued is no index of
an Officer's competence or performance of his job. If anything, I
would consider an unusually high citation rate to warrant
investigation of the attitudes and integrity of an Officer.
We the citizens of Chula vista do not benefit from having
your Officers lying in wait to trap our city's drivers in
situations where the signage and road marking is defective or
ambiguous. We become victims of police aggressivity in such a
situation. Encouraging - indeed directing - such aggressivity is
only a short step in the path toward developing situations leading
to charges of police brutality. Chula vista does not need a
Rodney King incident.
I therefore urge you to take the pressure off your fine
Officers and let them do the jobs for which they are needed and
wanted. Harassing drivers with alleged traffic violations and
intimidating actions should not be part of their assignments.
I further urge you to consult with your Traffic Engineer, Mr.
Frank Rivera, to permanently remedy the ambiguous Post Office
traffic situation. I would encourage you to instruct your
Officers to stop issuing citations for the alleged wrong turn at
the Post Office, until the signage and marking is fully corrected.
).;J. -7
Chief Richard Emerson
Chula Vista Chief of Police
February 19, 1992
Page 3 of 3
Finally, I would suggest that you consider revoking all the
similar citations issued by your Officers, under duress of meeting
quotas, for left turn violations at the Post Office issued in
December, January and through to the current time.
Should you, however, determine that the citations in question
should remain, I ask you to assure that Officer L. Davis (.300) is
present for my trial in Department 3 of Municipal Court on March
6, 1992, at 1:30 P.M., as I intend to question him in great detail
in the conduct of my defense. His failure to appear would benefit
me, but would leave the underlying issues of quotas, entrapment,
police agressivity and defective signage unresolved, and would
continue to expose our citizens to unwarranted citations and
penalties. Failure to resolve these issues would seriously
undermine relationships between your Officers and the Community,
and would destroy the quality of life in our fine city.
Further to my defense, I would appreciate being advised of
the name of the immediate supervisor of Officer Davis.
Sincerely,
,
Lawrence P. Colman
Encl: Police Dept. ltr. dtd. 2/6/92
cc: Mayor Tim Nader, City of Chula vista
Members of the Chula vista City Council
Mr. Frank Rivera, Chula vista Engineering Dep't.
LPC:p
~-~
~{ft-
=~~-~
~~~;E
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
POLICE DEPARTMENT
February 6, 1992
Lawrence P. Colman
Motrol Scientific, Inc.
P.O. Box 8941
Chula Vista, CA 91912
Dear Mr. Colman:
Here are the statistics you requested. I know that we discussed
a one year search with month by month breakdowns. Unfortunately,
the data base we utilize only captures citations for a six month
period. The following statistics begin in August of 1991 and
conclude with January of 1992. If I can be of any further assist-
ance to you, please do not hesitate to call. My phone number is
(619) 691-5219 and my work hours are 0730 to 1630.
August 0
September 6
October 1
November 1
December 24
January 15
Total 47
These are, again, citations for violation of signs in the 700 block
of Third Avenue.
Sincerely,
-&I!:.1:t, '256
I~ -r;
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 92010
LAWRENCE P. COLMAN
368 HILLTOP DRIVE
GHULA VISTA. GA 92010
(619) 423-27151
... CE:V-t'i
, t- v".. _ r....,
".~; , U~ CHULA' H'!
~.N:--"-;;- __ VI~,A
J"J......r~'~.:G :JEPT
March 7,
I$Z MAR I l
1992
AM 9' 54
Mr. Frank Rivera
Traffic Engineer
City of Chula vista
276 fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
RE: TRAFFIC SIGNAGE AT THE EXIT TO THE POST OFFICE IN THE
700 BLOCK OF THIRD AVENUE, CHULA VISTA.
Dear Mr. Rivera:
I am the person who met with you on the morning of February
4, 1992 at your office to discuss the traffic signage at the exit
to the post office in the 700 block of Third Avenue. I appreciate
your cooperation, interest and concern.
You may recall that I received a citation on January 7, 1992
for alleged violation of California Vehicle Code section 21461 (a)
Violation of Traffic Signs (No Left Turn), at the exit to the Post
Office. As you know, it is physically impossible to make a left
turn at this location, because you have installed a barrier
dividing the road at this location. Nevertheless, the Chula vista
Police have been issuing a great number of citations for this
violation during the months of December 1991 and January, 1992.
Although I have not yet received the requested February 1992
statistics, I enclose a copy of the letter of February 6, 1992
from the Chula vista Police Department showing the historical
statistics for this citation, through January, 1992.
Yesterday Judge Russell of the Municipal Court of the South
Bay Judicial District issued a one-month continuance of my case,
to allow for completion of the internal investigation now in
process within the City of Chula vista and the CVPD. However, in
the course of the discussion in open court, Judge Russell made two
very significant comments which I would like to bring to your
attention. These were, roughly paraphrased:
a) In recent times he has found many people guilty of this same
violation.
b) He believes that the problem is that there are too many signs
at this location.
Judge Russell is clearly well aware that a problem exists
with the signage and/or marking at this location, and that many
people are being fined for traffic violations of the signage at
this location.
I;L -/P
Mr. Frank Rivera
Signage at Post Office
March 7, 1992
Page 2 of 2
This is a situation that must STOPI As long as the
signage/markings remain as they are, people will continue to
allegedly violate them. On Tuesday afternoon, March 3, 1992, I
photographed five drivers in the space of ten minutes making
substantially the same move for which I and many others have been
cited. Anyone can go stand down there and see this phenomenon
taking place continually! This was an alleged violation of one
every two minutes (from 2:50 PM to 3:00 PM that afternoon)!
Clearly the public does not know that this is considered by
the Chula vista police Department to be a violation. In the
meantime, the drivers of Chula vista are being victimized.
Chula vista Police Officers are staking out the area, lying in
wait for unsuspecting motorists. Hard-earned moneys are being
picked from their pockets in the form of supposedly legal fines.
This is clearly a situation that must STOPI With your
special knowledge of the traffic engineering field, you are
uniquely qualified to remedy this situation immediately, on your
own recognizance. I encourage you to give full consideration to
all aspects of the problem, including the possibility of
installing a three-way stop or a traffic light at this location.
Please carefully consider not only the engineering aspects, but
also the statutory considerations, case law, and the instructions
given to drivers in the California Driver Handbook issued by the
Department of Motor Vehicles. The complexity and ambiguity of the
application of the statutes and instructions in this situation is
readily apparent.
I admire all the other excellent changes that you have
introduced to improve the flow of traffic in Chula Vista.
Many thanks,
Encl: CVPD Letter of Feb. 6, 1992
CC: Captain Ross Withers, CVPD
Mayor Tim Nader, City of Chula Vista
J~ -/1
~v?-
~
...-;.--~--
...........Iij;.~
OlY OF
CHUIA VISTA
POLICE DEPARTMENT
February 6, 1992
Lawrence P. Colman
Motrol Scientific, Inc.
P.O. Box 8941
Chula Vista, CA 91912
Dear Mr. Colman:
Here are the statistics you requested. I know that we discussed
a one year search with month by month breakdowns. Unfortunately,
the data base we utilize only captures citations for a six month
period. The following statistics begin in August of 1991 and
conclude with January of 1992. If I can be of any further assist-
ance to you, please do not hesitate to call. My phone number is
(619) 691-5219 and my work hours are 0730 to 1630.
August 0
September 6
October 1
November 1
December 24
January 15
Total 47
These are, again, citations for violation of signs in the 700 block
of Third Avenue.
j?ceri)JJJ _
Age~'R.J~r;f
#256
/~-Ie7J.
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 92Gl0
of
/
DATE
March 25, 1992
VIA
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
John Goss, City Manage(j
Richard P. Emerson, Chief of Police ~
TO
FROM
.
,
SUBJECT
,
.
Response to Complaints by Mr. Lawrence Colman
Council Referral Report No. 2548
Pursuant to oral and written communications received from Mr. Lawrence Colman, Police
Department (CVPD) staff have developed this informational report on traffic citations and CVPD
policies regarding traffic enforcement. The origin of Mr. Colman's complaints were twofold:
1) that he had unjustifiably been issued a traffic citation on January 7th, for making a left turn
exiting the Post Office on Third Avenue; and, 2) that on an unspecified date, he had been
aggressively tailed by a PD unit between Fourth or Fifth Avenue and Hilltop Drive. Mr.
Colman stated that upon the retirement of former Chief Winters, the CVPD had instituted both
a traffic citatiQn quota as part of a policy directing more aggressive traffic enforcement tactics.
Mr. Colman provided data, given him by City staff, and unsubstantiated comments from
unnamed CVPD Officers in support of his assertions. Staff was directed to provide Council with
information as to the legitimacy of Mr. Colman's complaints. Staff has objectively reviewed
the circumstances surrounding Mr. Colman's ticket and the data used in support of his
accusations and finds no indication that any of Mr. Colman's complaints are legitimate.
Issue #1 CVPD Policy Regarding Traffic Citation Ouotas
There is no official or de facto CVPD policy regarding traffic citation quotas. This is
demonstrated by both a review of the CVPD General Orders and traffic citation data.
Issue #2: Traffic Citation Data
Citywide, the number of traffic citations varies substantially from month to month. There are
a multitude of factors which cause this disparity: call for service volume, directed traffic
enforcement activity, community events and the weather. There are undoubtedly other variables
that impact this observed variance; however, in the absence of a very sophisticated statistical
analysis, there is no valid method of inferring cause and effect. The last seven months of traffic
citation data are as follows:
Month # Change Month # Change
AUG 91 1369 n/a DEC 91 1702 -192
SEP 91 1401 +32 JAN 92 2108 +406
OCT 91 2239 +838 FEB 92 1185 -923
NOV 91 1894 -345 AVG. 1700 456
The table indicates that the average variation, month to month, is some 456 citations. Such a
1r2 -/3
seven month period. During the observed months, there were three in which the number of
citations increased from the previous month and three where the number of citations decreased
from the previous month. This upward and downward variation is simply too large and too
random to infer that it is somehow caused by any independent variable including the introduction
of a quota system.
Issue #3: The Validi~ of Mr. Colman's Citation
Staff is convinced Mr. Colman made an illegal, and perhaps more importantly an unsafe, turn.
Mr. Colman's argues that his citation is invalid is based on two arguments: 1) that the signage
and traffic control is confusing; and, 2) that, in an effort to meet their quota, CVPD Officers
lay in wait for confused motorists to make turns out of the Post Office.
The signage and traffic control is not confusing. As depicted in Attachment A, views A and B
look westward across Third A venue. These views show very clearly the pylons installed to
prevent left hand turns. Views C and D show the driver's view exiting the Post Office at the
driveway (C) and at the curbline (0). The pylons are designed to indicate to reasonable persons
that left turns are prohibited. The two signs clearly indicate, using international traffic control
symbols, that left hand turns and u-turns are prohibited.
CVPD Officers do not lay in wait for confused motorists to make turns out of the Post Office.
While the CVPD performs directed enforcement activity at the subject location, as indicated by
the table below, this directed patrol is focused during the months the Post Office is busiest and,
therefore, more dangerous. During January 1992, the month in which the Mr. Colman's citation
was issued, CVPD Officers averaged only one citation per day. Here is data for citations issued .
at the subject location for a five month period over the last four years:
1988-89
Month Yr
Oct 88
Nov 88
Dec 88
Jan 89
Feb 89
1990-91
Month Yr
Oct 89
Nov 89
Dee 89
Jan 90
Feb 90
#
o
o
1
1
3
1989-90
Month Yr
Oct 89
Nov 89
Dec 89
Jan 90
Feb 90
#
o
2
4
7
6
#
7
9
33
32
19
This is the data upon which Mr. Colman based his accusations. Once again, there is simply no
valid method of correctly inferring cause and effect based on data such as this.
#
8
8
35
18
25
1991-92
Month Yr
Oct 91
Nov 91
Dec 91
Jan 92
Feb 92
It is important to note that the subject location earned a reputation for being hazardous. In the
;:;'-1'1
twelve months prior to the March, 1989, installation of the described traffic control and signage
there were three collisions involving people performing the exact maneuver executed by Mr.
Colman. The Traffic Engineer also reports several other accidents during this same twelve
month period involved motorists turning left from the drop boxes along the west curbline. In
the thirty seven months since the existing signs were posted and traffic control pylons installed,
there have been no accidents involving persons attempting the subject left hand turn.
Conclusion
Based upon a thorough and objective review of complainants allegations, both the evidence and
data indicates his complaints are not legitimate.
),).,/5
ItIIAVHMl;N I "
View A
VIEW 8
VIEW C.
~~~ji;f~
E~ij1L~r~~:~~~~~!l~~jj~:j~;~li~~~~!~{~{~~i\~~~t&
VIE~ [)
),).-/q,
I'I-V OTIER
ROAD IN\' R/W PED -lJElHCtE-- IIlIV./PED ASSOC
WEA LIT 5 CON WIT CTL ACT NO. TP I'IY DIR AGE SEX 5/D FACTOR
CLR [ISl( A H C D A I ALE 31 F A E
2A8 5 37FA N
CDAIA8537ftAF
2AA 5 49FA N
CDAIAEN43FAF
2D8 5 45ftA N
150' 5 21952 9 CLD DAY A H B D F I ALE 22 F A F
2N8 N 46FA N
C D A I A 8 5 21 FAN
2AA 5 57ftA N
123' N 21954A Ie CLD DAY A H 8 D D I A 8 5 55 FAN
2NLE25FAF
C D A I D 8 5 19 ft E N
2A8 5 30ftA N
CAAIA8534ftAF
2AA 5 33FA N
CDAIC8S26ftAF
2 ALE 19 ft A N
C A A I A E E 67 ft A N
2A8531ftAN
IDAIA8536FAN
2 ge
165' 5 22107 13 CLD DAY A HID A I A 8 5 36 FAN
2 ge
21' 5 22107 13 CLR 51. A H C D A I A L 5 35 FAN
2A8 5 57ftA N
CDAIA8S33ftAA
2 A 8 E 81 F A F
132' 5 21952 9 CLR DAY A H B D F I A D E 55 F A F
2N8 N 55FA N
CDAIA8521FAF
2AA569FAN
86' 5 22350 2 CLR 51. A H C D A I A J 5 39 FAN
2AA522FAN
192' 5 2I8elA 6 CLR PAY A H C A A I A 8 N 62" A N
2AE S 26FA N
. H0
CHULA VI5TA
TRAFFIC ro..t.I51ON DETAIL REP(flT
5ITE LOCATICt/: on THIRD A~ between KEAAtf:Y 5T 3
SEARCH DATE5 fro. 01-t1-88 to 02-10-92
ro..t.I51ON
REPCllT
NO.
~ 81285
VIC-
TIftS
IN FA
o 0
TYPE POI NT Cf'
Cf' IftPACT
CCt.. LOCATION
SROD 51' N
PRlft COl..
FACTOR
YC SEC GP
21802A 7
ro..t.I51ON
DATE DA TInE
88-17-88 TH 1906
81846 11-17-88 F 1150 2 0 REAR 286' N 22350 2 CLR PAY A H
~ 81914 11-30-88 TH 15e2 2 0 SROD 150' N 2180IA 6 CLR DAY A H
'10266
S~!,$ -
Li-,,"Illlcsl '10484
02-18-89 SO 1603
o fED
03-24-89 SA 1119 0 0 REAR 284' 5 22350 2 CLR PAY A H
'10m 05-15-89 TU ISIS I 0 fED
9m8 07-e9-89 TU 1602
o REAR 292' N 21804 8 CLR DAY A H
91275 88-e9-89 F 1221 0 0 REAR 229' 5 22350 2 CLD DAY A H
.. 91313
'* 91328
88-16-89 F 1945 I 0 SROD 190' 5 21804A 8 CLR 51. A H
88-17-89 SA 1241 0 0 SROD 196' N 21804A 8 CLR DAY A H
91598 10-15-89 TU 1015 0 0 08JT 165' 5 22107 13 CLD DAY A H
91597 10-15-89 TU 1815 0 0 OM
91835 11-28-89 TU 1800 0 0 SROD
..
9 01-t2-'10 W 1127 0 0 SROD 243' S 21804A 8 CLD DAY 8 H
97 01-30-'10 W 1846
o fED
258 02-15-'10 F 1215 0 0 REAR 527' S 22350 2 CLR DAY A H
41:: llHL-~1 F 2~0 3 0 ROIl
1115 07-25-'10 TH 1301 I 0 SROD
M DATE: 3- 2-92
and K 5T I
LOCATION core: 20460-2
:1iI tl-.. /J.. Ihtl/jt~ re.uI'OIAS to it..... .'Asifo..t'o/l .1 sifM "" i Posi,/1fClt.
~~ ~ 3 o.c.c.;k;J'1ss ,;"vDIIJ,':j left 7N"'1S iI,."t .f ik /1,if 'fficll-..
,.,. -1l f.' ~ tk "")tfM ~ 1'",.;la/1sJ -I&-e k.v-e b.R.q" /lO~.
..1" 7J,.4 I~ ~jl\e.t. ... ./ ' - J. L - k \
/Jg.-;;/;; ~ ~ tAr-€ G..c-c)4/I-& ,;,vill'''J V'<lA1~ /IV, l"f
~ o.c..C-/ 11 M "'6 r" -14- JrIIJlJ.WN-S ;" iii.t' b/f:/,J.
filIi -/wn5 ,'".70 or 0,," wlJ 0':;;6 . f: /Il.fi 0'- V1 fw"nS Fn"'" t4
-fk.e ~ o.lso V2(1lT~( o.cr..JJi/r I"VO ~ /~ -/7
l-.n bO~S "'/0","", h w<!6 cw10 /I~..
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 13
Meeting Date 4/28/92
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit PCC-91-24; Appeal of Planning
Commission approval of request to redevelop service station and add mini-
market and car wash at 1498 Melrose Avenue
Resolution Affirming the decision of the Planning Commission
and thereby approving PCC-91-24
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning /t!t.(
REVIEWED BY: City Manager B (4/5tbs Vote: Yes_No.1O
This item is a proposal to redevelop the service station at 1498 Melrose Avenue with new
facilities, including new gas dispenser islands and canopy, 1800 sq. ft. mini-market, and a 750
sq. ft. automatic car wash. It has been called forward on appeal by the City Council in response
to concerns raised by surrounding residents and business owners with respect to traffic and
concentration of liquor sales.
The matter was continued from the meeting of March 24, 1992, in order to allow the Council
to first consider a report on alcohol sales facilities in C-N wnes. Council considered the report
on April 21 and directed staff to establish a review process for such facilities. It is appropriate,
therefore, to postpone the consideration of the Texaco application until the new review process
is in place.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council postpone consideration of the appeal on PCC-91-24 until
after the consideration/adoption of a review process for alcohol sales facilities in C-N zones.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
It is estimated that a review process can be returned to Council for consideration in
approximately 60-90 days. The applicant, Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc., does not
necessarily oppose the recommended postponement, but has indicated a desire to address the
Council on the issue of timing at the hearing. The item would need to be renoticed when it is
rescheduled for hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
(pcC91-24.All3)
1:3-/
6 ( ,~
File No.
PUBLIC HEARlNG CHECK LIST
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARI~G DATE ~ .,) \> I \ q'1~
SUBJECT n_,,>.~.Q ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~Ao--H.Jo.=--~ ,J.-
~~. iL-Q 2-,t..h-
LOCATION
SENT TO STAR NEWS FOR PUBLICATION -- BY FAX /; BY HAND_; BY MAIL
PUBLICATION DATE
MAILED NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS
NO. MAILED
PER GC 54992 Legislative Staff, Construction Industry Fed, 6336 Greenwich Dr Suite F. San Diego, 92122
LOGGED IN AGENDA BOOK
COPIES TO:
Administration (4) ./'
Planning .,/
Originating Department
Engineering ......-"
Others
City Clerk's Office (2)
POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS
'1!(dq2-
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
.58.
NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING
BY mE CHULA VISfA CTIY COUNCIL
CHULA VISfA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold a public
hearing to consider the following:
DRC-92-04: Appeal from the Planning Commission decision
denying a freestanding pole sign design at 830 Broadway.
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 PUBUC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, April 28,
1992, at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue,
at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED:
April 15, 1992
Beverly A. Authelet
City Clerk
NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING
BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY
COUNCIL of Chula Vista, California, for the purpose of considering an appeal of the Design
Review Committee's decision to conditionally approve the sign design for the freestanding pole
sign submitted by Firestone Real Estate proposed to be installed at 830 Broadway. The Planning
Commission at their meeting of October 9, 1991, upheld the decision of the Design Review
Committee. Copies of the proposed freestanding pole sign design are on file in the office of the
Planning Department. Any petitions to be submitted to the City Council must be received in
the City Clerk's Office no later than noon of the hearing date.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this appeal 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 at or prior to the public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, April 28,
1992, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at
which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: April 13, 1992
CASE NO. DRC-92-04
Beverly Authelet
City Clerk
U L -,-- I . ~ I. : : :
- " ... - 1&eM 1 : ! ! : I
~ L~ I I
> ~'ATI~ I ,\ ./ -;--
Z i-- : ,
0 i ~/
~ _ _,_ _~.. ... _ .. _ . _ 1 . __ - '-- -
C
< Ze- f---- , -
-1 r ~ -y I ;tl-- ---- .. __J r -,
, , -
- , : ---
WAY 1\:- ---~ , 51 ERRA WAY
! ; I 1 , ..- L..[
>- -- ,
-- ,
, I\: => EI
- I - n___ Z
""'-\ ~ . - - ~ Il"I
- . ..I " > >
Yr .14 14 1<1
I \', - -- - ~ i-- .
u_ i-- :z:
- , -4. ..... ..- ~I
- I r--- 1 -~I ~I
"
-, "
.. :..J -r II
"
SIERRA
ilL"
, ,
,
,
,
..... ..:.J
,
I
,
,
,
,
D:
C
o
III
()
.':.J
~_. - -.
y
.-..--
.
'-,~.- ILItt
- :J
ST, Z .
ILl
~ I
ST.
ARIZONA
. .
" I I
: ';--1".- r:--.
t
I
-.
,
l
Ij
I~
)'
)
(F1~t>N~ ~ we__ GfJ.
9~b . WlJ:t(
NORTH ( D~ .'l~. 04
LOCATOR
:.l
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXl XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)
X XX xx xx xx xx XXXX xx xx xx xx XXXX XX) XXXX xx x x XXXX XXX X XXXX xX xx xx XX X)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
571~810jO()
E: LL iN PU BtR T A
...... _ _ _L .......... n
ChU~A VISTA CA ~1~10
57126104(J0
TOSTADO uUADALUPc E
-. ~.. - ~
CHULA VI~TA LA 91911
571~81070(J
LAPIkA TO~A~ ~/~L~A
v~_ .t . , .r
ChULA VISTA CA ~1~11
5712610800
~H,CAD" ~~N
...,." lI,lo\tl j iI-loY~
~HULA VI~TA LA 91911
57128HI00
~NU
ChU...A V iST'A C"
(,1 LULA ~,
'il 'ill
571281121.10
~AOILLO bE~NY C/ALICIA
.1 _~ ~~" ~~~~U_ r
~PkI~G VALLEY LA 91978
571~81150U
"LC"NTAkA k~/CAR~,Er, ~
. - - - .
SANTt A~A C" ~2704
5712bl16UO
~TACHOwITZ ESHLA
L ". .". IT
CHULA VISTA CA 91911
571i8d'iOu
to: AS ~Ai,D OU N h,
C/O EeE A~SuCIATES
T ,-,..." v v... ...-
SAN DIE(,O C" ~21bb
57126UOOO
HOuCK KENNETH C/SHIRLEY J
.,. r_"-
CHULA vI~TA LA 91911
571.:820300
~ILLA~ JAI~~/tMtRITA L
, j r II~'" D
SAN Y~IURu LA q~173
571282U4UO
~~kG MARGUERITE:
'r
C ULA VISTA LA 9L910
LASL 00290 [;Rc-n-04
SIGld eUSINESS: peLE SIGN AT
X XX X X XX XX XX xX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
X XX X X XX XX XX XX xx xx xX xx XX xx..x XX
X XX XX XX XXXXXX XX XX XXXX XXXX xXXX
X XX X X XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX xX XX XX XX
X XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XXXX XX;
X XX X X Xx XX Xx XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX xx;
X XX X X XX XX XX XX XX XX X X XX XX XX XX XX ;
X XX X X XX XX XX xx XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX;
X XX X X XX XX XX XX XX XX X X XX xX XX X X XX:
X XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XXXX XXXX XX xX;
.....,..~71atll^ 1nLYII
BI<KER JGHN A/bI<KBARA I<
~"- -
HULA VISTA CA ~1911
-'57!7e"10 ~
Ai'NLJLll ..AI,[,A L
~1~11
_-- '-"5 n28'i:'6~
JU~~G LU[;WIG/ELIZAEETH H TRS
~1~11
... ~n'te 11'3'GoW
PADILLA JGRGE 0
C HU L A V 1ST A 1
,.....712 BJ.J.7~
HUE ZO AGlfSTIN L
C HU LA 911
...........4llI..
T R~
XX XX XX XX XX ^xxX XX XX XX XX XXXX XXXl
..X xX XX XX xX XX XX XX XX XX XX XXXX XX Xl
XX XXXX XX XX XXXX..X XX XXXX XXXXXX Xl
XX XX..X XX XX XX..x XX XX XXXX xXXX XX Xl
XX XXXX XX XX XX XX XX XX XXXX XXxX XX X:
xX XXXX XX XX xXXX xX XX XXXX XXXX XXX)
___7-lJ.Q,1,. u_ 2.Wl....
ANDEKSwmtRTA T
CHuLA VIslA LA 91911
.,'~~y
E Iv. <lJVA>
HwLA VISTA CA 91911
~~~~~t~A1RICIA A <AKA TALL
o PATRI CI A>
... 11
_.,:.;U~~4~0
.tLA1,,--LttT L~HHSITA A
CHuLA vISTA l.A ~1l
5712311300
.._...c.;,".LL..E~~HOL.AS
- ~"
SAN LJIEGU LA 9L139
"Z~
(,'fty,~~" '(~I\E H
CHuLI< VISTA 1..1. 91911
571<8<:0700
~1"RTlI,El ~,A"IA ~
J.
5713010100
ChOh ~HuU T/HuA~G CHUNG H
LGS ANGeLeS CA-~r031
571302030U
BAR~HART ROcE"T E/MAXINE Z TR~
____ ,,__ II'
CHU,-A V ISlA CA '11"11
5713100400
SCHUR1ChT R1ChA~D L/JeAN b TR~
e .~..."'.
ChULA VISTA CA ~1911
5713100,,00
~A~-KAM RESEA~CH/EN~INEERINv
( T _ . 'I' "'I n ...... ..
5A~ DIEvO CA '12J.31
5.722310900
"'..I tilE r, J U L I u / 1'1 A " GAR E T P
,,;'IJ. .-... -' -
(HULA VISTA CA '11"10
572" 7GO~Ou
S E ~, NUR~E"Y
e"h~ LA V I 5 TA C..
'11'111
"
5 7l2b208 uO
FALKENbORG MARGUERITE
(HULA VI~TA CA q~910
~7130128 ,,0
BLACKBURN RALPH/LA VER~E M TRS
11 lj' 11
(HuLA VI~TA LA 91911
57130204UO
RODRIGUEZ ADuLFO D/SELIG~OHN ~
ARLEf>lE A
_ill}! ~fA CA ~1
5713100500
~CHURICHT JOhN L/REf>lt M
T ! I' n.
bONITA C.. 91'10':
?7131015uO
uRE IRA" JR/BEVERLY J
f>lY~SA OR 97913
57L2.HI0uO
MCNORTON ROBtRI b/ELLWOJO b
----.. ~ -
CHULA vl~TA (A 91910
5722 704500
hAL TON DAwN E
r
.( H UL A v I ~ TA C A q 1912
..
, '
57128 20500
HAWKI!'>S GOf<L.Ot,
~ J' 1 ,,- L r L~ (
CHULA VISTA CA
"... . >e' _'_
~712b206(j0
~EKCAOU ~A~UEL/MARIA 0
~ 1"&' T "t-'"
CHL'LA V '" "A ~"...
S/l".AkY
l
9I'ill
S T kS
'- ",' _~'1:"''''ho' ...".....
5712820900
R AM 1 R E Z J E S US A I L AU fd E T
( ,J ". _ ., i
CHULA VISTA CA 91~11
5712021000
PEkE.i JtSUS/f'toTRiCIA
~l\i DI EGu lA 9d?4
.,..
_"",., "'t~,:C"-~.".".,....~,..,,",,",'" ,,,-,,..,. ,.
.-
571 3020100
~SCOBEDC IRVING/KAREN
u. .... ti" 'il[-
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
,7dU2U2l0
DE (ASTIlL" CAKr-'tN R
.- "'i-
SA!'> LIEGu lA 921,4
..,..
~ ....
..."
.. .........
5713020500
CANI Z ALES RAUL "/LET! CI A L
8-.....-, "...... _ . ,.... ..... r --
CHULA VISTA CA 92011
,713100300
FIKESTONE ~EAL ESTATE LEASING
CD
C/ 0 f< RI 0 L EST uN t fI RES T LN Eo I I'.
--
.. AK "GN(jH,,1~d... 7
, '~'" ...,
57131 CObOO
VA"IOEVEt,TER JESSIE E1SHARUN I"
Ill]
NATIO~L ~TY
?7131007CO
VANCL "I U',A J
., -- - -
lH uL" vIS T" l A 9 1 q 11
- .
C to r, 1 ~5 0
..
'"''"'''''~''\'_~'''''''''
..
5713101600
S ALL A RO F AM I L Y L I V I NG
~n~
~ - "A ~, U" .
YU.SA CI TY ~A ~5"9 3
57131019UO
TRUST O' "Ar,S~OS IN\.
0/ U i.;;; 1'<4 ,,0 U
CHuLA VI ST A
......~. '" .~.",""~
l",ARTINEZLCU
"A 91910
5 722311100
f'\ UR RAY IRE N t F
3 -91
... __UL~ ...
.... CHULA VIS}~ 01.
57<:270031J0
1991 T kUST 06-~ r,ASUI",OTO GtO~GqICH IYUKO
~ ..
CHuL", ,1ST", LA 9...911
919l 0
"',"".~ ,-'-.;.~..
57227(j5100
RENtAU TRAVIS A
CIO TkAVIS kE~EAU
"I -
C HU L A V 1 A 0 A 9l 911
Ite.E
Meeting Date 4/28/92
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: DRC-92-04; Appeal of the Planning Commission
decision denying a freestanding sign design for the business
establishment at 830 Broadway - Pacific Sign Construction Co.
Reso 1 ut i on I ~ &, t) 7 Denyi ng the appea 1 and thereby
approving the freestanding sign height and copy area
recommended by the Design Review Committee to identify the
business establishment lo~~d at 830 Broadway
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ~t:
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-x-)
The applicant's proposal consists of replacing an existing non-conforming
freestanding sign with a new 35 ft. high, 99 sq. ft. pole sign with the same
basic design as the existing sign. The Zoning Administrator found that the
new sign was disproportionate and disharmonious with other signs in the
immediate area and referred the matter to the Design Review Committee.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council deny the appeal and thereby approve
the freestanding sign height and copy area recommended by the Planning
Commission and Design Review Committee.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On September 9, 1991, the Design Review
Committee voted 4-0 to approve the conceptual freestanding sign design subject
to a reduction in height from 35 ft. to 26 ft. and a reduction in copy area
from 99 sq. ft. to 75 sq. ft.
On October 9, 1991, the Planning Commission considered the matter on appeal
and voted 5-0 to deny the appeal and endorse the DRC's action.
DISCUSSION:
The sign is intended to provide principal business identification for "The
Firestone Store" automotive service facility. The sign would replace an
existing non-conforming sign which is subject to removal under the City's sign
abatement program.
The subject site is located wi thi n the C- T (Thoroughfare Commerci al) zone.
The C- T zone allows one freestanding pole sign, up to 35 ft. in height and a
maximum sign (copy) area of 150 sq. ft.
The new pole sign consists of a 99 sq. ft. internally illuminated sign cabinet
supported by two metal poles extending to approximately 35 ft. in height. The
proposed sign would be placed within a 200 sq. ft. landscape planter area
located adjacent to the existing driveway entrance.
1'1 -I
/(
" ',)
~)
Page 2, Item J tJ
Meeting Date 4/28/92
Although maximum sign areas and heights have been establ i shed for all zones
within the City, the Design Review Committee has the authority to reduce sign
areas below those authorized by Code based on the sign design guidel ines and
criteria. One of those criteria, CVMC 19.60.240B, establ ishes an obl igation
.... to review other signs existing within the area of the proposed sign to be
erected and insure that the des i gn elements as set forth here and above wi 11
promote and create harmonious and nonconfl icting or obstructing sign
arrangements." Therefore, the Design Review Committee considers the maximum
sign entitlements in any given zone as being the top of a range of permitted
sign sizes, with the actual sign size and height being considered on a
case-by-case basis. This is analogous to the setting of residential densities
within a range, as provided for in the City's General Plan.
ANALYSIS:
Whereas the sign proposed by the appl icant is in compl iance with the maximum
height and copy area authori zed in the C- T zone, it is not cons i stent with
prior DRC actions in promoting lower profile and less obtrusive signage along
Broadway and other major commercial corridors, nor with other freestanding
signs in the vicinity of the site.
Exhibit "A" is a survey of 10 existing and approved signs within the immediate
vicinity of the site. The following averages and maximums are based on seven
of those signs -- the other three signs surveyed are subject to removal under
the City's sign abatement program.
Average pole sign height
Maximum pole sign height
Average pole sign area
Maximum pole sign area
21 ft.
30 ft.
58 sq. ft.
118 sq. ft.
Based on the results of the survey, the DRC recommended the following
modifications in order to maintain sign area and height compatibility with
existing signage in the immediate vicinity.
1. The overall cabinet sign area should be reduced to 75 sq. ft.
(Sign cabinet length 15 ft. max.)
(Sign cabinet height 5 ft. max.)
2. The overall pole sign height should be reduced to 26 feet.
Based on the results of the survey and the actions of the Design Review
Committee and Planning Commission to support a 26 ft. high, 75 sq. ft. pole
sign, it is recommended that the appeal be denied in order to maintain
consistency with the height and area of other freestanding pole signs within
the immediate commercial area.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
WPC 0264p
I L/ ~ ,)..
RESOLUTION NO. /""d 7
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DENYING THE APPEAL AND APPROVING THE
FREESTANDING SIGN HEIGHT AND COPY AREA
RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE TO IDENTIFY THE BUSINESS
ESTABLISHMENT LOCATED AT 830 BROADWAY
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, the project is exempt from environmental review as a Class
11(a) exemption, and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee, at their September 9, 1991,
regular meeting considered the installation of a 35 ft. high, 99 sq. ft.
freestanding pole sign for the property located at 830 Broadway, and
WHEREAS, in reviewing the sign design criteria establ ished in the
Zoning Ordinance, the Design Review Committee determined that the proposed
sign was not in keeping with their prior actions to promote lower-profile,
less obtrusive signage along Broadway and other major commercial corridors,
nor with the average sign height and area of other freestanding pole signs in
the immediate commercial vicinity, and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee approved the conceptual
freestanding sign design subject to a reduction in sign area from 99 to 75 sq.
ft. and height from 35 ft. to 26 ft., and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 1991, an appeal was filed by Pacific Sign
Construction Co. for Firestone Real Estate which requested that the conditions
imposed by the Design Review Committee requiring the above mentioned
modifications be deleted, and
WHEREAS, on October 9, 1991, the Planning Commission denied said
appea 1 based on the fo 11 owi ng fi nd i ngs, but approved the scaled down vers i on
recommended by the Design Review Committee.
a. Signs should be designed as supportive elements to land use.
The existing wall signage in conjunction with the more
moderately designed, in terms of sign height and signage area,
pole sign will provide adequate identification for the facility.
b. Signs should be compatible with the nature, character, and
design of the locale and land uses they serve.
The signs under consideration, as proposed, would be
significantly higher than any other sign in the immediate area.
IJ/- :3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL concurs with
the findings of the Design Review Convnittee and Planning Convnission as set
forth in Resolutions DRC-92-04 and hereby denies the appeal.
Presented by
Approved as to form
-r~ ~ ddv(
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
WPC 0265p
-2- pi"' J/
L -&en I . '! I : :
- I ; ! ! : t
~ ..... I
> .O'ATI~ ..........\.. ./ -r-
z I : ,
. . I f-.... /
.... -... -~_............... !.. ..- - '-- -
Q
< Z ------ , -
::Ii II ~ - -- ... ...J r -,
-I' <I . , -
, . -
~ 1----- , ,
WAY D: IERRA WAY
i ! ' I ~~ , - 1f
-- .
. ::> PI
~ ,D:
" I.... >-- ~ .....J -
---i ~ " >
! I I \ " ~ -'
....-.... --- ~ :z:
- : ~ ..... .... 1'-'1 lei
- I r--- 1 L...-:z: ~
"
-, "
'. I
" I.-
-
J-_L J.-~._-4 ~_J . I
.. . --
J.J.
. .
,..
;;l
lml " ,-
L--
>-- ~-_.
~ - -.
- < I-- ~--
~v _ 1 I oJ I-- ---,.
D:
1i w I--
> -
i-
Iii: ~
< < ll:: - ---
oJ ... ---
Q :lo: P
,0 < I
:0 w n-;-
~
! i ~
$1 RRA
ARIZON
T.
, .
" I .
: ...... -l-- ~~-
-- ---.. --"
I
.
,
(F1~ON_ ~ lU'~ CIJ. 1
9~b WlI:("
NORTH ( D~.'l~.04)
.
. ~
~--_. . J.....~
.
.-
.
- .. t-- .-
: F-i :>
----~- ~ z
W
1-_ !;i > ~
<
---~
:
:r
(.) IOL
w =ff
_co ~
T -..
~
K
.
L
,
.
.
...... .;.J
,
,
,
,
,
.
.' .
" '
, .............
..':'...1
~_.. .. ....
,
~
II:
C
Q
'"
tJ
t
LOCATOR
pl-5'
.
'..1
"
.-
- , i I , I , - - ~
I . I ,
I , , , , ! ' I , ~--- ~
, -
__..J . STlll"l'" a:- :z: )',..;.lA
.
,-
. Q a:
,
--- t- -- aJl--
I ILl ILl I
, :;) :;) :::;
----<- Z ~ ~
, ILl Y
d > > .---
- < < '-- - ~I--
e---[- - .. '
- e--
:- -,- - I--
- '"
:r lr _ - (;:'--
- <.> ~ -'"
:r ILl.
W -
-< a:l _ - GARD
ST;E.lf
K
--
.
-r---
z-
~f-- ---
<f---f---
...J ---
0::1-
1LIf---
>f--
O::f---
\-- ---
1
I
n-'-
l I :
-..21
--
jl
~. C>
PROJECT-
81'R
J:~ -{ ~
WAY II::
! I
>
1I::r
!
---i
-J
Ip ~
, '"
I~~__m >
\ '~ -- -- ;
I
, r---
"
"
"
~ JIlt:..
_fIR........,.
.
, ....-
, ~.,
, f-~
. - - ~
>
- -- '-
- --- f-~
'--
.1 ........, (A) ---......,. GlImllt\ I"" . I' Jl 1"IfJ' Ill""
..........,. .n lIIIrt.tl'l'loAirt.-.o,{l'oll-14'xl'/2I'IlIfll".
1.5'1 )
II' h&dlA,)' (A)* 0__ Sovth.., ctlewl"lllltt (1IHlI CIr lot) (Poll - 11.1'.
1I.5'/3S'lltghl
.. IIroadwa.f (AJ no SMtIy'. (Poll - J!' II J4'/37' blgtlJ
1M ~ (Al* --- firest_ (1'011- 30' x 1"41' hip'
au Ira~. n_ C.f.Ol1 (Poll-5.S' Jl.I'/lI' 1Il"'1
1M 11'0_..,' no Aztec 1.W. (Pol. - I.S' .. 1.5..... Ill""
.. IrHdwQ "'" 1/,\
IMO IINadwaJI n. "'F_U,Club{Polt.'."/U'lItgll)
In IrHcIIIQ no Slltllunal"1(Pol.1'x"/S'lltgtJl
142 ....1lllM.1. .n C,l1f)\,n1l Auto Sllpply (Pol.,. ."/30'1l1t1l'
..._"
..-
mlVA
no f=U'~'.a;"to senlCll
"1011/11'111.
10141
. _ S.... ,....tt...... b....1lr CIIlIl. ".b. PI_t., ~
(A'.S.111Cl....'......~~
I I
I I
I I
: I
: l
T
_._____1.__-
-
-
-
r-,
, ,
, ,
, '
'I'l n
-
-
-
-
---- "
-"""
"-
: I I : 'I II I II:
. ; ; I I'
........" 7 /' -,-
\-,~ ,
'--
,..../ -
1 I
SIERRA WAY
1.,[
el
CHULA VISTA
G
\
~
STREET
- t U
=
-
>
:z:
a:
..
Q~---"-'-----
lIJ
0_
..-...:_-
r""" -
.,
STR E
I
/-
WFSTBY
~
{ARIZONA
/Y I
J_nW
::>
ST. z
I ILl
>
<l:
=t$ff
,
--"
-
t
. ( FIp.e410f.J~ ft;\,6 "I~ 1 LOCATOR
6'?o ~WAY
NORTH [ D~-1~-OA- ) SIGN Su:tVEY AREA
/i-l-~ .... ID
(,
-~._- .--.-." .----.-----.-." '''--,,= ......_..--_......-.~---- ._----~- ....--..--.---...-
"b
.
-~
....,-
.
f~
...lr
~...
-....
,~
~I'
:1
.90
d)'
-"'%
xS
~1'
~~
- ~
"'~
-e
t ~
,,- j
.,o.,fZ
~--
r',
"
O\~C.l:l
,-" z
2 . Z
i~.! ~.. ~
.",\ ;J I..J
C::~Q".
-- .l"Y~OZI~
~ ~
,
--- -
_~rr.::>-
,
-f"
Ij ,
- '"
'~
,.~~I
'~
.'''-.... ~
" "-
" "-
" "'-
, "-
.... " '.
~ ", '......
"
"
,
" '"
~
001 --'
I
-
Z
/ Z~ UII'~
CJ'" 'i I"
--, CiS 111,1
~ list!
!:!: l'lil
~ 8 ,hli
uyA. !ill',.
.I.i ,
!lHI ~
l
1'/.-7
'01 I
fi I I ,
~
j
.
.
.
- ~I
, @)I ~
l ~
~
~ {\
,
~
-'
~
-
II'Y.....
,01'.
.
t
~
--l\
-r
~
-
J
~
.-
.
.
'--
I
City of Chula Vista.
Pl.nning Department
Appeal Form
C Planning U Design Review
Commission ,. Committee
'* 7'1 . IS (,(,
Appea' fr9lll the decision of:
APpellant:JaClf,'c' Sl~"
Please state wherein you believe there was an error in the decision of ElZA EJPC !IORC
for the property located at: 830 Broli\.d.IA.Xl..Y
. I ...... f t
tI orc:A'tlc:l.'ol? ~I o~s .:>(" I,) <<Cle." 'tle<:t,.
0>,,"1- 0-\ +r~(\t~" Io):#, .. J,i, fit oi 35 cA.-t b...~..,u.s&S
.f ~ $i....;\4I,. tlA.t...,.~ (lc..&te~~... 8'0 '.ff.. s,mil", Jot
)-.aVf- bu." ~rM.,+t~ l~r~U' S'j1l5 ",;-1{ .35 fed he.i~~,'t.
\
Si~ 1AeW
fAAr
. Date
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To: .Planning Department
Do Not Write In This Sp,ce
. Date Appeal
Case No: ORe.. 9,; .CoV Date of decision:
Filed: 4'/q/q/
/ '
Receipt No: q t!j (P 1/
The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the:
Ganning Commis~ City Council on ~ <=t \
'I ,. /)'
.;?::ni~~~SS1:'; L~!:.tary City Clerk
(This form to be filed in triplicate,)
PL-60
Rev, 12/83
/L/-/~
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE RESOLUTION
1'1-//
RESOLUTION NO. DRC-92-Q4
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITI'EE REGARDING THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION OF A 34.5 FT. mGH FREESTANDING
SIGN FOR THE FIRESTONE STORE LOCATED AT 830
BROADWAY
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for the review of the design for a pole sign was
filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on August 1, 1991, by Firestone
Real Estate; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator exercised his authority, granted to him by City
Council, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance 19.60.220, to review the design of all signs in the City
in order to prevent construction of signs which could potentially be disproportionate or
disharmonious with adjacent signs or structures, and therefore tend to be aesthetically
undesirable, and considered the request made by the Firestone Store for the construction of a
34.5 ft. high, 98.25 sq. ft. sign on the property located at 830 Broadway; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator found the proposed sign design inconsistent with
the average height and sign areas of other permitted signs within a 500 ft. radius from the
project site, and referred the items to the Design Review Committee for further review; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 1991, the Design Review Committee considered the
aforementioned sign request; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee heard testimony from the applicant
concerning the merits of the project and arguments from the Planning Department in opposition
to the proposed sign; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee considered all of the design criteria set forth
in the Chula Vista Design Review Manual, and voted 4-0 to conditionally approve the requested
sign on the basis:
1. That the Chula Vista Design Manual states that signs should be compatible with
nature, character, and design of the locale and uses they serve.
2. That signs should be designed as supportive elements to the land use.
WHEREAS, in reviewing this criteria, the Design Review Committee determined that
the subject sign was not in keeping with the average sign area and height of other pole signs in
this locale and was, in fact, exceeding the average sign height and average sign area.
WHEREAS, the project is exempt from environmental review as a Class ll(a)
exemption.
1'1-/.2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE approved the conceptual sign design proposal subject to a sign area reduction to
a total of 75 sq. ft. and sign height limitation to a maximum of 26 ft. in an effort to maintain
sign area and height compatibility with existing signage in the immediate area and in order to
improve the street scene along Broadway.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 26th day of August, 1991, by the following vote, to-wit:
A YES: Chair Gilman, Members Flach, Landers, Speth man
NOES: None
ABSENT: Member Alberdi
~a'1~)~/R:UV
Barbara Gilman(c, air
(DRC92.04)
IL/-IJ
PLANN~COMMISSION RESOLUTION
/ t/ ..11
. t
RESOLUTION NO. DRC-92-04
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE DECISION TO CONDmONAlLY APPROVE A POLE
SIGN AT 830 BROADWAY
WHEREAS, a duly verified appeal form was filed with the Planning Department of the
City of Chula Vista on September 9, 1991, by Pacific Sign Construction for Firestone Real
Estate, and
WHEREAS, said appeal requested that the condition imposed by the Design Review
Committee requiring a reduction of the overall pole sign height to 26 ft. and sign area to 75 sq.
ft. be deleted, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said
conditional use permit application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
. given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to
property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the plOperty at least ten days prior
to the hearing, and
WHEREAS, the hearingwas held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m.,
October 9, 1991, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission ~d said hearing was thereafter closed, and
WHEREAS, the project is exempt from environmental review as a Class ll(a)
exemption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
finds as follows:
a. Signs should be designed as supportive elements to land use.
The existing wall signage in conjunction with the more moderately designed, in
terms of sign height and signage area, pole sign will provide adequate
identification for the facility.
b. Signs should be compatible with the nature, character, and design of the locale
and land uses they serve.
The sign under consideration, as proposed, would be significantly higher than any
other sign in the immediate area.
jlj'15
1
.
I BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Clerk.
.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby denies
the requested appeal, and approves the conceptual sign design submitted by the applicant subject
to a reduction of the overall pole sign height to 26' and sign area to 75 sq. ft. (maximum) as
approved by the Design Review Committee, this 9th day of October, 1991, by the following
vote, to-wit:
AYES:
Commissioners Carson, Cui11:1~, Decker, Fuller, and Martin
NOES:
None
ABSTENTION:
ABSENT:
None
Commissioner Tugenberg
.
A'ITEST:
~ iI ~ ~~IL';J;y
'cy pley, ecre'
(DJt~)
JlI"'/~
i::",d~
Su Fuller, Chair
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES
/L/-/7
(
(.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
-10-
AUGUST 26. 1991
6.
DRC-92-04
Firestone
830 Broadwav
Pole Sian .
Staff Presentation
Assistant Planner Amy Wolfe presented the proposal, which
consists of the removal of an existing non-conforming
sign and the subsequent construction of a 35' high pole
sign with corporate identification. The proposed sign
will be placed at approximately the same location as the
currently existing pole sign, within a landscape planter.
Ms. Wolfe stated that the proposed pole sign did conform
to the requirements of the zone (CT), but did not oberve
the Design Review Committee's policy for low-profile
signage along major commercial corridors.
Ms. Wolfe stated that staff had conducted an informal
survey of permitted signage within a 500' radius; she
informed the committee that the average pole sign height
within the area was approximately 21 'feet, with the
average sign area being 58 feet. She stated that after
taking the survey information, site constraints, and the
committee's low-profile signage policy into
consideration, staff was recommending that the overall
pole sign height be reduced to 26 feet and the sign area
be reduced to 75 square feet. She added that as an
alternative, a low-profile monument sign could be
considered.
Committee Ouest ions
Member Landers asked why staff's recommended height was
not closer to the average 21' height of other signs in
the area? Ms. Wolfe responded that staff felt that due
to the height of the building, and the size of the
signage, the sign needed to be higher than the typical
signs in the area. She added that the site lent itself
to the increased height, as the lot is wider and contains
quite a. bit of landscaping to serve as a buffer. Gilman
asked about the building'S height; Terry Dilgard stated
that he believed the building to be 18 feet high.
Aoolicant Resoonse
Terry Dilgard, of Pacific sign construction, addressed
the committee, informing members that Firestone had
contacted his company as a result of the city's sign
abatement program. He stated that the zoning ordinance
allowed the sign area based on frontage, and that the
height was likewise permitted by ordinance. He noted
J,/--/Y
-.....
L
l
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
-11-
AUGUST 26. 1991
that within staff's survey area, the three lots with 100'
frontage are the three large signs, with over 100 square
feet of signage. Mr. Dilgard cited other examples of
legal signs within the area, and noted that within the
past year Pep Boys had received a sign permit for similar
height and area to that presently requested. Mr.
Hernandez responded that the committee's responsibility
was to ensure that sign design was harmonious and
proportionate to adjacent signs, as well as being
aesthetically pleasing. He stated that to determine
whether these criteria were being met, staff had surveyed
signs in the area, and that it was from the information
thus obtained that staff had based its recommendations.
Mr. Dilgard pointed out that it is unclear to applicants
whether or not they can actually obtain signs that
conform to zoning requirements. He added that he had no
way of being sure that he could obtain approval for a
given sign, regardless of whether it met city sign height
and area requirements as stated in the section relating
to the particular zone.
Committee Resoonse/Discussion
Member Landers stated that she felt staff's
recommendations to be reasonable, based on the height of
the building, and that she found the recommendations more
than adequate to advertise the business. She added that
the committee's intent was to reduce the clutter along
Broadway, pointing out that photographs presented
displayed that the area did have a cluttered appearance
with regard to signage. Flach and other members agreed
with this assessment.
MSUC (Landers/spethman) (4-0, [Alberdi not present]) to
approve DRC-92-04 subject to the recommendations listed
in the staff report.
J). STAJ'P COMMENTS
Assistant Planner informed the committee that the applicant
for Oxford Terrace, a previously approved project, had
provided photographs of the play structure equipment. This
item was provided for the committee'S information only.
E. ADJOUlUlKENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
1'1--/9
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
.,
/tI-.20
ITEM 5:
PUBLIC HEARING: DRC-92-{)4: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE
INSTALLATION OF A 34.5 FT. HIGH FREESTANDING POLE SIGN AT 830
BROADWAY - The Firestone Store
Associate Planner Hernandez gave an overview of the project, noting that the Design Review
Committee (ORC) had approved the conceptual pole sign design subject to reduction of the pole
sign's area and height, as suggested by staff. On September 9, 1991, the applicant had f1led an
appeal seeking to retain the proposed sign design as submitted, and citing that other businesses
of similar nature, which were located along Broadway, had been permitted to insta1llarger signs
with a 35 ft. height. Staff recommended that the appeal be denied.
Commissioner Martin asked if the DRC had approved the proposed sign, or a smaller sized sign.
Associate Planner Hernandez answered that the DRC had approved the sign design with a
reduction in the height of the sign to 26 feet to conform to the surroundings.
Commissioner Martin questioned why Firestone would not agree to a 26-foot sign. Mr.
Hernandez replied that the question would have to be answered by the Firestone representative.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Terry Dulgard, Pacific Sign Company, representing Firestone stated that the size of the sign was
based on the linear frontage of the property; a minimum 50-foot frontage is needed for a ground
sign. The property next door had a 35 ft. high sign, with over 130+ sq. ft. of signage. Mr.
Dulgard said that was Firestone's argument-that there were other businesses on Broadway like
theirs with the same froiltage that were allowed to have 35 ft. high signs. He felt the sign was
compatible with the use of the property; if it was lowered down 8 ft., it would be visible from
about a block away which would be enough to make a safe lane change. If the sign was lowered
to 26 ft., the sign would be hidden by the building which is 20 ft. high.
Commissioner Martin asked for clarification as to the top of the sign.
Mr. Dulgard said the sign currently was 42 ft. high, and lowering it by 8 ft. would make it 34.5
ft., which was the applicant's proposed height.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Chair Fuller asked about other signs which did not have to go before Design Review. What was
the criteria, and if the other signs were conforming.
Assistant Director Ken Lee said most of it was because of the timing. In terms of the one
particular sign Mr. Dulgard had cited--Tire World--it had been under discussion for
approximately 1-112 years with the applicant and the City Attorney. It had not gone to Design
Review, because it had not started out in that manner. The Design Review Committee had just
recently been utilized in this capacity because of a change in the ordinance. Mr. Lee agreed
with Mr. Dulgard regarding some of the signs on Broadway being partially blocked by buildings,
and with zero setbacks. It was very difficult when comparing with other signs, when they went
in, and under what circumstances.
/,-/~;;./
,
There was further discussion comparing signs in the area, sign heights, and building locations.
Commissioner Casillas commented that the Planning Commission should be consistent in
supporting the Design Review Committee. He would support the recommendation to deny.
MSUC (CasillaslDecker) 5-0 (Cc.>mmkqoner Tugenber& absent) that the appeal be denied,
and that the Plannin& Commk~lon approve the conceptual sign design, subject to an overall
pole sign height reduction to 26 ft. (max), and sign area reduction to 7S sq. ft. (max), as
indicated in staff sketch I.
)'I....~~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item Number I.>'
Meeting Date: 4flB192
Submitted by:
I~I, 1)8'"
Resolution: Resident/Non-resident Green Fee Schedule for the Chula Vista
Municipal Golf Course
Director of Parks and RecreatioQ,
City Manager~
(4/5ths vote Yes_ No X)
COUNCIL REFERRAL #2294
Item Title:
Reviewed by:
At the meeting of March 19, 1991, Council approved the current green fee schedule for the Chula
Vista Municipal Golf Course. Council directed staff and American Golf to develop and present to
Council a proposal for a resident discount rate before any future increase is considered.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resident/non-resident fee schedule proposed' by
American Golf.
BOARDS AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At its April 1992 meeting the Parks and
Recreation Commission voted 5-0 (Carpenter - Willett absent) to approve the golf course fee
increase. A copy of the minutes of that meeting are attached (Attachment A).
DISCUSSION: American Golf has developed and is proposing a two tiered resident/non-resident
rate system requested by Council. The two tier schedule will maintain the current green fee rates
for Chula Vista residents and Chula Vista Men's and Women's Golf Club members; and increase the
fees for non-residents by $2 for weekday rates and $3 for weekend rates (Attachment B). The Chula
Vista Men's Golf Club has reviewed and supports the new rate structure (Attachment C).
The Department has analyzed the new greens fee schedule for the two tier system and concluded that
the greens fees at Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course will continue to rank on the low end of the
spectrum with comparable golf courses. The following public and semi-private golf courses were used
in the comparison:
GOLF COURSES - PUBLIC WEEKDAY RATES WEEKEND RATES
Chula Vista - Resident (existing rate) $13.00 $17.00
Chula Vista - Non-resident (new rate) $15.00 $20.00
Coronado $16.00 $16.00
Balboa - Resident $12.00 $14.00
Balboa - County $17.00 $21.00
Balboa - non-County $33.00 $38.00
Torrey Pines - Resident $14.00 $16.00
Torrey Pines - County $22.00 $24.00
Torrey Pines - non-County $38.00 $44.00
1..5"-/
Proposed Golf Course Fee Schedule
Meeting Date: 4fl2,m
GOLF COURSES SEMI-PUBLIC WEEKDAY RATES WEEKEND RATES
Rancho San Diego - Ivanho $26.00 $31.00
Rancho San Diego - Monte Vista $23.00 $27.00
Singing Hills - Oak Glen $25.00 $30.00
Singing Hills - Willow Glen $25.00 $30.00
Bonita Golf Club $15.00 $22.00
EastLake $25.00 $40.00
Steele Canyon $38.00 $48.00
In a comparison of the municipal golf courses surveyed, Balboa's resident fee is slightly lower, but
their non-resident fees are higher. Coronado's weekday rates are higher than Chula Vista's, but the
weekend fee is $1.00 less.
The semi-public courses' green fees surveyed were considerably higher, except Bonita Golf Club's
which were only slightly higher than Chula Vista's.
The resident/non-resident program proposed by American Golf is patterned after the City of San
Diego's program, which requires residents to purchase an annual resident card for $8. The purpose
of the resident card is to eliminate the burden and the time consuming effort of identifying and
verifying every golfer when paying green fees. To be eligible to purchase a resident card, one of the
following types of identification will be required: drivers license, utility bills (SDG&E), zoning map.
The annual resident fee of $8 will reimburse the golf course's administrative costs for the two tiered
program. The City Attorney's Office has determined that a public hearing is not necessary because
this is not a City fee.
American Golf also has submitted a letter (Attachment D) which the Department requested
regarding status of 1991 Capital Improvements and the proposed Capital Improvement Projects for
1992. In 1991, additional work was completed on the drainage channel. The benefit of the funds
and efforts spent on this improvement were realized during the numerous rainstorms this winter. The
Course did not have to close the front nine for play despite the heavy downpours and only had to
restrict play on the back nine when Central Avenue was flooded. The channel was able to contain
the surrounding areas runoff and reduce major damage to the golf course. In FY92, American Golf
intends to rebuild #13 green and replace the driving range netting.
FISCAL IMP Acr: An estimated $10,800 additional City revenue will be generated from nonresident
user fees.
greenfee
2
/~ :;.
RESOLUTION NO.
/~'" P ~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING RESIDENT/NON-RESIDENT
GREEN FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CHtJLA VISTA
MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
(
WHEREAS, at the meeting of March 19, 1991, Council
approved the current green fee schedule for the Chula Vista
Municipal Golf Course; and
WHEREAS, Council directed staff and Alllerican Golf to
develop and present to Council a proposal for a resident discount
rate before any future increase is considered; and
WHEREAS, Alllerican Golf has developed and is proposing a
two tiered resident/non-resident rate system requested by Council
which will maintain the current green fee rates for Chula Vista
residents and Chula Vista Men's and Women's Golf Club members; and
increase the fees for non-residents by $2 for weekday rates and $3
for weekend rates (Attachment B);
WHEREAS, at its April
Recreation Commission voted 5-0
approve the golf course fee; and
WHEREAS, the Department has analyzed the new greens fee
schedule for the two tier system and concluded that the greens fees
at Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course will continue to rank on the
low end of the spectrum with comparable golf courses.
1992 meeting the Parks and
(Carpenter - Willett out) to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the Resident/Non-
resident Green Fee Schedule for the Chula Vista Municipal Golf
Course as set forth in Exhibit B, a copy of which is on file in the
office of the City Clerk.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~ "14 dd~
or of
Ruth M. Fritsch, Assistant
City Attorney
1~3/15-f
Jb
R' 1RRAL NO:
\
2294
3/21/9~ fk
ORIGINATOR: ADMI~[i ~
LEAD DEPARTMENT: PARKS AND RECREATION
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COUNCIL REFERRAL
GOLF GREEN FEES, RESIDENT DISCOUNTS: Staff is to develop and present
a proposal regarding the feasibility of providing resident discounts
for golf green fees prior to any future proposed rate increases.
COUNCIL DUE DATE ONGOING
ORIGINATION DATE 3/19/91
MANAGER DUE
REFERRAL DETAIL
Jess, at the 3/19/91 meeting, Council directed staff to come back,
prior to any future proposed golf green fee rate increases, with a
proposal regarding resident discounts on these fees. In this report,
staff should address the administrative impact, and the impact on
revenues to the City and American Golf (contractor) this type of fee
structure would have.
COMPLETION DATE:
DISPOSITION
COMMENTS:
DEPT. HEAD SIGNATURE:
ADMIN SIGNATURE:
~'~".
Z~_
.'J rr' '" -",
i (It, ,f "" \
. i;... . .
I ., ,
"'. '
."\ ....? ~,,;~ ~::r:~ ~ ~
IY->
Attachment A
Minutes of a
Regular Meeting of the
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Thursday 6:00 p.rn.
April 16. 1992
Public Services Building
Conference Room 1
*******************
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Commissioners Hall, Helton, Lind, Roland
MEMBERS LATE:
Sandoval-Fernandez (6:14)
MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Commissioners Carpenter, Willett
1. AFPROV AL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of March 19, 1992 as distributed.
MSC LINDIROLAND 4-0 (SANDOVAL-FERNANDEZ OUl)
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS OR REMARKS
NONE
3. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Deputy Director Foncerrada reviewed the Parks and Recreation Commission Report and
answered the Commissioners questions regarding this report.
4. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
a. Non-profit (Friends of the Park)
Deputy Director Foncerrada reviewed the report that the Department had compiled
regarding the status of the Parks and Recreation non-profit. He stated that the Chair and
Vice Chair of the Commission have. agreed to serve as interim officers during the
reorganization, and their names have been filed with the state as such. Chair Hall asked if
the rotation of Parks and Recreation Commission officers in June would have any effect on
the filing with the State of California. Secretary Stohr said that any change in officers could
be reported when the next annual report was filed with the State.
b. Joint Meetinl! with Montl!omerv Planninl! Committee
Landscape Architect Marty Schmidt presented the Commission with a report on existing parks
within the Montgomery area and proposed projects within the area.
He explored various concepts such as joint use with schools to mitigate the fact that very little
land is available in this area for parkland.
;5-~
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
April 16, 1992
PAGE 2
Commissioner Roland commented that he is opposed to any use of S D G & E righht-of-way
land for parks of any type.
Chair Hall expressed his concern that there had been a major pooVgym facility planned for
the area which is currently not planned. He feels that we should focus on recreational
facilities that can be developed with a minimum of land use.
Commissioner Sandoval-Fernandez suggested that this item be agendized as an action item
for next month's agenda thus giving the Commissioners more time to review the written
material that was distributed with the report.
c. Otav Vallev Rel!ional Park Update
Item tabled until next month because the scheduled presenter, Gordon Howard, was not in
attendance.
5. ACTION ITEMS
Unfinished Business
NONE
New Business
a. American Golf Fee Increase
Deputy Director gave an overview of the written report on the golf course fee increase which
had been included in the Commission's information packets.
Chair Hall asked Bert Geisendorff of American Golf if he had encountered any opposition
to the proposed fee increase. Mr. Geisendorff stated that he was not aware of any.
Commissioner Roland stated that he was opposed to the restrictions placed on "9 hole"
golfers in 1990. In addition he does not feel that $8 is a fair price for an identification card.
However, he has no problem with the proposed nonresident fee structure.
Motion to approve the American Golf Fee increase as proposed.
MSC SANDOV AL-FERNANDEZILIND 5-0
b. Information and Referral Buildinl!
Deputy Director Foncerrada reviewed the report that had been presented to the Commission
in the information packets and stated that staffs recommendation was to allow the library
and the town center manager to occupy the building.
/5-/
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
April 16, 1992
PAGE 3
Commissioner Helton asked whether there was no longer a need for space to house
Recreation Division personnel.
Deputy Director Foncerrada replied that a need for space still exists.
Commissioner Helton expressed her strong opposition to allowing the library to use a portion
of the building when it is needed by the Parks and Recreation Department to house
Recreation staff.
Commissioner Sandoval-Fernandez stated that it appears that Parks and Recreation staff were
being forced out of the building.
Motion that due to the current needs of parks and recreation staff, the front portion be given
to parks and recreation staff and back portion of building house the Town Manager.
MSC HELTONIROLAND 5-0
c. Golf Course Restaurant and Bar Sublease
Deputy Director Foncerrada gave a history of the lease situation for the restaurant/bar
located at the Golf Course and outlined the currently proposed sublease. He stated that
staffs recommendation is to approve the sublease as presented.
Commissioner Roland stated that he doesn't understand the logic of why American Golf
wants to maintain control of the lease that they have and sublease rather than just letting the
lease go to someone else. He asked the representative from American Golf if they would be
making a profit from the sublease.
Mr. Bert Geisendorff of American Golf replied that no profit would be made. The reason
for using a sublease is that the restaurant lease is tied to the golf course lease in that the golf
course lease term was extended as a condition of the restaurant/bar lease.
Commissioner Roland stated that he did not like any connection between the golf course
lease and the restaurant lease.
Commissioner Hall asked if Prestige would be working with Joelen Enterprises to build the
hotel.
Deputy Director Foncerrada stated that he had no knowledge of any connection between the
two entities.
Commissioner Roland asked Mr. Geisendorff if American Golf anticipated a joint venture
with Joelen Enterprises.
Mr. Geisendorff stated that they did not.
15"' B'
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
April 16, 1992
PAGE 4
Motion to approve the sublease as presented.
MSC HELTON/SANDOVAL-FERNANDEZ 4-1 (Roland opposed - He is skeptical of big
business and feels that this may be a move toward American Golfs taking over ownership of
the Golf Course.)
6. COMMUNICATIONS
a. Written Correspondence
NONE
b. Commissioners Comments
HELTON - Wishes to know the cost of the copper wall in the Norman Park Center. She
feels that in the future the designs that architects present to the City should be more closely
scrutinized for functionality. Commissioner Sandoval-Fernandez suggested that this be
agendized in May.
In addition, Commissioner Helton would like to have an item placed on next month's agenda
regarding the job specifications for the Human Services Coordinator position.
ROLAND - Feels that any restaurant on the golf course site will have to have a specialty in
order to be successful.
HALL - Expressed his concern about a hotel being built adjacent to the golf course.
In addition, he asked for the Commissioners' input for a round table discussion with the
Mayor being held on April 30.
LIND - Would like Chair Hall to recommend to the Mayor on April 30 that the Parks and
Recreation Commission sit down with the Council on a regular basis to have informal
discussions about direction and goals.
He feels that the Youth Sports Council is beginning to feel like a second class entity ie., that
they are being ignore by Parks and Recreation.
Adjournment to the next regularly scheduled meeting of May 21, 1992.
Respectfully submitted,
Carole C. Stohr
IYCj
Attachment B
STANDARD GREENS FEE~
Number of
Holes
18
18
9
9
9
9
9
9
18
18
9
Applicable Days/Times/Months Greens Fees
Monday Thru Friday (Excluding Legal Holidays) Res
Non
Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays
Res
Non
Monday Thru Friday (Excluding Legal Holidays)
Res
Non
Monday Thru Friday (Twilight)
Res
Non
Monday Thru Friday (Super Twilight)
Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays
Res
Non
Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays (Twilight)
Res
Non
Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays (Super Twilight)
Resident Senior with Monthly Pass ($40.00)
Resident Senior with Yearly Discount Card ($10.00)
Resident Senior with Yearly Discount Card
Cha.rg-,,-~
13.00
15.00
17.00
20.00
8.00
9.00
9.00
10.00
7.00
10.00
12.00
11.00
13.00
8.00
1.00
6.50
4.00
1) Resident rates would apply to residents of the City of Chula
Vista, Members of the Chula Vista Men's Club and Members of the
Chula Vista Ladies' Golf Association.
2) 9-Hole play would continue to be scheduled in the early morning
on the back nine onlY. Once the front nine golfers are finished,
9-hole play will be limited after 12:00 noon.
~
LADIES' DAY GREENS FEES
18
Tuesdays only; except when a legal holiday falls on
a Tuesday
J~NI01L-~ONTHLY TICKET
13.00
The cost of a Junior monthly ticket is hereby established as $25.00. Said
monthly ticket shall entitle a Junior (defined as non-college students who
have not reached their eighteenth birthday or completed their senior year
of high school) to playa maximum of 18 holes per day after the hour of
2:00 pm, subject to any rules, regulations or restrictions imposed by the ~
management of the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course. ;1~~
15..../tl ;;" ,://
i
RESIDENT SENIOR DIS~OUNT CARQ
The resident senior discount card is established as a annual
$10.00. An age eligibility requirement must be met and the
restrictions are imposed to qualify for this special discount.
charge of
following
1. Chula Vista residency. Said residency shall be verified by
drivers license or voter registration card.
2. The individual must be least 62 years of age.
3. Play is restricted to weekdays only, holidays excluded.
RESIDENT SENIOR MONTHLY PASS
Resident senior monthly pass is to be sold at an annual charge of $40.00
and then only to Chula Vista residents 62 years of age or older. Permitted
play under the monthly pass is to be restricted to weekdays only, holidays
excluded.
Rl\IN_~HJ;:CKS
No rain checks will be given for any fee category.
1EGAL_1:10LI D.'\ Y:;;~EF I NEQ
For the purpose of this resolution, legal holidays are defined as follows:
January 1; New Year's Day
September 9; Admission Day
February 12; Lincoln's Birthday
2nd Monday in October; Columbus Day
3rd Monday in February;
Washington's Birthday
November 11; Veterans' Day
Last Monday in May; Memorial Day
4th Thursday and Friday in
November; Thanksgiving
July 4; Independence Day
December 25; Christmas
1st Monday in September; Labor Day
/~/J
~
RESIDENT SENIOR DISCOUNT CARD
The resident senior discount card is established as a annual
$10.00. An age eligibility requirement must be met and the
restrictions are imposed to qualify for this special discount.
charge of
following
1. Chula Vista residency. Said residency shall be verified by
drivers license or voter registration card.
2. The individual must be least 62 years of age.
3. Play is restricted to weekdays only, holidays excluded.
RESIDENT SENIOR MONTHLY PASS
Resident senior monthly pass is to be sold at an annual charge of $40.00
and then only to Chula Vista residents 62 years of age or older. Permitted
play under the monthly pass is to be restricted to weekdays only, holidays
excluded.
RAIN CHECKS
No rain checks will be given for any fee category.
LEGAL HOLIDbY~ DEFINED
For the purpose of this resolution, legal holidays are defined as follows:
January 1; New Year's Day
September 9; Admission Day
February 12; Lincoln's Birthday
2nd Monday in October; Columbus Day
3rd Monday in February;
Washington's Birthday
November 11; Veterans' Day
Last Monday in May; Memorial Day
4th Thursday and Friday in
November; Thanksgiving
July 4; Independence Day
December 25; Christmas
1st Monday in September; Labor Day
/~/I
, ~,~
,
co
CHULA VISTA MEN'S GOLF CLUB
Attachment C
P.O. BOX 403/ BON IT A, CALIF. 9200.
April 10, 1992
To Whom It May Concern;
The ten member Board of Directors of the Chula Vista Men's Club
voted to give its support to the proposed green fee rate structure offered
by American Golf. The Board of Directors is especially appreciative of the
exemption given to Chula Vista residents and Men's and Women's Club
members who will not be affected by the proposed increase. We feel this
is due in large part to the support given by our members to American Golf
over the past several years. The Board also is pleased with the fact that
the Junior and Senior rate structures will not be affected by the increase.
It is our hope that this increase will allow American Golf Corporation to
continue its overall course improvement and beautification plans.
Sincerely,
,rp'M./ J)~~
James Hanson
Secretary
Chula Vista Men's Club
15'-/,;2..
AMERICAN GOLF CORPORATION.
7 APRIL 1992
Jess Valenzuela
Director of Parks and Recreation
Parks and Recreation Department
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Dear Mr. Valenzuela:
Attachment D
Per your request, the following additional information is
being provided in support of the correspondence sent to you
on 23 March 1992 regarding revision of the existing green fee
rate structure at the Chu1a Vista Golf Course:
A. $8.00 ANNUAL RESIDENT CARD
Residency verification will be based on the
following documents:
1) Driver's License
2) Utility Bills (indicating Chu1a Vista tax
w/Bonita address)
3) zoning Map
B. 1991 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND REPAIRS
Irrigation Well
Channel Repair
Underground Fuel Tank Clean-up
Total:
C. 1991 DEFERRED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
$ 21,184
19,255
28,749
$ 69,188
We received permission from the city of Chu1a vista
in August 1991 to redirect our funding for
rebuilding a green to repair the excessive channel
erosion caused by spring rains. Such repair enabled
the golfing public to enjoy maximum days of play.
D. 1992 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND REPAIRS
Driving Range Netting
Channel Repair
Fuel Tank (Continued Clean-up)
Rebuild #13 Green
Total:
. /~/:3
$ 10,000
8,000
36,000
30,000
$ 84,000
E. CHULA VISTA MEN'S AND LADIES' CLUB SUPPORT OF PROPOSED
RATE INCREASE
Current response is good and we anticipate full
approval and support from both Clubs.
Your support and consideration in this matter has been
greatly appreciated. Please contact me at 469-6406 if
further information is needed.
~
...!L
Ernest B. eisendorff III
American Golf Corporation
San Diego Regional Director
7380 Golfcrest Place
San Diego, CA 92119
CC: Jerry Foncerrada
/5-/'1
E. CHULA VISTA MEN'S AND LADIES' CLUB SUPPORT OF PROPOSED
RATE INCREASE
Current response is good and we anticipate full
approval and support from both Clubs.
Your support and consideration in this matter has been
greatly appreciated. Please contact me at 469-6406 if
further information is needed.
Ernest B. eisendorff III
American Golf Corporation
San Diego Regional Director
7380 Golfcrest Place
San Diego, CA 92119
CC: Jerry Foncerrada
.~~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / ~
Meeting Date 04/28/92
SUBMITTED BY
Cardrooms Provisions; Report Regarding Recent Changes in State
Law Providing for Additional Gaming Options.
Chief of Police ~
City Manage'1' (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..x.)
Referral No. 2549
ITEM TITLE
REVIEWED BY
Pursuant to Oral and Written Communications received by Council, Staff was directed to
investigate any recent changes to state laws that have gone into effect since this issue was last
discussed by Council (January 23, 1990). Council specifically directed staff not revisit the entire
Cardrooms subject and to focus upon new gaming options that were the result of such changes
to state law. Municipalities still retain the authority to impose controls and conditions upon local
gaming operations. Staff does not support any changes to the existing Cardrooms Ordinance at
this time.
RECOMMENDATION: Do not amend existing Cardrooms Ordinance.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None
DISCUSSION:
On March 1, 1991, State Attorney General Dan Lungren issued a memorandum/opinion to all
California Cardroom owners, investors and managers. This document indicates that since at
least 1947, stud poker has been prohibited under Penal Code Section 330 (pq330). It has been
the Attorney General's and Department of Justice's position that Texas Hold'em is a variation
of stud horse poker and therefore is prohibited. In early 1991, an appellate court ruled, "the
poker game known as Texas Hold'em is nQJ; a form of stud horse poker proscribed by Penal
Code ~330." A similar document dated July 1, 1991 removed the proscription upon Jackpot
Poker. This change occurred when the Attorney General's office "amended its position" on
Jackpot Poker.
These decisions provided an opportunity for Cardroom owners to petition their local authorities
for permission to offer Texas Hold'em. Although the state's proscription of Texas Hold'em has
been removed, ~19801 of the California Gaming Act states in part that, "nothing in this chapter
/~-I
Page 2 Item J I"
Meeting Date 04/28/92
shall be construed to preempt the authority of any city. ..from imposing valid local controls or
conditions on gaming." ~ 19824 of the Gaming Act further states that, "The provisions of this
chapter shall not prohibit the enactment, or enforcement of any ordinance by any...city related
to gaming clubs." Therefore, before cardroom owners can offer additional gaming options, the
Council will need to take action to amend the Cardrooms Ordinance.
Reacting to the previously mentioned appellate court ruling, Cardroom owners made the
following four point proposal via Written Communications in early September: I) to increase
the per person/per hand charge; 2) to expand hours of operation; 3) to offer Jackpot Poker; and,
4) to offer the game of Texas Hold'em. The proposal provides for increased fees associated
with these additional gaming activities. This proposal is premised upon the notion that due to
increased gaming at other San Diego County gaming centers, Chula Vista clubs need to offer
more games and enticements in order to remain viable. Per Council direction, only components
#3 and #4 (amending the Ordinance to allow Jackpot Poker and Texas Hold'em) are addressed
in this report.
The Police Department has determined that there is no compelling rationale to amend the
Ordinance to allow Jackpot Poker or Texas Hold'em. The Police Department believes the
current Cardrooms Ordinance is appropriate. The Ordinance provides an adequate means for
citizens of the community to gamble locally. The fees charged to cardroom licenses are
reasonable and cover the cost of enforcing the Ordinance and investigating related complaints.
Furthermore, from another perspective, as was the case in January of 1990, Staff has been
advised that overtures to purchase each of the operating cardroom licenses have been made (it
is Staff's belief that these are bona fide offers). Allowing additional gaming activities will
increase the market value of a cardroom license. Finally, there is no demonstrated benefit to
the community in allowing either option.
Cardroom owners will may argue that if the City values its gaming industry and the jobs it
produces, it should allow these games. The owners may assert that without Jackpot Poker,
Texas Hold'em and the remainder of their increased gaming activities proposal, they will be
unable to compete with other county gaming centers for business. The point of this argument
being that if they are unable to compete with other county gaming centers, local owners will be
forced to close their doors, or, sell their licenses to the highest bidder; and, that the highest
bidder may be a non-local entity who may bring in employees from outside the community.
While this line of reasoning seems sound, it must be examined in the context of the entire
cardroom issue. According to ~5.20 of the Municipal Code, the Chief of Police and ultimately
City Council, make the determination who may operate a cardroom in Chula Vista. If licenses
are transferred, the applicant must meet, ".. . all of the requirements for the initial issuance of
such a cardroom license." (see ~5.20.030) Therefore, it is presumable that the Chief of Police
or City Council would appropriately deny applications should, ... "there appears (sic) to be good
/~";2
Page 3 Item I ~
Meeting Date 04/28/92
cause why such person should not operate a cardroom." (see ~5.20.060) Therefore, the Police
Department is comfortable with non-local ownership under the existing gaming restrictions.
Additional background on this subject is provided in the Attachments to this document.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the rejection of additional
gaming options now available as a result of recent changes in state
law.
/;'--3
#J/9LC~
TAB E . N~~ -~ES ~~~~ c.o~~ HJ~; :'-~6t-E FEtES'" CITY pe~ 1-10,
____-'-___ ~. fQO._ ~t__SOL_YE6_AS-CLUB--8IABLES-:f i!.OZ5"
__2 ~OO,_ -t-__5<2.! _.YLl...J..A(i-~c.J...tJa<3rAe~S__$ ~02.5
___3 1 fi9_ _nY~?o. Ct\tJl-AYl;:srA_BAYIZTAfUJ~_S<!f 4300
_4 / 5:Q__ ___-+::_5.9___ ____u_ ________ __~____~ __ u__1 g 3 So
______ 5__--.2QO' . _.. ._t_']5_ '!!g3 Q_O_______________ _..
10 __-2.00_ __ __t" 75"_ .. Xl i2.. JIIo___________ _ _ ____
7.__.______300 _f?s:.. t}1001 ?.OD_.3CluasPt:::R 'I R...
__Z____ 300 iJOO_____ _____
_9___ __400_ -r19g__EXI~r7NG:.__FEc::?TcqCTY ARE
__)0.__-';'0_0 ____t~?? __YE(i-AS~C,-r.)J3nlP_TAf3U:;:;;___ J <?,tJ.t:J",__
____LL__ ___500 t/25" _Y'Il!Aq-G_~9BnZTASl.:-E.S .._ gJ..{.cJ.ao
.~_J.~c~___.. ...500 + J 25" C f-I tJl-A VIS rABAY (9.. &
PER MO.]#- ..2.3.QO I' +( 000 I _. PER Ho :$ 42.0.00
..- -~ 'PE~ r R, 50..q o. ,~'"
-J. PLA'IIJJ<:r.THE G-AMES LEGAL ItJ 7116 StATE
,,- r1 //
.. ____~pec:.' FI CAL..Ly_9LD_-_E M POf<ER _ .
__-ni? ,.A 1-.L 0 WIN 6- TI-IE.C!..A RD ROOMS TL:>6FFER. JACKPDTS
3., CC>1-LECTJON. CHARCiE /5<t 70 504: pER~iJfeR.HAN})
-4, n}-l OURS. oF-.opERATl DtJ qAI1 ra3 AM
___JNITH TIlE PJ..AYlJJtr_L5FTHE VEP-y P"puJ-..AR (i-AHe
_~F_H oLD- EM AND THE. OTHER...3; ['EMS
w_e_SH00L-D --Et:. ABLE: _To H (R..E"1!>.tJ,Ac:Jd./TIOAJAL
_ ..-------30% MOR..t..PEDPLE:___ ... ...... ---- _
________-AtJyPcLETIOJVSORC HAJ'.j~ES ~oO'-D ALTr5R,
~-------.::rJ4E:" ::5.TRuervRE___6F_ FeES pAID To CITY
,
..-
~---~__ __~-~~~=- --__Z~-_~~'l~:
1- ..;"-,"\0
\'r\is .
~3ef'do... ~Jo..\emeoh
. rr\\'b't>,~ t<otI\ ,/ou-r
~o.. s-\o...!,ernet\t
'Y~\-' C\f~"'~ ~C&.
;1tt-ac.-h. 11
AGENDA STATI!MENT
Item 6 A,B
IT!M TITLE:
Meeting Date 1/23/90
(1) Report on Cardroom Fees
(2) Ordinance - Amending Sections 5.20.030, 5.20.035,
5.20.160, and 5.20.190 of Chapter 5.20 of the Chula Vista
MUnicipal Code relating to Regulation of Cardroans (Second
Reading )
(3) Ordinance - Amending Sections 5.20.050, 5.20.110
and 5.20.120 of Chapter 5.20 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
relating to the Regulation of Cardroans
1!6....
Ass~S,~~ City Attorney Rudolf
Dir~of Public Safety Winters
City Managee;' (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
I Council Referral No. TSb5
At its January 16, 1990 meeting, the council considered changes to several
sections of the cardroom ordinance. The ordinance, on for second reading,
ellOOdies these sections amended at the meeting. Detailed below are the
proposed changes that Council wished to consider together with revenue
considerations in a second ordinance, which is presented even though not yet
completely ready for Council review.
SUBMI'l'rED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
REOl!MENDATI~ :
(1) Accept Report
(2) Place Ordinance No. 2347 amending Sections 5.20.030, 5.20.035, 5.20.160
and 5.20.190 on second reading and adoption.
(3) Do not adopt the second ordinance.
BOARDS/aHUSSIOtlS RECXHmIOO'I~: N/A
DISCXJSSION:
1. On January 16, 1990, the City Council considered several proposed changes
to the cardroom ordinance. The Council approved the proposed amendment to
Section 5.20.030 to extend the time required to hold a license prior to
transfer from one to three years. Ordinance 1 includes the section, to be
placed on second reading and adoption.
The Council also changed Section 5.20.160 to allow a cardroom operator to
appeal the visibility requirements to the Zoning Administrator. The ordinance
reflecting that change, is to be placed on second reading and adoption.
Council changed Section 5.20.190 to allow players to be charged by the hand.
The ordinance reflecting that change is to be placed on second reading and
adoption.
/1:> -5'
o
.
Agenda Item No. 6 A,B
Meeting Date: 1/23/90
Page 'lWo
The next change that Council approved would permit consolidation of cardroom
licenses, but would provide that each consolidation would result in a net 25%
loss in the number of tables. Further discussion of this matter with the City
Manager and the maker of the motion suggests that in some situations, this
could result in a larger reduction in the nUlltler of tables than was intended
by the maker of the motion. Therefore, two alternative forms of Section
5.20.035 (Sections lIA and Im of Ordinance 1) are presented for Council's
clarification of which version was approved, and to be placed on second
reading and adoption.
A. In the first alternative (Section IIA) the maxinum nUJTDers are
arrived at by reducing the conj:)ined tables by 25%. For example, if a
cardroom operator CMrlS one a-table cardroom and he oonsolidates with
another a-table cardroom, 25% of the total results in 12 tables. If
those 12 tables are corrtlined with another a-table cardroom, 25% of the
total results in 15 tables. The next consolidation would result in a
total of 17.25 tables.
B. In the alternative section (Section lIB), the acquisition of a second
cardroom would consistently result in the addition of 4 tables to the
already acquired cardroom.
2. Council oontinued for oonsideration an extension of the hours. and days of
operation so that the cardrooms could remain open until two a.m. instead of
midnight. Council also expressed its desire to consider the expansion of
permitted games to permit "hold-€lll poker" (amendment to Section 5.20.110).
Council expressed the desire to oonsider the expansion of days and hours and
legalization of "hold-em poker" along with a potential increase in the license
fee for cardrooms above the current $30 per table per month.
In making this decision, Council should be aware that there was a recent
challenge in Alameda County to a game called "Texas hold~m poker". This
office spoke to the Attorney General who prosecuted that case on the theory
that "Texas hold-em poker" was really stud horse poker which is prohibited by
state law. The trial court disagreed and held that the playing of "Texas
hold-€lll poker" is lawful. h::cording to the trial attorney, the game of
hold-€lll poker is very similar to "Texas hold-em poker". The Attorney General
has appealed the trial court's decision, but a decision is not expected for
approximately six months. We recon1lleI1d that Council defer action on this item
until the appeal is decided.
The revenue information needed is not yet available. There are conplexities
in making assumptions as to the cost of enforcement, nUlltler of tables in
operation, and a desire to review the proposed fee increase with the affected
cardroom owners. Additionally, it would be useful to review the cost recovery
methodoloy of other jurisdictions in determining full cost recovery. The
second portion of the discussion is not ready for your review, but a proposed
second ordinance is presented. It contains a blank space for the proposed fee
changes, and the language before Council last week on extended days and hours
as well as allowing "hold~m poker". We continue to recommend that you not
adopt the second ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
6743a
J6-?
#~eh.-- Zf
\
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Itetll
Meeting Date 1/16/90
Ordi nance Amendi ng Chapter 5.20 of the Muni ci pa 1
Code relating to th~regulation of cardrooms
Director of pUblifJSh~ty
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Ci ty Manager
(4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
Council referral il!i30----
On December 12, 1989, the Ci ty Counci 1 considered requests from cardroom
owners to make several amendments to the cardroom ordinance. Council was also
presented with a request by Mr. Aran Zennedjian to amend Section 5.20.035 of
the cardroom ordinance to allow multiple ownership of licenses by the same
individual. Council directed staff to return with a report on January 16,
1990 that would include directed changes to the ordinance and a recommendation
concerning the request to consolidate licenses.
RECOIf4ENDATION: Amend the ordinance as it pertains to the transferability
of licenses and the visibility of tables. If Council desires to change other
sections of the ordinance amending language is available.
BOARDS/COIf4ISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
I. Requests by Cardroom Owners
At the December 12, 1989 meeting, Council directed staff to prepare a
report for the January 16, 1990 meeting with information on the
following changes to the cardroom ordinance:
1. Allow the playing of Hold-em Poker.
2. Allow the hours of operation to be from 10 a.m. to 2 a.m.
3. Allow that players be charged by the hand an amount not to
exceed $.50 per hand per player.
At the December 12, 1989 meeting, Council refused to allow playing on
Sundays, an increase in the number of tables, an increase in the number
of players per table, or an increase in the maximum amount that can be
bet.
1~-7
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 1/16/90
A.. Hold-em Poker (5.20.110)
"Hold-em Poker" means a game played with a standard 52-card deck,
or 53 cards when played with a joker. It involves each player
anteing or making blind or kill bets, or both, as required or
allowed by the posted rules. Each player then receives two or more
uni nterrupted cards si ngly deal t face down foll owed by a round of
betting. This is subsequently followed by the dealing of three
community cards dealt face up in the center of the table followed
by a second round of betting. Two additional community cards are
then dealt face up in the center of the table with a round of
betting following the dealing of each of these two cards. At the
showdown, playing hands are exposed to determine the winner.
Staff views "Hold-em Poker" as a relatively simple game that will
not create any policing problems. This game is now being played in
Oceanside (see Chart A) and at the two San Diego County Indian
Reservations.
B. Hours of Operation (5.20.120)
The current ordinance permits playing from 10:00 a.m. to midnight
except on Sunday, when it is totally prohibited. The cardroom
owners requested 24-hour operati on on Fri day, Saturday and Sunday,
with 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. hours Monday through Thursday.
The Council indicated an interest in extending the closing hours
from midnight to 2:00 a.m. This change would still prohibit play
between 2:00 a.m. Sunday and 10:00 a.m. Monday.
The addition of "Hold-em Polker" and the extension of the hours of
operation will bring more players into the cardrooms and will
increase the business volume.
C. Charges for Game Playing - Maximum Designated (5.20.190)
Currently no charge in excess of $4.00 per hour per pl ayer can be
collected. The cardroom owners are requesting a change that would
allow charging for each hand as opposed to the current practice of
charging per hour. Currently the cardroom owners charge $2.00 on
every hour and every half hour for players sitting at a table.
This causes some confusion and misunderstandings for players
enteri ng or 1 eavi ng games a times other than the hour or half
hour. Specifically, they are requesting that prior to each hand a
specific and similar amount be collected from each player and that
the maximum amount collected at any table shall not exceed Four
Dollars ($4.00) per hand for the entire table. Example: in a
given hand with eight players, each player could be charged no more
than ($.50 x 8 $4.001 for that hand. An amount less than $.50
could be charged providing each player was charged an equal amount
for the hand. .
I,,-r
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 1/16/90
This change will simplify the fee collection system and will
increase the revenue to the cardroom owner.
As i ndi cated in previ ous reports, staff does not suPaort these
changes because staff has not been convi need that a nee has been
demonstrated to expand the hours and games being offered at the
cardrooms. Even if there were some demonstrative financial need,
what woul d be the benefi t to the Ci ty to have expanded cardroom
operations? While the cardrooms have not been a police problem in
Chula Vista, they do nothing in particular to enhance the image of
the City.
II. Other Miscellaneous Requests
There are two other changes in the cardroom ordinance that have been
requested whi ch woul d not have any effect on the vol ume or type of
business and they are supported by staff.
A. Transferability (5.20.0aO)
The current ordi nance states that a 1 i cense can be transferred to
another person if the holder thereof has been operating a cardroom
in Chula Vista for at least one year. The owners are requesting
that the time period be increased to three years. The owners feel
that this change will discourage the frequent transfer of licenses
and encourage a stable cardroom atmosphere.
B. Visibility of Tables (5.20.160)
The current ordi nance requi res that the pl aying surface of each
table must be visible from the sidewalk or public walk immediately
adjacent to the cardroom. The suggested new language would require
"that tables are to be so arranged as to be in full view of patrons
and no doors, screens or other obstructions will conceal players."
The "visibility from the sidewalk" is antiquated language that
supposedly assisted the police in their enforcement of the cardroom
regulations. In reality this regulation is of no assistance to the
police, and staff would support this change.
III. Consolidation of Licenses
Section 5.20.035 of the cardroom ordinance prohibits the ownership of
more than one license by any person or partnership. The Council enacted
this secti on in 1982 so that cardroom operati ons woul d remai n on a
relatively small scale to ensure that they would not develop into an
unmanageable gambling operation which could exert an undue influence in
the communi ty. The 1982 Council fel t that four independent cardroom
owners would maintain a low key, small scale recreational activity.
/6-1
Page 4. Item
Meeting Date 1/16/90
At. tfte December 12. 1989 Council meeting, Mr. Aran Zennedjian,
represented by Roger Hedgecock, requested a change that woul d resci nd
Section 5.20.035 and allow the ownership of more than one license by one
person. Mr. Zennedj1an has purchased the Action Cl ub from Jean Luisi
and he is in the process of purchasing the Xanadu Cl ub from Jo Horning
as he awaits Council action on this change. Staff has been advised that
Mr. Zennedj1an has also made overtures to purchase the other two Chula
Vista cardrooms. If this section of the ordinance is rescinded, it
would give one person the opportunity to control all four licenses.
Each license allows the operation of eight tables and all four licenses
would result in the opportunity to operate 32 tables. In actual
operation, Chu1a Vista has never had all 32 tables in operation. In
1989 only 19 tables were licensed (Village Club 8, Vegas Club 4, Action
Club 3, Xanadu 4).
Council directed staff to comment on the feasibility of allowing the
transfer of tables from one cardroom licensee to another. The current
ordinance restricts each cardroom owner to the operation of eight
tables. If the ordinance is changed to allow the transfer of tables it
would set the stage for a table inequity between the four licenses.
Example: If licensee #1 transfers (sells) four of his tables to license
#2 that wou1 d give #2 a total of 12 tab1 es. Lf censees #3 and 4 wou1 d
then argue that they shou1 d also be allowed to have 12 tables. Thi s
could be controlled if the ordinance allowed no more than 32 tables.
Staff feels that the transferring of tables would cause conflict between
the licensees and tend to weaken the licensee who transfers a portion of
his tables. A weakened licensee may then be tempted to violate
provisions of the ordinance to make a business profit.
Staff is opposed to both consolidation of licenses and the transfer of
tables. The current system of four licenses each with the equal
opportunity to operate eight tables has been successful in that we have
low key operati ons wi th litt1 e or no pol ice prob1 ems. Staff does not
see any advantage for the City in either the consolidation of licenses
or the transfer of tables.
FISCAL IMPACT: The current ordinance requires the payment to the City of
$30 per table per month. These funds adequately compensate the City for
police services required to enforce the ordinance and to investigate
complaints. If changes are made in the ordinance. staff does not believe that
these changes will increase the need for police services and, therefor, the
$30 per table fee will still be adequate.
WPC 0241N
It -/(/
.
.
. CV-M'tI/2Ji!Nl ~
/l-l-tf- c.U:! h.
(!..
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
I te\II
Meeting Date 6/Z6/89
Ordinance Amending Section 5.Z0 of the Municipal
Code relating to the regulation of Cardrooms
tJ /j tV
Director of Pubffc Safety
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Ci ty Manager
(4/5ths Vote: Yes..:...-No..:!J
On April 11, 1989, Mr. Harvey Souza of the Village Cardroom appeared at the
Counci 1 meeti ng and presented a request to make several changes in the local
Cardroom Ordinance. Mr. Souza was representing all four cardroom owners in
Chu1a Vista who feel that these changes are necessary to counteract a
si gnificant decrease in thei r busi nesses due to bi ngo and card p1 ayi ng on
Indian reservations as well as the inception of the California lottery. Staff
has met with the cardroom owners to discuss the requested changes and several
amendments to the Cardroom Ordinance are now being recommended.
RECOMMENDATION: Place the Ordinance on first reading.
BOARDS/ClM1ISSION REClMlENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
In the last few years the cardroom business in Chula Vista has declined and
the owners are suggesting a number of changes to reverse this trend. Staff is
in general agreement that changes in the ordinance are necessary at this time
if the cardrooms are to survive. If we are going to allow cardrooms, then it
follows that they should be given an opportunity to derive a profit from their
investment. During the last twenty years the Police Department has
experienced infrequent complaints concerning cardroom operations. A 1987
statewi de study i ndi cated that there were 391 cardrooms 1 i censed in the
state. The types of changes requested in this report are consistent with
cardroom operations throughout the state. The specific recommendations are as
follows:
1. Number of Licenses Permitted
The current ordinance allows one cardroom per 40,000 residents or any
fraction thereof. This change was made in 1986 after the Montgomery
annexation. Prior to that change the ordinance allowed one license per
Z5,OOO residents. The cardroom owners were not aware of the 1986 revision
and they had recommended a change to one license per 65,000 residents.
The primary interest of the cardroom owners is to avoid any increase in
the current four licenses. The current ordinance will maintain the
1 i censes at four until the popu1 ation reaches 160,000 and, therefore,
staff does not recommend any change in the population ratio.
/b -/ /
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date b/~U/~9
Thi s secti on al so states that no 1 i cense may be transferred unl ess the
holder thereof has been operating a cardroom for a full year at a fixed
location in the city.
The cardroom owners are recommending a change from one year to three years
and staff supports this change. The justification for this change is to
discourage the frequent transfer of licenses and to encourage a stable
cardroom atmosphere.
2. License Fees Paid to City
The current li cense fee is $30 per tabl e per month payabl e quarterly.
Staff is recommending that the fee be raised to $100 per table paid
quarterly. This is based on the fact that the changes recOlll11ended will
resul tin revenue increases for the owners. If only a porti on of the
recommendati ons are approved, the fee schedul e shoul d be proporti onally
decreased.
3. Games Permitted
The current ordinance allows only draw poker, contract or auction bridge.
The cardroom owners are recommending that all games which are legal in the
State of California and are provided for by State license shall be
permitted to be played in the City of Chula Vista.
Staff is opposed to this request primari ly based on the fact that Secti on
330 of the Penal Code, which defines legal games, is vague and in recent
years several cases have gone to court in an attempt to resol ve and
cl ari fy the statute. Currently, Senate Bi 11 973 has been introduced to
remedy thi s si tuati on by provi di ng speci fi c 1 anguage on games that woul d
be legal in the state of California. Each city would then have the option
of permitting all, none, or any portion of these six games.
As a follow up request, the cardroom owners are requesting approval to
play Hold-em poker. Staff recommends the approval of this request.
Hold-em poker is one of the six games listed in Senate Bill 973. Hold-em
poker is currently deemed to be a legal card game by Penal Code Section
330. Hold-em poker is defined as follows:
"Hold-em poker" means a game played with a standard 52-card deck, or 53
cards when played with a joker. Hold-em poker involves each player
anteing or making blind or kill bets, or both, as required or allowed by
the posted rules. Each player then receives two or more uninterrupted
cards singly dealt face down followed by a round of betting. This is
SUbsequently followed by the dealing of three cOlll11unity cards dealt face
up in the center of the table followed by a second round of betting. Two
addi ti ona 1 cOlll11uni ty cards are then dealt face up in the center of the
table with a round of betting followed the dealing of each of these two
cards. At the showdown, playing hands are exposed to determine the winner.
It-/.2.,
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date b/~U/~~
Staff is recommending the approval of Hold-em poker. This is a relatively
simple game that has become very popular throughout the state. Staff is
recommending that Section 5.20.110 be written to include a definition of
both draw-poker and Hold-em poker. Finally, staff is recommending that
the language in reference to bridge be removed from the ordinance because
it is not played and that the specific language concerning prohibiting
panguingue be removed because it is by law automatically prohibited unless
it is specifically approved.
4. Hours and Days of Operation
The current ordinance allows playing from 10:00 a.m. to midnight, except
on Sunday when playing cards is prohibited. The cardroom owners are
requesti ng twenty-four (24) hour operati on Fri day, Saturday and Sunday
hours Monday through Thursday would be 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
A 1987 Department of Justice survey of cardroom operations in eal ifornia
revealed that 41.4% of citie~ allowed cardrooms to be open 24 hours per
day, 34.5% were open between 18 and 21 hours per day, and the remaining
24.1 authori zed cardrooms to operate 14 to 17 hours per day. These
figures were based on responses from 116 agencies.
Staff is recommending operation from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. seven days per
week. This is an extension of the current provisions by four hours per
day and it allows cardroom operation on Sunday which is currently
prohi bited. Staff does not bel i eve that the extended hours wi 11 create
any additional police problems. Three years ago Oceanside approved a
24-hour cardroom operation and they advised staff that the new hours had
not created any police problems whatsoever. Staff feels that card
playing, as a form of recreation, should be available on Sundays just as
all other forms of recreation are generally available any day of the week.
5. Maximum number of Players per Table
The cardroom owners are requesting an increase from the current
requirement of eight (8) players at a table to nine (9). This request is
based on the fact that the Hold-em poker is generally played with nine
players. Staff is recommending approval of this item.
6. Maximum Number of Tables on Premises-Arrangement
The cardrooms are currently 1 imited to eight total tables. The cardroom
owners are requesting an increase to 12 tables. They are also requesting
a change in the language that requires "the playing surface of each table
shall be visible from the sidewalk or public walk immediately adjacent to
the cardroom." The new language would require "that tables are to be so
arranged as to be in full view of patrons and no doors, screens or other
obstructions will conceal players."
I~ --13
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date b/zu/~9
The "visibility from the sidewalk" is old language that supposedly
assisted the police in their enforcement of the cardroom regulations. In
reality, it is of no assistance whatsoever and it has created problems for
those card rooms wi th a western exposure as the p1 ayers have been b1 i nded
in the late afternoon as the sun sets in the west.
Staff is recommending that the number if tables be increased to twelve and
the new language reference table location and visibility be adopted. Four
more tables will gi ve the card room owners an opportuni ty to expand thei r
busi nesses. In the case of some owners they will not be ab1 e to take
advantage of this expansion because they do not have the additional
park i ng that wou1 d be needed in thei r current 1 ocati on. The ca rdroom
owners are requesti ng a change in the current parki ng regul ati ons that
requires one parking space for every one and one-half (1-1/2) players.
They would like to increase this to 2 or.2-1/2 players per parking place.
Staff does not recommend approval of this request.
7. Bets and Wagers Permitted
No bet or wager in any game shall exceed the sum of thi rty dollars, and
only table stakes shall be permitted. No jackpots shall be allowed.
The cardroom owners have requested an increase that would allow no bet or
wager in any game to exceed fifty dollars ($50). This request is based on
the fact that there has not been an increase in the amount of wager
allowed since 1981.
In actual practice a bet of $50 is rare but this limit gives players
vari ety in the type of game they want to play and contri butes to a more
interesting experience.
8. Charges for Game Playing - Maximum Designated
Currently no charge in excess of $4.00 per hour per player can be
coll ected. The cardroom owners are requesti ng a change that woul d allow
charging for each hand as opposed to the current practice of charging per
hour. Charging per hour is difficult to operate and also difficult to
police. Currently, the cardroom owners charge $2.00 on every hour and
every half hour for players sitting at a table. This causes some
confusi on and mi sunderstandi ngs for pl ayers enteri ng or 1 eavi ng games at
times other than the hour or half hour. Specifically, they are requesting
that prior to each hand a specific and similar amount be collected from
each player and that the maximum amount collected at any table shall not
exceed Four Dollars ($4.oo) per hand for the entire table. Example; in a
given hand with eight players, each player could be charged no more than
($.50 X 8 = $4.00) for that hand. An amount less than .50 could be
charged providing each player was charged an equal amount for the hand.
It, -1'/
.
Page 5, Item ..
Meeting Date 6/ZU/89
Staff is recommending approval of this request. This will be an
improvement over the current method and will provide the police with an
easi er system to inspect if compl ai nts shou1 d be received. The change
will provide the owners with an opportunity to increase revenue.
9. Signs to be.Posted in Cardroom - Contents
New language is needed in this section to reflect the changes made in the
Cardroom Ordinance. Staff is recommending the following general language.
"There shall be posted in every cardroom in letters plainly visible, all
house rules, all game rules, games that can be legally played and charges
per hand for each game p1 ayed."
Summary of Recommendations
1. Limit number of cardroom licenses to one per 40,000 residents.
2. Increase license fee paid to City to $100 per table per quarter from $30.
4. Allow hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily.
5. Increase number of players per table to nine from eight.
6. Increase number of tables allowed at each cardroom to twelve from eight.
7. Increase bet/wager limit to $50.
8. Collect charges from players by the hand as opposed to by the hour.
FISCAL IMPACT: At the current rate of $30 per month per quarter if all 32
tables permitted were licensed, the annual income to the City would be
$11,520. Currently only 19 tables are licensed which results in annual fees
of $6840. If the changes recommended are approved, the annual fees would
amount to $57,600 if all 48 tables were licensed.
WPC 201N
/6 -If'
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 17
Meeting Date 4/28/92
ITEM TITLE: Work Program for a School Impact Mitigation Study in Conjunction with
the Chula Vista Elementary School District
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning $/
REVIEWED BY: City Manager(!' (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.1U
In 1990, The City Council directed staff to complete a General Plan/Zoning Consistency Study
for areas of Central Chula Vista where the 1989 General Plan Update resulted in residential
densities significantly below those allowed by the existing zoning. During the public hearing
process for the first two phases of the program, the Chula Vista Elementary School District
objected to any proposed General Plan Amendments which increased allowable residential
density, on the grounds that the City did not provide for adequate mitigation of impacts to the
elementary schools. As part of the second City Council action on a wning consistency study
area on February 25, 1992, staff indicated that they would be preparing a work program for a
study which would address the impacts of new residential development on elementary schools
prior to, or concurrently with, action on the remaining wning consistency study areas.
In addition, the Chula Vista Elementary School District has objected to approval of non-
residential development projects, such as the proposed Palomar Trolley Shopping Center, which
they assert do not fully mitigate the impacts to elementary schools. As part of the City Council
action on the Palomar Trolley project on February 25, 1992, staff indicated that they would be
preparing a work program which would address the impacts of new non-residential development
on elementary schools as part of a larger school impact mitigation study. To date, however, the
City of Chula Vista has not acknowledged the appropriateness of additional school mitigation
fees on new non-residential development.
Finally, the Mayor and Elementary School District Board members, along with staff, have been
meeting to discuss long-term solutions to concerns regarding financing of school facilities. The
study concept outlined in this report has been discussed, and the basic approach has been
supported by both City and District representatives.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council direct staff to finalize the work program for the School
Impact Mitigation Study in coordination with staff from both the Elementary and High School
Districts, and return with a final work program and schedule for Council action.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
/7-1
Page 2, Item J 7
Meeting Date 4/28/92
DISCUSSION:
The proposed scope of work consists of two major phases. The first phase would involve
developing a methodology for forecasting the impacts of new residential and non-residential
development on student enrollments. This methodology would need to be accepted by both the
City and the School District. The second phase would involve making projections of future
student enrollments, resultant school needs, and associated costs, based on long-term residential
and non-residential buildout projections. The results of this analysis, as well as policy options,
would be transmitted in a final report to the City Council and School District Board. The work
involved in the preparation of this study would be divided among Chula Vista staff, School
District staff, and SourcePoint, a non-profit research organization associated with SANDAG.
Planning staff for the Sweetwater High School District have requested that the City discuss a
similar mitigation program with that District. City Planning staff will meet and confer with the
District to gauge the feasibility and appropriateness of including the Sweetwater District in this
process, or beginning a parallel mitigation study.
This program of work would need to be completed prior to completion of the remaining phases
of the Central Chula Vista Zoning Consistency Study, in order that its conclusions be applied
to General Plan Amendments and rezonings in these areas.
If directed by the Council, staff will finalize the work program, including allocating of costs and
responsibilities between the City and the School District(s), and return to the Council with a final
work program in approximately one month.
FISCAL IMPACT: Staff will confer with the School District and return to the City Council
with an appropriate strategy for funding the work program.
(z000002.A1I3)
I ?~,J.
Phase 1
Task I:
Phase 2
Task 2:
Task 3:
Task 4:
Task 5:
Task 6:
Task 7:
Task 8:
SCHOOL IMPACT MITIGATION STUDY
PRELIMINARY SCOPE OF WORK
Develop Methodology for Determining School Enrollment Impacts of New
Development
Determine a methodology which is acceptable to both the City and Elementary
School District, for analyzing the school enrollment impacts from new residential
and new non-residential development. This analysis will estimate the impact to
school enrollment from each development type, providing a "net" impact estimate
that removes any double charging (i.e., fees paid for a new house and fees paid
for the same homeowner's place of work).
Evaluate Impact of Schools from Projected New Development
Project residential and non-residential development within school district over 20
years. Use SANDAG and the City of Chula Vista data as a basis for these
projections. Projections should include ethnic detail.
Based on projections, estimate student enrollment for select years over a twenty
year planning horizon. Enrollment projections should be by attendance area and
include ethnic mix.
Compare enrollment projections with school capacity in each attendance area.
Use data as an indicator of school facility requirements.
Use facility planning models to determine school facility requirements by
attendance areas, for those areas identified in Task 4. School facility capacity can
be analyzed by increasing capacity (multi-track) of existing facilities, reorganizing
attendance boundaries, and constructing new facilities.
Work with School District and the City of ChuJa Vista to identify the most
effective alternative(s) to accommodate projected school enrollment. (This may
require completion of Task 7.)
Estimate cost of accommodating projected enrollment. Cost depends, in part, on
the number of alternatives evaluated and geographic level (e.g., attendance area
or district wide).
Estimate the amount of funds available from all existing sources that can be used
for school facilities to accommodate projected enrollment, including fees from
residential and non-residential development.
J7....3
Task 9:
Task 10:
Task 11:
(scope.sch)
Compare results of Tasks 7 and 8; determine whether or not sufficient funding
will be available to accommodate projected enrollment.
Evaluate possible funding measures or other strategies that would provide the
school district with the resources necessary to accommodate the enrollment
projections.
Prepare a draft and final paper (report) that discusses the issues analyzed and
provides recommendations/proposed policies that will mitigate the district's
resource needs (funding/facilities).
/7' if
.
.
.
.
Apri 1 24, 1992
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
John O. Goss, City Manage~
"Age of Russia" V
On April 14, the newspapers covering the San Diego Metropolitan Area indicated
that the "Age of Russia", an America's Cup contender that never made it into the
water, may end up demolished and put in a local landfill. The company that is
holding this boat, the Knight & Carver Boatyard on Mission Bay, has attempted to
sell the boat without success. (It is our understanding that it is worth several
hundred thousand dollars.) They are interested in freeing up the space which is
now being occupied by the "Age of Russia" to do other commercial work at the
boatyard.
Given the fact that the City attempted to become the compound for one of the
Russian yachts' sail ing and support crew and the fact that the City has a
Bayfront it is developing, a preliminary inquiry was made to determine the
ability of the City to possibly acquire the "Age of Russia" for its Bayfront.
Without having developed any specific use for this yacht, one thought is that it
could be displayed in front of the soon to be constructed Nautical Activity
Center, along with an appropriate display which would possibly include
photographs of the yacht under construction in Russia, its crew, and the history
of a modern carbon fiber composite boat that did not quite make it to the
defender trials. This could be a combination of a nautical symbol of the City's
evolving Bayfront, as well as a minor tourist attraction.
There certainly may be other scenarios for the use of the boat and it may be that
the City of Chula Vista should not pursue this any further. In any case,
however, I am asking for authority to proceed to get additional information about
the possibility of acquiring the boat, possibly through the assistance of the
Port of San Diego, who would be funding the development of the Nautical Activity
Center.
You will find attached a memo dated April 17, 1992 from Dan Beintema that gives
details on the boat, equipment included, equipment needed, costs, customs and
title transfer concerns, display, maintenance and other issues.
JDG:mab
russia
I~-/
.
.
.
MEMORANDtlM
April 17, 1992
TO:
John D. Goss, city Manager
Assista~
FROM:
Daniel D. Beintema, Senior Management
SUBJECT:
"Age of Russia" Research
In talking with Chris Haver of Knight and Carver and visiting "Age
of Russia", I have compiled the following:
BOAT DATA
Length: 75 Feet
Beam: 15 Feet
Draft with keel: 15 Feet
Draft without keel: 4 Feet (no rudder)
composition: composite
Weight of hull and deck: 14,000 lbs.
Weight of keel: 25,000 to 30,000 lbs.
Total weight: 39,000 to 44,000 lbs.
Mast length: approximately 100 feet
~
EOUIPMENT INCLUDED
Hull
Deck
Keel/bulb
Mast (possibly 2)
Boom (possibly 2)
2 Helm wheels approx. 3.5 feet in diameter, covered in deerskin
Rudder cables
Misc gear
EOUIPMENT NEEDED
Cradle for display
Scaffolding for maintenance
/~p.C<
.
DISCUSSION
Costs
Although more specific terms of an agreement would have to be
worked out, Knight and Carver would like to donate the vessel to
the city, and in return would like to be contracted with to prepare
the boat for a "dry dock" display.
Knight and Carver would clean, patch and repair any defects in the
hull, deck and keel, seal the deck against any possibility of water
intrusion, step the mast and install the boom, paint the hull and
keel to the city's specifications, and deliver the boat to a
location determined by the city. The approximate cost for these
items would be $40,000 to $50,000.
Construction and set up of a cradle on site was outside of the
original "estimate" and might total $5,000, but could easily be
negotiated into the original sum.
When I asked how much it would cost to have a first class paint job
put on the boat that would last a few years, Mr. Haver responded
that it would cost about $25,000 - $30,000. Leaving about $10,000
for the other misc. items to be fixed and installed, and $5,000 for
transportation and set up, the bill might reasonably be about
$45,000.
~ customs and title transfer concerns
An opinion by the customs legal counsel has been requested by
Knight and Carver as to how ownership may be legally transferred.
As of this writing, no information is yet available.
Disclav
Mr. Haver felt that the best use, outside of preparing the vessel
to be sailed, was to display it, keel attached, on a cradle, mast
and boom installed. In this fashion, the deck of the boat would
not be visible, therefore necessitating no expensive deck hardware
or rigging. Liability and maintenance concerns would be greatly
reduced. The footprint of the cradle would be about 15' by 15'.
Maintenance
Mr. Haver felt that the new paint job might last 2-3 years if it
received proper care. Proper care was defined as periodic fresh
water wash downs and toweling dry, and quarterly waxing. When the
boat needed new paint, an estimate of the cost was approximately
$10,000 to $15,000. He indicated that there are firms available in
the South Bay which would be able to handle the maintenance
concerns.
~
jE'P'J
.
.
.
xnitial Pre~aration
Mr. Haver indicated that it would take approximately 60 to 90 days
to complete the boat's preparation for delivery.
Liabilitv Concerns
consideration must be given to the specific manner in which the
vessel is displayed. Obviously, it cannot just sit on a cradle if
the keel is left on. Because the deck would be anywhere from 15 to
20 feet off of the ground, precautions would have to be taken to
securely anchor the cradle to prevent motion as a result of wind
action. Additionally, precautions would have to be taken to ensure
there is no possibility of unauthorized access to the deck as it
would have no rigging or life-line protection.
Fundina ideas
There exists the possibility that private citizens and or
businesses in the area may be interested in contributing to the
"purchase" . Plaques, plates on the keel, or other recognition
items could be included on the display which might enhance whatever
message we might try to tie to this venture.
Kniaht and Carver's Timeline
K & C want to get this boat out of their hair, get their bond back,
and free up much needed storage/work space for a paying customer.
There have been a number of offers and inquiries about the boat,
but it seems nothing too serious is happening at the moment because
Mr. Haver took quite a bit of time to answer my questions and show
me the boat. He was really going through a sales pitch on how
great the idea was to display it in a setting like you had
suggested, etc., etc. It doesn't appear that they are still in the
mode of "hauling it off to the dump", because there has been too
much interest in getting at least some money out of it. Mr. Haver
said he would keep me informed if any progress was made on any
other negotiations.
Should you have any further questions or comments, please let me
know. The slides I took of the boat will be available on Monday.
cc: Sid W. Morris, Assistant city Manager
/86..0/
Cb\